Cloud of Witnesses
3 witnesses

Four Discourses Against the Arians; Festal Letters; Life of Antony

Chapter XXVI.—Introductory to Texts from the Gospels on the Incarnation. Enumeration of texts still to be explained. Ar

26. For behold, as if not wearied in their words of irreligion, but hardened with Pharaoh, while they hear and see the Saviour's human attributes in the Gospels1, they have utterly forgotten, like the Samosatene, the Son's paternal Godhead2, and with arrogant and audacious tongue they say, How can the Son be from the Father by nature, and be like Him in essence,' who says, All power is given unto Me;' and The Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son;' and The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into His hand; he that believeth in the Son hath everlasting life;' and again, All things were delivered unto Me of My Father, and no one knoweth the Father save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him;' and again, All that the Father hath given unto Me, shall come to Me3.' On this they observe, If He was, as ye say, Son by nature, He had no need to receive, but He had by nature as a Son.' "Or how can He be the natural and true Power of the Father, who near upon the season of the passion says, Now is My soul troubled, and what shall I say? Father, save Me from this hour; but for this came I unto this hour. Father, glorify Thy Name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again4.' And He said the same another time; Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me;' and When Jesus had thus said, He was troubled in spirit and testified and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, that one of you shall betray Me5.'" Then these perverse men argue; If He were Power, He had not feared, but rather He had supplied power to others.' Further they say; If He were by nature the true and own Wisdom of the Father,' how is it written, And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man6?' In like manner, when He had come into the parts of Cæsarea Philippi, He asked the disciples whom men said that He was; and when He was at Bethany He asked where Lazarus lay; and He said besides to His disciples, How many loaves have ye7? How then,' say they, is He Wisdom, who increased in wisdom and was ignorant of what He asked of others?' This too they urge; "How can He be the own Word of the Father, without whom the Father never was, through whom He makes all things, as ye think, who said upon the Cross My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?' and before that had prayed, Glorify Thy Name,' and, O Father, glorify Thou Me with the glory which I had with Thee before the world was.' And He used to pray in the deserts and charge His disciples to pray lest they should enter into temptation; and, The spirit indeed is willing,' He said, but the flesh is weak.' And, Of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, nor the Angels, neither the Son8.'" Upon this again say the miserable men, "If the Son were, according to your interpretation9, eternally existent with God, He had not been ignorant of the Day, but had known as Word; nor had been forsaken as being coexistent; nor had asked to receive glory, as having it in the Father; nor would have prayed at all; for, being the Word, He had needed nothing; but since He is a creature and one of things originate, therefore He thus spoke, and needed what He had not; for it is proper to creatures to require and to need what they have not."

27. This then is what the irreligious men allege in their discourses; and if they thus argue, they might consistently speak yet more daringly; Why did the Word become flesh at all?' and they might add; For how could He, being God, become man?' or, How could the Immaterial bear a body?' or they might speak with Caiaphas still more Judaically, Wherefore at all did Christ, being a man, make Himself God10?' for this and the like the Jews then muttered when they saw, and now the Ario-maniacs disbelieve when they read, and have fallen away into blasphemies. If then a man should carefully parallel the words of these and those, he will of a certainty find them both arriving at the same unbelief, and the daring of their irreligion equal, and their dispute with us a common one. For the Jews said; How, being a man, can He be God?' And the Arians, If He were very God from God, how could He become man?' And the Jews were offended then and mocked, saying, Had He been Son of God, He had not endured the Cross;' and the Arians standing over against them, urge upon us, How dare ye say that He is the Word proper to the Father's Essence, who had a body, so as to endure all this?' Next, while the Jews sought to kill the Lord, because He said that God was His own Father and made Himself equal to Him, as working what the Father works, the Arians also, not only have learned to deny, both that He is equal to God and that God is the own and natural Father of the Word, but those who hold this they seek to kill. Again, whereas the Jews said, Is not this the Son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how then is it that He saith, Before Abraham was, I am, and I came down from heaven11?' the Arians on the other hand make response12 and say conformably, How can He be Word or God who slept as man, and wept, and inquired?' Thus both parties deny the Eternity and Godhead of the Word in consequence of those human attributes which the Saviour took on Him by reason of that flesh which He bore.

28. Such error then being Judaic, and Judaic after the mind of Judas the traitor, let them openly confess themselves scholars of Caiaphas and Herod, instead of cloking Judaism with the name of Christianity, and let them deny outright, as we have said before, the Saviour's appearance in the flesh, for this doctrine is akin to their heresy; or if they fear openly to Judaize and be circumcised13, from servility towards Constantius and for their sake whom they have beguiled, then let them not say what the Jews say; for if they disown the name, let them in fairness renounce the doctrine. For we are Christians, O Arians, Christians we; our privilege is it well to know the Gospels concerning the Saviour, and neither, with Jews to stone Him, if we hear of His Godhead and Eternity, nor with you to stumble at such lowly sayings as He may speak for our sakes as man. If then you would become Christians14, put off Arius's madness, and cleanse15 with the words of religion those ears of yours which blaspheming has defiled; knowing that, by ceasing to be Arians, you will cease also from the malevolence of the present Jews. Then at once will truth shine on you out of darkness, and ye will no longer reproach us with holding two Eternals16, but ye will yourselves acknowledge that the Lord is God's true Son by nature, and not as merely eternal17, but revealed as co-existing in the Father's eternity. For there are things called eternal of which He is Framer; for in the twenty-third Psalm it is written, Lift up your gates, O ye rulers, and be ye lift up, ye everlasting gates18;' and it is plain that through Him these things were made; but if even of things everlasting He is the Framer, who of us shall be able henceforth to dispute that He is anterior to those things eternal, and in consequence is proved to be Lord not so much from His eternity, as in that He is God's Son; for being the Son, He is inseparable from the Father, and never was there when He was not, but He was always; and being the Father's Image and Radiance, He has the Father's eternity. Now what has been briefly said above may suffice to shew their misunderstanding of the passages they then alleged; and that of what they now allege from the Gospels they certainly give an unsound interpretation19, we may easily see, if we now consider the scope20 of that faith which we Christians hold, and using it as a rule, apply ourselves, as the Apostle teaches, to the reading of inspired Scripture. For Christ's enemies, being ignorant of this scope, have wandered from the way of truth, and have stumbled21 on a stone of stumbling, thinking otherwise than they should think.

29. Now the scope and character of Holy Scripture, as we have often said, is this,—it contains a double account of the Saviour; that He was ever God, and is the Son, being the Father's Word and Radiance and Wisdom22; and that afterwards for us He took flesh of a Virgin, Mary Bearer of God23, and was made man. And this scope is to be found throughout inspired Scripture, as the Lord Himself has said, Search the Scriptures, for they are they which testify of Me24.' But lest I should exceed in writing, by bringing together all the passages on the subject, let it suffice to mention as a specimen, first John saying, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was made not one thing25;' next, And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of one Only-begotten from the Father26;' and next Paul writing, Who being in the form of God, thought it not a prize to be equal with God, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and being found in fashion like a man, He humbled Himself, becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the Cross27.' Any one, beginning with these passages and going through the whole of the Scripture upon the interpretation28 which they suggest, will perceive how in the beginning the Father said to Him, Let there be light,' and Let there be a firmament,' and Let us make man29;' but in fulness of the ages, He sent Him into the world, not that He might judge the world, but that the world by Him might be saved, and how it is written Behold, the Virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a Son, and they shall call his Name Emmanuel, which, being interpreted, is God with us30.'

30. The reader then of divine Scripture may acquaint himself with these passages from the ancient books; and from the Gospels on the other hand he will perceive that the Lord became man; for the Word,' he says, became flesh, and dwelt among us31.' And He became man, and did not come into man; for this it is necessary to know, lest perchance these irreligious men fall into this notion also, and beguile any into thinking, that, as in former times the Word was used to come into each of the Saints, so now He sojourned in a man, hallowing him also, and manifesting32 Himself as in the others. For if it were so, and He only appeared in a man, it were nothing strange, nor had those who saw Him been startled, saying, Whence is He? and wherefore dost Thou, being a man, make Thyself God? for they were familiar with the idea, from the words, And the Word of the Lord came' to this or that of the Prophets33. But now, since the Word of God, by whom all things came to be, endured to become also Son of man, and humbled Himself, taking a servant's form, therefore to the Jews the Cross of Christ is a scandal, but to us Christ is God's power' and God's wisdom34;' for the Word,' as John says, became flesh' (it being the custom35 of Scripture to call man by the name of flesh,' as it says by Joel the Prophet, I will pour out My Spirit upon all flesh;' and as Daniel said to Astyages, I do not worship idols made with hands, but the Living God, who hath created the heaven and the earth, and hath sovereignty over all flesh36;' for both he and Joel call mankind flesh).

31. Of old time He was wont to come to the Saints individually, and to hallow those who rightly37 received Him; but neither, when they were begotten was it said that He had become man, nor, when they suffered, was it said that He Himself suffered. But when He came among us from Mary once at the end of the ages for the abolition of sin (for so it was pleasing to the Father, to send His own Son made of a woman, made under the Law'), then it is said, that He took flesh and became man, and in that flesh He suffered for us (as Peter says, Christ therefore having suffered for us in the flesh38,' that it might be shewn, and that all might believe, that whereas He was ever God, and hallowed those to whom He came, and ordered all things according to the Father's will39, afterwards for our sakes He became man, and bodily40,' as the Apostle says, the Godhead dwelt in the flesh; as much as to say, Being God, He had His own body, and using this as an instrument41, He became man for our sakes.' And on account of this, the properties of the flesh are said to be His, since He was in it, such as to hunger, to thirst, to suffer, to weary, and the like, of which the flesh is capable; while on the other hand the works proper to the Word Himself, such as to raise the dead, to restore sight to the blind, and to cure the woman with an issue of blood, He did through His own body42. And the Word bore the infirmities of the flesh, as His own, for His was the flesh; and the flesh ministered to the works of the Godhead, because the Godhead was in it, for the body was God's43. And well has the Prophet said carried44;' and has not said, He remedied our infirmities,' lest, as being external to the body, and only healing it, as He has always done, He should leave men subject still to death; but He carries our infirmities, and He Himself bears our sins, that it might be shewn that He has become man for us, and that the body which in Him bore them, was His own body; and, while He received no hurt45 Himself by bearing our sins in His body on the tree,' as Peter speaks, we men were redeemed from our own affections46, and were filled with the righteousness47 of the Word.

32. Whence it was that, when the flesh suffered, the Word was not external to it; and therefore is the passion said to be His: and when He did divinely His Father's works, the flesh was not external to Him, but in the body itself did the Lord do them. Hence, when made man, He said48, If I do not the works of the Father, believe Me not; but if I do, though ye believe not Me, believe the works, that ye may know that the Father is in Me and I in Him.' And thus when there was need to raise Peter's wife's mother, who was sick of a fever, He stretched forth His hand humanly, but He stopped the illness divinely. And in the case of the man blind from the birth, human was the spittle which He gave forth from the flesh, but divinely did He open the eyes through the clay. And in the case of Lazarus, He gave forth a human voice as man; but divinely, as God, did He raise Lazarus from the dead49. These things were so done, were so manifested, because He had a body, not in appearance, but in truth50; and it became the Lord, in putting on human flesh, to put it on whole with the affections proper to it; that, as we say that the body was His own, so also we may say that the affections of the body were proper to Him alone, though they did not touch Him according to His Godhead. If then the body had been another's, to him too had been the affections attributed; but if the flesh is the Word's (for the Word became flesh'), of necessity then the affections also of the flesh are ascribed to Him, whose the flesh is. And to whom the affections are ascribed, such namely as to be condemned, to be scourged, to thirst, and the cross, and death, and the other infirmities of the body, of Him too is the triumph and the grace. For this cause then, consistently and fittingly such affections are ascribed not to another51, but to the Lord; that the grace also may be from Him52, and that we may become, not worshippers of any other, but truly devout towards God, because we invoke no originate thing, no ordinary53 man, but the natural and true Son from God, who has become man, yet is not the less Lord and God and Saviour.

33. Who will not admire this? or who will not agree that such a thing is truly divine? for if the works of the Word's Godhead had not taken place through the body, man had not been deified; and again, had not the properties of the flesh been ascribed to the Word, man had not been thoroughly delivered from them54; but though they had ceased for a little while, as I said before, still sin had remained in him and corruption, as was the case with mankind before Him; and for this reason:—Many for instance have been made holy and clean from all sin; nay, Jeremiah was hallowed55 even from the womb, and John, while yet in the womb, leapt for joy at the voice of Mary Bearer of God56; nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression57;' and thus man remained mortal and corruptible as before, liable to the affections proper to their nature. But now the Word having become man and having appropriated58 what pertains to the flesh, no longer do these things touch the body, because of the Word who has come in it, but they are destroyed59 by Him, and henceforth men no longer remain sinners and dead according to their proper affections, but having risen according to the Word's power, they abide60 ever immortal and incorruptible. Whence also, whereas the flesh is born of Mary Bearer of God61, He Himself is said to have been born, who furnishes to others an origin of being; in order that He may transfer our origin into Himself, and we may no longer, as mere earth, return to earth, but as being knit into the Word from heaven, may be carried to heaven by Him. Therefore in like manner not without reason has He transferred to Himself the other affections of the body also; that we, no longer as being men, but as proper to the Word, may have share in eternal life. For no longer according to our former origin in Adam do we die; but henceforward our origin and all infirmity of flesh being transferred to the Word, we rise from the earth, the curse from sin being removed, because of Him who is in us62, and who has become a curse for us. And with reason; for as we are all from earth and die in Adam, so being regenerated from above of water and Spirit, in the Christ we are all quickened; the flesh being no longer earthly, but being henceforth made Word63, by reason of God's Word who for our sake became flesh.'

34. And that one may attain to a more exact knowledge of the impassibility of the Word's nature and of the infirmities ascribed to Him because of the flesh, it will be well to listen to the blessed Peter; for he will be a trustworthy witness concerning the Saviour. He writes then in his Epistle thus; Christ then having suffered for us in the flesh64.' Therefore also when He is said to hunger and thirst and to toil and not to know, and to sleep, and to weep, and to ask, and to flee, and to be born, and to deprecate the cup, and in a word to undergo all that belongs to the flesh65, let it be said, as is congruous, in each case Christ then hungering and thirsting "for us in the flesh;"' and saying He did not know, and being buffeted, and toiling "for us in the flesh;"' and being exalted too, and born, and growing "in the flesh;"' and fearing and hiding "in the flesh;"' and saying, "If it be possible let this cup pass from Me66," and being beaten, and receiving, "for us in the flesh;"' and in a word all such things for us in the flesh.' For on this account has the Apostle himself said, Christ then having suffered,' not in His Godhead, but for us in the flesh,' that these affections may be acknowledged as, not proper to the very Word by nature, but proper by nature to the very flesh.

Let no one then stumble at what belongs to man, but rather let a man know that in nature the Word Himself is impassible, and yet because of that flesh which He put on, these things are ascribed to Him, since they are proper to the flesh, and the body itself is proper to the Saviour. And while He Himself, being impassible in nature, remains as He is, not harmed67 by these affections, but rather obliterating and destroying them, men, their passions as if changed and abolished68 in the Impassible, henceforth become themselves also impassible and free69 from them for ever, as John taught, saying, And ye know that He was manifested to take away our sins, and in Him is no sin70.' And this being so, no heretic shall object, Wherefore rises the flesh, being by nature mortal? and if it rises, why not hunger too and thirst, and suffer, and remain mortal? for it came from the earth, and how can its natural condition pass from it?' since the flesh is able now to make answer to this so contentious heretic, I am from earth, being by nature mortal, but afterwards I have become the Word's flesh,' and He carried' my affections, though He is without them; and so I became free from them, being no more abandoned to their service because of the Lord who has made me free from them. For if you object to my being rid of that corruption which is by nature, see that you object not to God's Word having taken my form of servitude; for as the Lord, putting on the body, became man, so we men are deified by the Word as being taken to Him through His flesh, and henceforward inherit life everlasting.'

35. These points we have found it necessary first to examine, that, when we see Him doing or saying aught divinely through the instrument71 of His own body, we may know that He so works, being God, and also, if we see Him speaking or suffering humanly, we may not be ignorant that He bore flesh and became man, and hence He so acts and so speaks. For if we recognise what is proper to each, and see and understand that both these things and those are done by One72, we are right in our faith, and shall never stray. But if a man looking at what is done divinely by the Word, deny the body, or looking at what is proper to the body, deny the Word's presence in the flesh, or from what is human entertain low thoughts concerning the Word, such a one, as a Jewish vintner73, mixing water with the wine, shall account the Cross an offence, or as a Gentile, will deem the preaching folly. This then is what happens to God's enemies the Arians; for looking at what is human in the Saviour, they have judged Him a creature. Therefore they ought, looking also at the divine works of the Word, to deny74 the origination of His body, and henceforth to rank themselves with Manichees75. But for them, learn they, however tardily, that the Word became flesh;' and let us, retaining the general scope76 of the faith, acknowledge that what they interpret ill, has a right interpretation77.

Chapter XXVII.—Texts Explained; Tenthly, Matthew xi. 27; John iii. 35, &c. These texts intended to preclude the Sabelli

35 (continued). For, The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into His hand;' and, All things were given unto Me of My Father;' and, I can do nothing of Myself, but as I hear, I judge78;' and the like passages do not shew that the Son once had not these prerogatives—(for had not He eternally what the Father has, who is the Only Word and Wisdom of the Father in essence, who also says, All that the Father hath are Mine79,' and what are Mine, are the Father's? for if the things of the Father are the Son's and the Father hath them ever, it is plain that what the Son hath, being the Father's, were ever in the Son),—not then because once He had them not, did He say this, but because, whereas the Son hath eternally what He hath, yet He hath them from the Father.

36. For lest a man, perceiving that the Son has all that the Father hath, from the exact likeness and identity of that He hath, should wander into the irreligion of Sabellius, considering Him to be the Father, therefore He has said Was given unto Me,' and I received,' and Were delivered to Me80,' only to shew that He is not the Father, but the Father's Word, and the Eternal Son, who because of His likeness to the Father, has eternally what He has from Him, and because He is the Son, has from the Father what He has eternally. Moreover that Was given' and Were delivered,' and the like, do not impair81 the Godhead of the Son, but rather shew Him to be truly82 Son, we may learn from the passages themselves. For if all things are delivered unto Him, first, He is other than that all which He has received; next, being Heir of all things, He alone is the Son and proper according to the Essence of the Father. For if He were one of all, then He were not heir of all83,' but every one had received according as the Father willed and gave. But now, as receiving all things, He is other than them all, and alone proper to the Father. Moreover that Was given' and Were delivered' do not shew that once He had them not, we may conclude from a similar passage, and in like manner concerning them all; for the Saviour Himself says, As the Father hath life in Himself, so hath He given also to the Son to have life in Himself84.' Now from the words Hath given,' He signifies that He is not the Father; but in saying so,' He shews the Son's natural likeness and propriety towards the Father. If then once the Father had not, plainly the Son once had not; for as the Father, so' also the Son has. But if this is irreligious to say, and religious on the contrary to say that the Father had ever, is it not unseemly in them when the Son says that, as' the Father has, so' also the Son has, to say that He has not so85,' but otherwise? Rather then is the Word faithful, and all things which He says that He has received, He has always, yet has from the Father; and the Father indeed not from any, but the Son from the Father. For as in the instance of the radiance, if the radiance itself should say, All places the light hath given me to enlighten, and I do not enlighten from myself, but as the light wills,' yet, in saying this, it does not imply that it once had not, but it means, I am proper to the light, and all things of the light are mine;' so, and much more, must we understand in the instance of the Son. For the Father, having given all things to the Son, in the Son still86 hath all things; and the Son having, still the Father hath them; for the Son's Godhead is the Father's Godhead, and thus the Father in the Son exercises His Providence87 over all things.

37. And while such is the sense of expressions like these, those which speak humanly concerning the Saviour admit of a religious meaning also. For with this end have we examined them beforehand, that, if we should hear Him asking where Lazarus is laid88, or when He asks on coming into the parts of Cæsarea, Whom do men say that I am?' or, How many loaves have ye?' and, What will ye that I shall do unto you89?' we may know, from what has been already said, the right90 sense of the passages, and may not stumble as Christ's enemies the Arians. First then we must put this question to the irreligious, why they consider Him ignorant? for one who asks, does not for certain ask from ignorance; but it is possible for one who knows, still to ask concerning what He knows. Thus John was aware that Christ, when asking, How many loaves have ye?' was not ignorant, for he says, And this He said to prove him, for He Himself knew what He would do91.' But if He knew what He was doing, therefore not in ignorance, but with knowledge did He ask. From this instance we may understand similar ones; that, when the Lord asks, He does not ask in ignorance, where Lazarus lies, nor again, whom men do say that He is; but knowing the thing which He was asking, aware what He was about to do. And thus with ease is their clever point exploded; but if they still persist92 on account of His asking, then they must be told that in the Godhead indeed ignorance is not, but to the flesh ignorance is proper, as has been said. And that this is really so, observe how the Lord who inquired where Lazarus lay, Himself said, when He was not on the spot but a great way off, Lazarus is dead93,' and where he was dead; and how that He who is considered by them as ignorant, is He Himself who foreknew the reasonings of the disciples, and was aware of what was in the heart of each, and of what was in man,' and, what is greater, alone knows the Father and says, I in the Father and the Father in Me.94 '

38. Therefore this is plain to every one, that the flesh indeed is ignorant, but the Word Himself, considered as the Word, knows all things even before they come to be. For He did not, when He became man, cease to be God95; nor, whereas He is God does He shrink from what is man's; perish the thought; but rather, being God, He has taken to Him the flesh, and being in the flesh deifies the flesh. For as He asked questions in it, so also in it did He raise the dead; and He shewed to all that He who quickens the dead and recalls the soul, much more discerns the secret of all. And He knew where Lazarus lay, and yet He asked; for the All-holy Word of God, who endured all things for our sakes, did this, that so carrying our ignorance, He might vouchsafe to us the knowledge of His own only and true Father, and of Himself, sent because of us for the salvation of all, than which no grace could be greater. When then the Saviour uses the words which they allege in their defence, Power is given to Me,' and, Glorify Thy Son,' and Peter says, Power is given unto Him,' we understand all these passages in the same sense, that humanly because of the body He says all this. For though He had no need, nevertheless He is said to have received what He received humanly, that on the other hand, inasmuch as the Lord has received, and the grant is lodged with Him, the grace may remain sure. For while mere man receives, he is liable to lose again (as was shewn in the case of Adam, for he received and he lost96), but that the grace may be irrevocable, and may be kept sure97 by men, therefore He Himself appropriates98 the gift; and He says that He has received power, as man, which He ever had as God, and He says, Glorify Me,' who glorifies others, to shew that He hath a flesh which has need of these things. Wherefore, when the flesh receives, since that which receives is in Him, and by taking it He hath become man, therefore He is said Himself to have received.

39. If then (as has many times been said) the Word has not become man, then ascribe to the Word, as you would have it, to receive, and to need glory, and to be ignorant; but if He has become man (and He has become), and it is man's to receive, and to need, and to be ignorant, wherefore do we consider the Giver as receiver, and the Dispenser to others do we suspect to be in need, and divide the Word from the Father as imperfect and needy, while we strip human nature of grace? For if the Word Himself, considered as Word, has received and been glorified for His own sake, and if He according to His Godhead is He who is hallowed and has risen again, what hope is there for men? for they remain as they were, naked, and wretched, and dead, having no interest in the things given to the Son. Why too did the Word come among us, and become flesh? if that He might receive these things, which He says that He has received, He was without them before that, and of necessity will rather owe thanks Himself to the body99, because, when He came into it, then He receives these things from the Father, which He had not before His descent into the flesh. For on this shewing He seems rather to be Himself promoted because of the body100, than the body promoted because of Him. But this notion is Judaic. But if that He might redeem mankind101, the Word did come among us; and that He might hallow and deify them, the Word became flesh (and for this He did become), who does not see that it follows, that what He says that He received, when He became flesh, that He mentions, not for His own sake, but for the flesh? for to it, in which He was speaking, pertained the gifts given through Him from the Father. But let us see what He asked, and what the things altogether were which He said that He had received, that in this way also they may be brought to feeling. He asked then glory, yet He had said, All things were delivered unto Me102.' And after the resurrection, He says that He has received all power; but even before that He had said, All things were delivered unto Me,' He was Lord of all, for all things were made by Him;' and there is One Lord by whom are all things103.' And when He asked glory, He was as He is, the Lord of glory; as Paul says, If they had known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory104;' for He had that glory which He asked when He said, the glory which I had with Thee before the world was105.'

40. Also the power which He said He received after the resurrection, that He had before He received it, and before the resurrection. For He of Himself rebuked Satan, saying, Get thee behind Me, Satan106;' and to the disciples He gave the power against him, when on their return He said, I beheld Satan, as lightning, fall from heaven107.' And again, that what He said that He had received, that He possessed before receiving it, appears from His driving away the demons, and from His unbinding what Satan had bound, as He did in the case of the daughter of Abraham; and from His remitting sins, saying to the paralytic, and to the woman who washed His feet, Thy sins be forgiven thee108;' and from His both raising the dead, and repairing the first nature of the blind, granting to him to see. And all this He did, not waiting till He should receive, but being possessed of power109.' From all this it is plain that what He had as Word, that when He had become man and was risen again, He says that He received humanly110; that for His sake men might henceforward upon earth have power against demons, as having become partakers of a divine nature; and in heaven, as being delivered from corruption, might reign everlastingly. Thus we must acknowledge this once for all, that nothing which He says that He received, did He receive as not possessing before; for the Word, as being God, had them always; but in these passages He is said humanly to have received, that, whereas the flesh received in Him, henceforth from it the gift might abide111 surely for us. For what is said by Peter, receiving from God honour and glory, Angels being made subject unto Him112,' has this meaning. As He inquired humanly, and raised Lazarus divinely, so He received' is spoken of Him humanly, but the subjection of the Angels marks the Word's Godhead.

41. Cease then, O abhorred of God113, and degrade not the Word; nor detract from His Godhead, which is the Father's114, as though He needed or were ignorant; lest ye be casting your own arguments against the Christ, as the Jews who once stoned Him. For these belong not to the Word, as the Word; but are proper to men and, as when He spat, and stretched forth the hand, and called Lazarus, we did not say that the triumphs were human, though they were done through the body, but were God's, so, on the other hand, though human things are ascribed to the Saviour in the Gospel, let us, considering the nature of what is said and that they are foreign to God, not impute them to the Word's Godhead, but to His manhood. For though the Word became flesh,' yet to the flesh are the affections proper; and though the flesh is possessed by God in the Word, yet to the Word belong the grace and the power. He did then the Father's works through the flesh; and as truly contrariwise were the affections of the flesh displayed in Him; for instance, He inquired and He raised Lazarus, He chid115 His Mother, saying, My hour is not yet come,' and then at once He made the water wine. For He was Very God in the flesh, and He was true flesh in the Word. Therefore from His works He revealed both Himself as Son of God, and His own Father, and from the affections of the flesh He shewed that He bore a true body, and that it was His own.

Notes

  1. This Oration alone, and this entirely, treats of texts from the Gospels; hitherto from the Gospel according to St. John, and now chiefly from the first three. Hence they lead Athan. to treat more distinctly of the doctrine of the Incarnation, and to anticipate a refutation of both Nestorius and Eutyches. ↩
  2. §1, n. 13. ↩
  3. Matt. xxviii. 18; John v. 22; iii. 35, 36; Matt. xi. 27; John vi. 37; infr. §§35-41. ↩
  4. John xii. 27, 28. ↩
  5. Matt. xxvi. 39; John xiii. 21; infr. §§53-58. ↩
  6. Luke ii. 52; infr. §§50-53. ↩
  7. Matt. xvi. 13; John xi. 34; Mark vi. 38; infr. §27. ↩
  8. Matt. xxvii. 46; John xii. 28; xvii. 5; Matt. xxvi. 41; Mark xiii. 32; infr. §§42-50. ↩
  9. dianoian, ii. 44, a. 53, c.; iv. 17, d. &c. ↩
  10. De Decr. 1; Or. i. 4. ↩
  11. John vi. 42; viii. 58. ↩
  12. epakouousin. Montfaucon (Onomasticon in t. 2 fin.) so interprets this word. vid. Apol. contr. Ar. 88. note 7. ↩
  13. Or. i. 38. ↩
  14. Apol. Fug. 27, n. 10. ↩
  15. De Decr. 2, n. 9, c. Sab. Greg. 6 fin. ↩
  16. Cf. de Decr. 25, n. 4. The peculiarity of the Catholic doctrine, as contrasted with the heresies on the subject of the Trinity, is that it professes a mystery. It involves, not merely a contradiction in the terms used, which would be little, for we might solve it by assigning different senses to the same word, or by adding some limitation (e.g. if it were said that Satan was an Angel and not an Angel, or man was mortal and immortal), but an incongruity in the ideas which it introduces. To say that the Father is wholly and absolutely the one infinitely-simple God, and then that the Son is also, and yet that the Father is eternally distinct from the Son, is to propose ideas which we cannot harmonize together; and our reason is reconciled to this state of the case only by the consideration (though fully by means of it) that no idea of ours can embrace the simple truth, so that we are obliged to separate it into portions, and view it in aspects, and adumbrate it under many ideas, if we are to make any approximation towards it at all; as in mathematics we approximate to a circle by means of a polygon, great as is the dissimilarity between the two figures. [Cf. Prolegg. ch. ii. §3 (2) b.] ↩
  17. ouch haplos a& 188;dios, i.e. aidios is not one of our Lord's highest titles, for things have it which the Son Himself has created, and whom of course He precedes. Instead of two aidia then, as the Arians say, there are many aidia; and our Lord's high title is not this, but that He is the Son,' and thereby eternal in the Father's eternity,' or there was not ever when He was not, and Image' and Radiance.' The same line of thought is implied throughout his proof of our Lord's eternity in Orat. i. ch. 4 6. This is worth remarking, as constituting a special distinction between ancient and modern Scripture proofs of the doctrine, and as coinciding with what was said supr. Or. ii. 1, n. 13, 44, n. 1. His mode of proof is still more brought out by what he proceeds to say about the skopos, or general bearing or drift of the Christian faith, and its availableness as a kanon or rule of interpretation. ↩
  18. Ps. xxiv. 7. ↩
  19. Cf. 26, n. 9. ↩
  20. skopos, vid. 58. fin. ↩
  21. Rom. ix. 32. ↩
  22. Or. i. 28, n. 5. ↩
  23. theotokou. vid. supr. 14, n. 3. Vid. S. Cyril's quotations in his de Recta Fide, p. 49, &c.; and Cyril himself, Adv. Nest. i. p. 18. Procl. Hom. i. p. 60. Theodor. ap. Conc. Eph. (p. 1529. Labbe.) Cassian. Incarn. iv. 2. Hil. Trin. ii. 25. Ambros. Virgin. i. n. 47. Chrysost. ap. Cassian. Incarn. vii. 30. Jerom. in Ezek. 44 init. Capreolus of Carthage, ap. Sirm. Opp. t. i. p. 216. August. Serm. 291, 6. Hippolytus, ap. Theod. Eran. i. p. 55, &c. Ignatius, Ep. ad Eph. 7. ↩
  24. John v. 39. ↩
  25. Ib. i. 1-3. ↩
  26. v. 14. ↩
  27. Phil. ii. 6-8. ↩
  28. Cf. 26, n. 9. ↩
  29. Gen. i. 3, 6, 26; de Syn. 28 (14). ↩
  30. Matt. i. 23. ↩
  31. John i. 14. ↩
  32. touto chromenos organo infr.42. and organon pros ten energeian kai ten eklampsin tes theotetos. 53. This was a word much used afterwards by the Apollinarians, who looked on our Lord's manhood as merely a manifestation of God. vid. Or. ii. 8, n. 3. vid. schema organikon in Apoll. i. 2, 15. vid. a parallel in Euseb. Laud. Const. p. 536. However, it is used freely by Athan. e.g. infr. 35, 53. Incarn. 8, 9, 41, 43, 44. This use of organon must not be confused with its heretical application to our Lord's Divine Nature, vid. Basil de Sp. S. n. 19 fin. of which de Syn. 27 (3). It may be added that phanerosis is a Nestorian as well as Eutychian idea; Facund. Tr. Cap. ix. 2, 3. and the Syrian use of parsopa Asseman. B. O. t. 4. p. 219. Thus both parties really denied the Atonement. vid. supr. Or. i. 60, n. 5; ii. 8, n. 4. ↩
  33. Ad Epict. 11, ad Max. 2. ↩
  34. 1 Cor. i. 24. ↩
  35. Infr. iv. 33 init. ↩
  36. Joel ii. 28; Bel and Dr. 5. ↩
  37. Or. i. 39, n. 4. ↩
  38. Gal. iv. 4; 1 Pet. iv. 1. ↩
  39. kata to boulema. vid. Orat. i. 63. infr. §63, notes. Cf. supr. ii. 31, n. 7, for passages in which Ps. xxxiii. 9. is taken to shew the unity of Father and Son from the instantaneousness of the accomplishment upon the willing, as well as the Son's existence before creation. Hence the Son not only works kata to boulema, but is the boule of the Father. ibid. note 8. For the contrary Arian view, even when it is highest, vid Euseb. Eccl. Theol. iii. 3. quoted ii. 64, n. 5. In that passage the Father's neumata are spoken of, a word common with the Arians. Euseb. ibid. p. 75, a. de Laud. Const. p. 528, Eunom. Apol. 20 fin. The word is used of the Son's command given to the creation, in Athan. contr. Gent. e.g. 42, 44, 46. S. Cyril. Hier. frequently as the Arians, uses it of the Father. Catech. x. 5, xi. passim, xv. 25, &c. The difference between the orthodox and Arian views on this point is clearly drawn out by S. Basil contr. Eunom. i. 21. ↩
  40. Col. ii. 9. ↩
  41. touto chromenos organo infr.42. and organon pros ten energeian kai ten eklampsin tes theotetos. 53. This was a word much used afterwards by the Apollinarians, who looked on our Lord's manhood as merely a manifestation of God. vid. Or. ii. 8, n. 3. vid. schema organikon in Apoll. i. 2, 15. vid. a parallel in Euseb. Laud. Const. p. 536. However, it is used freely by Athan. e.g. infr. 35, 53. Incarn. 8, 9, 41, 43, 44. This use of organon must not be confused with its heretical application to our Lord's Divine Nature, vid. Basil de Sp. S. n. 19 fin. of which de Syn. 27 (3). It may be added that phanerosis is a Nestorian as well as Eutychian idea; Facund. Tr. Cap. ix. 2, 3. and the Syrian use of parsopa Asseman. B. O. t. 4. p. 219. Thus both parties really denied the Atonement. vid. supr. Or. i. 60, n. 5; ii. 8, n. 4. ↩
  42. Orat. iv. 6. and fragm. ex Euthym. p. 1275. ed. Ben. This interchange [of language] is called theologically the antidosis or communicatio idiomaton. Nyssen. in Apoll. t. 2. pp. 697, 8. Leon. Ep. 28, 51. Ambros. de fid. ii. 58. Nyssen. de Beat. p. 767. Cassian. Incarn. vi. 22. Aug. contr. Serm. Ar. c. 8 init. Plain and easy as such statements seem, they are of the utmost importance in the Nestorian and Eutychian controversies. ↩
  43. theou en soma. also ad Adelph. 3. ad Max. 2. and so ten ptocheusasan phusin theou holen genomenen. c. Apoll. ii. 11. to pathos tou logou. ibid. 16, c. sarx tou logou. infr. 34. soma sophias infr.53. also Or. ii. 10, n. 7. pathos Christou tou theou mou. Ignat. Rom. 6. ho theos peponthen. Melit. ap. Anast. Hodeg. 12. Dei passiones. Tertull. de Carn. Christ. 5. Dei interemptores. ibid. caro Deitatis. Leon. Serm. 65 fin. Deus mortuus et sepultus. Vigil. c. Eut. ii. p. 502. vid. supr. Or. i. 45, n. 3. Yet Athan. objects to the phrase, God suffered in the flesh,' i.e. as used by the Apollinarians. vid. contr. Apoll. ii. 13 fin. [Cf. Harnack, Dogmg. ed. 1. vol. i. pp. 131, 628. notes.] ↩
  44. Is. liii. 4. ↩
  45. ouden eblapteto. (1 Pet. ii. 24.) Cf. de Incarn. 17, 54, 34; Euseb. de Laud. Const. p. 536. and 538. also Dem. Evang. vii. p. 348. Vigil. contr. Eutych. ii. p. 503. (B. P. ed. 1624.) Anast. Hodeg. c. 12. p. 220 (ed. 1606.) also p. 222. Vid also the beautiful passage in Pseudo-Basil: Hom. in Sanct. Christ. Gen. (t. 2. p. 596. ed. Ben.) also Rufin. in Symb. 12. Cyril. Quod unus est Christus. p. 776. Damasc. F. O. iii. 6 fin. August. Serm. 7. p. 26 init. ed. 1842. Suppl. 1. ↩
  46. pathon, vid. §33, n. 2. ↩
  47. Orat. i. 51. ↩
  48. John x. 37, 38. vid. Incarn. 18. Cf. Leo, Serm. 54, 2. Suscepit nos in suam proprietatem illa natura, quæ nec nostris sua, nec suis nostra consumeret, &c.' Serm. 72, p. 286, vid. also Ep. 165, 6. Serm. 30, 5. Cyril Cat. iv. 9. Amphiloch. ap. Theod. Eran. i. p. 66. also pp. 30, 87, 8. ed. 1614. ↩
  49. Cf. Leo's Tome (Ep. 28.) 4. When He touched the leper, it was the man that was seen; but something beyond man, when He cleansed him, &c.' Ambros. Epist. i. 46, n. 7. Hil. Trin. x. 23 fin. vid. infr. 56 note, and S. Leo's extracts in his Ep. 165. Chrysol. Serm. 34 and 35. Paul. ap. Conc. Eph. (p. 1620. Labbe.) These are instances of what is theologically called the theandrike energeia [a condemned formula], i.e. the union of the energies of both Natures in one act. ↩
  50. me phantasi& 139; all' alethos. vid. Incarn. 18, d. ad Epict. 7, c. The passage is quoted by S. Cyril. Apol. adv. Orient p. 194. ↩
  51. ouk allou, alla tou kuriou; and so ouk heterou tinos, Incarn. 18; also Orat. i. 45. supr. p. 244. and Orat. iv. 35. Cyril Thes. p. 197. and Anathem. 11. who defends the phrase against the Orientals. ↩
  52. Cf. Procl. ad Armen. p. 615, ed. 1630. ↩
  53. koinon opposed to idion. vid. infr. §51, Cyril Epp. p. 23, e. communem, Ambros. de Fid. i. 94. ↩
  54. Or. i. 5 n. 5, ii. 56 n. 5, 68, n. 1, infr. note 6. ↩
  55. Vid. Jer. i. 5. And so S. Jerome, S. Leo, &c., as mentioned in Corn. a Lap. in loc. S. Jerome implies a similar gift in the case of Asella, ad Marcell. (Ep. xxiv. 2.) And so S. John Baptist, Maldon. in Luc. i. 16. It is remarkable that no ancient writer (unless indeed we except S. Austin), [Patrol. Lat. xlvii. 1144?] refers to the instance of S. Mary;—perhaps from the circumstance of its not being mentioned in Scripture. ↩
  56. theotokou. For instances of this word vid. Alexandr. Ep. ad Alex. ap. Theodor. H. E. i. 4. p. 745. (al. 20). Athan. (supra); Cyril. Cat. x. 19. Julian Imper. ap. Cyril c. Jul. viii. p. 262. Amphiloch. Orat. 4. p. 41. (if Amphil.) ed. 1644. Nyssen. Ep. ad Eustath. p. 1093. Chrysost. apud. Suicer Symb. p. 240. Greg. Naz. Orat. 29, 4 Ep. 181. p. 85. ed. Ben. Antiochus and Ammon. ap. Cyril. de Recta Fid. pp. 49, 50. Pseudo-Dion. contr. Samos. 5. Pseudo-Basil. Hom. t. 2. p. 600 ed. Ben. ↩
  57. Rom. v. 14. ↩
  58. idiopoioumenou. vid. also [Incar. 8.] infr. §38. ad Epict. 6, e. fragm. ex Euthym. (t. i. p. 1275. ed. Ben.) Cyril. in Joann. p. 151, a. For idion, which occurs so frequently here, vid. Cyril. Anathem. 11. And oikeiotai. contr. Apoll. ii. 16, e. Cyril. Schol. de Incarn. p. 782, d. Concil. Eph. pp. 1644, d. 1697, b. (Hard.) Damasc. F. O. iii. 3. p. 208. ed. Ven. Vid. Petav. de Incarn. iv. 15. ↩
  59. Vid. Or. i. §§45, 46, ii. 65, note. Vid. also iv. 33. Incarn. c. Arian. 12. contr. Apoll. i. 17. ii. 6. Since God the Word willed to annul the passions, whose end is death, and His deathless nature was not capable of them...He is made flesh of the Virgin, in the way He knoweth, &c.' Procl. ad Armen. p. 616. also Leo. Serm. 22. pp. 69. 71. Serm. 26. p. 88. Nyssen contr. Apoll. t. 2 p. 696. Cyril. Epp. p. 138, 9. in Joan. p. 95. Chrysol. Serm. 148. ↩
  60. ii. 69, n. 3, &c. ↩
  61. theotokou. supr. 14, n. 3. For mater Dei' vid. before S. Leo, Ambros. de Virg. ii. 7. Cassian. Incarn. ii. 5. vii. 25. Vincent. Lir. Commonit. 21. It is obvious that theotokos, though framed as a test against Nestorians, was equally effective against Apollinarians [?] and Eutychians, who denied that our Lord had taken human flesh at all, as is observed by Facundus Def. Trium. Cap. i. 4. Cf. Cyril. Epp. pp. 106, 7. Yet these sects, as the Arians, maintained the term. vid. supr. Or. ii. 8, n. 5. ↩
  62. ii. 59. n. 5. ↩
  63. logotheises tes sarkos. This strong term is here applied to human nature generally; Damascene speaks of the logosis of the flesh, but he means especially our Lord's flesh. F. O. iv. 18. p. 286. (Ed. Ven.) for the words theousthai, &c. vid. supr. ii. 70, n. 1. ↩
  64. 1 Pet. iv. 1. ↩
  65. Cf. Chrysost. in Joann. Hom. 67. 1 and 2. Cyril de Rect. Fid. p. 18. As a man He doubts, as a man He is troubled; it is not His Power (virtus) that is troubled, not His Godhead, but His soul, &c.' Ambros. de Fid. ii. n. 56. vid. a beautiful passage in S. Basil's Hom. iv. 5. in which he insists on our Lord's having wept to shew us how to weep neither too much nor too little. ↩
  66. Mat. xxvi. 39. ↩
  67. blaptomenos, §31, n. 15. ↩
  68. Cf. 33, n. 6. ↩
  69. Vid. Or. ii. 56, n. 5. Cf. Cyril. de Rect. Fid. p. 18. ↩
  70. 1 John iii. 5. ↩
  71. Cf. 31, n. 10. ↩
  72. Vid. infr. 39-41. and 56, n. 7. Cf. Procl. ad Armen. p. 615. Leo's Tome (Ep. 28, 3) also Hil. Trin. ix. 11 fin. Vagit infans, sed in coelo est, &c.' ibid. x. 54. Ambros. de Fid. ii. 77. Erat vermis in cruce sed dimittebat peccata. Non habebat speciem, sed plenitudinem divinitatis, &c. Id. Epist. i. 46, n. 5. Theoph. Ep. Pasch. 6. ap. Conc. Ephes. p. 1404. Hard. ↩
  73. Vid. Is. i. 22, LXX.; Or. ii. 80; de Decr. 10. ↩
  74. Thus heresies are partial views of the truth, starting from some truth which they exaggerate, and disowning and protesting against other truth, which they fancy inconsistent with it. vid. supr. Or. i. 26, n. 2. ↩
  75. De Syn. 33; Or. i. 8. ↩
  76. Cf. §28, n. 11. ↩
  77. Cf. §30, n. 7. ↩
  78. John iii. 35; Matt. xi. 27; John v. 30 ↩
  79. John xvi. 15; xvii. 10. ↩
  80. John x. 18; Mat. xxviii. 18. ↩
  81. Or. i. 45; ad Adelph. 4. ↩
  82. Or. ii. 19, n. 3. ↩
  83. Heb. i. 2. ↩
  84. John v. 26. ↩
  85. Or. ii. 55, n. 8. ↩
  86. palin. vid. Or. i. 15, n. 6. Thus iteration is not duplication in respect to God; though how this is, is the inscrutable Mystery of the Trinity in Unity. Nothing can be named which the Son is in Himself, as distinct from the Father; we are but told His relation towards the Father, and thus the sole meaning we are able to attach to Person is a relation of the Son towards the Father; and distinct from and beyond that relation, He is but the One God, who is also the Father. This sacred subject has been touched upon supr. Or. iii. 9, n. 8. In other words, there is an indestructible essential relation existing in the One Indivisible infinitely simple God, such as to constitute Him, viewed on each side of that relation (what in human language we call) Two (and in like manner Three), yet without the notion of number really coming in. When we speak of Person,' we mean nothing more than the One God in substance, viewed relatively to Him the One God, as viewed in that Correlative which we therefore call another Person. These various statements are not here intended to explain, but to bring home to the mind what it is which faith receives. We say Father, Son, and Spirit,' but when we would abstract a general idea of Them in order to number Them, our abstraction really does hardly more than carry us back to the One Substance. Such seems the meaning of such passages as Basil. Ep. 8, 2; de Sp. S. c. 18; Chrysost. in Joan. Hom. ii. 3 fin. In respect of the Adorable and most Royal Trinity, first' and second' have no place; for the Godhead is higher than number and times.' Isid. Pel. Ep. 3, 18. Eulog. ap. Phot. 230. p. 864. August. in Joan. 39, 3 and 4; de Trin. v. 10. Unity is not number, but is itself the principle of all things.' Ambros. de Fid. i. n. 19. A trine numeration then does not make number, which they rather run into, who make some difference between the Three.' Boeth. Trin. unus Deus, p. 959. The last remark is found in Naz. Orat. 31, 18. Many of these references are taken from Thomassin de Trin. 17. ↩
  87. §§11, n. 4, 15, n. 11. ↩
  88. Vid. infr. 46; John xi. 34. ↩
  89. Matt. xvi. 13; Mark vi. 38; Matt. xx. 32 ↩
  90. ii. 44, n. 1. ↩
  91. John vi. 6. ↩
  92. Petavius refers to this passage in proof that S. Athanasius did not in his real judgment consider our Lord ignorant, but went on to admit it in argument after having first given his own real opinion. vid. §45, n. 2. ↩
  93. John xi. 14. ↩
  94. John ii. 25; xiv. 11. ↩
  95. Or. ii. 8, n. 3. ↩
  96. Or. ii. 68. ↩
  97. ii. 69, n. 3. ↩
  98. idiopoieitai, cf. 33, n. 5. ↩
  99. Infr. 51. ↩
  100. Or. i. 38. ↩
  101. Redemption an internal work. vid. supr. ii. 55, n. 1. ↩
  102. Luke x. 22. ↩
  103. 1 Cor. viii. 6. ↩
  104. 1 Cor. ii. 8. ↩
  105. Joh. xvii. 5. ↩
  106. Luke iv. 8. ↩
  107. Luke x. 18, 19. ↩
  108. Vid. ib. xiii. 16; Matt. ix. 5; Luke vii. 48. ↩
  109. Is. ix. 6, LXX. ↩
  110. Or. i. 45. ↩
  111. diameine, Or. ii. 69, 3. ↩
  112. 2 Pet. i. 17; 1 Pet. iii. 22. ↩
  113. theostugeis, supr. §16, n. 7. infr. §58, de Mort. Ar. 1. In illud Omn. 6. ↩
  114. §1, n. 11. ↩
  115. John ii. 4. epeplette; and so epetimese, Chrysost. in loc. Joan. and Theophyl. hos despotes epitima, Theodor. Eran. ii. p. 106. entrepei, Anon. ap. Corder. Cat. in loc. memphetai, Alter Anon. ibid. epitima ouk atimazon alla diorthoumenos, Euthym. in loc. ouk epeplexen, Pseudo-Justin. Quæst. ad Orthod. 136. It is remarkable that Athan. dwells on these words as implying our Lord's humanity (i.e. because Christ appeared to decline a miracle), when one reason assigned for them by the Fathers is that He wished, in the words ti moi kai soi, to remind S. Mary that He was the Son of God and must be about His Father's business.' Repeliens ejus intempestivam festinationem,' Iren. Hær. iii. 16, n. 7. It is observable that epiplettei and epitima are the words used by Cyril, &c. (infr. §54, note 4), for our Lord's treatment of His own sacred body. But they are very vague words, and have a strong meaning or not, as the case may be. ↩
Chapter XXVI.—Introductory to Texts from the Gospels on the Incarnation. Enumeration of texts still to be explained. Ar — Four Discourses Against the Arians; Festal Letters; Life of Antony · Athanasius · Cloud of Witnesses