[1207] Hebrews vii. 1, 2, 3
[1208] Heb. vii. 3
[1209] The bearing of this on Theodoret's relation to Nestorianism will be observed.
[1210] Is. liii. 8
[1211] Heb. vii. 6
[1212] Gen. i. 27
[1213] 1 Cor. xi. 7
[1214] Coloss. i. 15
[1215] Hebrews vii. 3
[1216] Gen. iv. 25
[1217] Gen. v. 5
[1218] Heb. vi. 20
[1219] 1 Tim. ii. 5, 6
[1220] oikonomia. Vide p. 72 n.
[1221] 1 Tim. ii. 5
[1222] 1 Cor. xv. 21
[1223] 1 Cor. xv. 22
[1224] Acts ii. 22
[1225] Acts vii. 56
[1226] 1 Peter iii. 15
[1227] Eph. vi. 11 and 13, and observe looseness of quotation.
[1228] Eph. vi. 14
[1229] John x. 32
[1230] John x. 33
[1231] John x. 34, 35, 36, 37, 38. Observe the variation in 34, and the omission in 38.
[1232] Matt. xxii. 42
[1233] Matt. xxii. 43 and 44
[1234] Matt. xx. 31
[1235] Matt. xv. 22
[1236] Matt. xxi. 9
[1237] Luke xix. 40
[1238] 2 Tim. ii. 8
[1239] 2 Tim. ii. 9
[1240] Luke xxiv. 39
[1241] The metallic compound called electron is described by Strabo p. 146 as the mixed residuum, or scouring, (katharma) left after the first smelting of gold ore. Pliny (H. N. xxxiii. 23) describes it as containing 1 part silver to 4 gold. cf. Soph. Antig. 1038, and Herod. i. 50.
[1242] John i. 1
[1243] John i. 3
[1244] John i. 1-3
[1245] Matt. i. 1
[1246] Luke iii. 23
[1247] Matt. i. 17
[1248] Matt. xxi. 27. A.V. "We cannot tell."
[1249] Luke ii. 51
[1250] John ii. 4
[1251] Matt. xxii. 42
[1252] Mark vi. 1
[1253] John viii. 58
[1254] This, it will be remembered is the analogy employed in the "Quicunque vult."
[1255] All through the argument there seems to be some confusion between the two senses of psuche as denoting the immortal and the animal part of man, and so between the psuchikon and the pneumatikon. According to the Pauline psychology, (cf. in 1 Cor. 15) the immortal and invisible could not be said to be proper to the soma psuchikon. This "natural body" is a body of death (Rom. vii. 24) and requires to be redeemed (Rom. viii. 23) and changed into the "house which is from heaven." (2 Cor. v. 2.) Something of the same confusion attaches to the common use of the word "soul" to which we find the language of Holy Scripture frequently accommodated. On the popular language of the dichotomy and the more exact trichotomy of 1 Thess. v. 23 a note of Bp. Ellicott on that passage may well be consulted.
[1256] "zoon logikon thneton." The definition may be compared with those of-- Plato.--zoon apteron, dipoun, platuonuchon; ho monon ton onton epistemes tes kata logous dektikon esti. Deff. Aristotle.--politikon zoon. Pol. I. ii. 9.
[1257] Matt. xxvi. 39
[1258] John xii. 27
[1259] Consult note on page 72.
[1260] Gen. iii. 8
[1261] Gen. xviii. 21
[1262] Gen. xxii. 12
[1263] John x. 18, 17
[1264] John xii. 27
[1265] Matt. xxvi. 38
[1266] Psalm xvi. 10 and Acts ii. 31
[1267] Isaiah i. 13, 14. Sept.
[1268] Daniel ix. 18
[1269] Ibid
[1270] Isaiah lviii. 14
[1271] Ps. cxix. 73
[1272] Luke ii. 40
[1273] Luke ii. 52
[1274] katapothenai i.e., was absorbed and made to disappear. Contrast the adsumptione Humanitatis in Deum (or "in Deo," as the older mss. read) of the Athanasian Creed.
[1275] The allusion is to the fable of Saturn devouring his children at their birth.
[1276] Luke ii. 12 and 16
[1277] Matt. ii. 13
[1278] Luke xxiv. 38, 39
[1279] Mark xii. 25
[1280] Acts i. 4
[1281] Acts x. 41
[1282] Mark v. 43
[1283] John xii. 21
[1284] 1 Cor. xv. 42, 43, 44
[1285] Contrast Plato Gorgias §169 kateagota te ei tou en mele e diestrammena zontos kai tethneotos tauta endela, and Virgil Æn. vi. 494. "Atque hic Priamiden laniatum corpore toto Deiphobum vidit lacerum crudeliter ora."
[1286] Luke xxiv. 39
[1287] 1 Cor. xv. 53
[1288] Acts xvii. 31
[1289] Acts i. 11
[1290] Matt. xxvi. 64
[1291] Matt. xxv. 31-33
[1292] Isaiah vi. 2
[1293] Zech. xii. 10
[1294] Acts vii. 56
[1295] Phil. iii. 20, 21. Observe omission of "Christ."
[1296] Rom. viii. 17
[1297] Matt. v. 14
[1298] Malachi iv. 2
[1299] Matt. xiii. 43
[1300] Probably the lithos in the stone on the Draught Board. So panta kinein lithon is to make every effort in the game.
[1301] tou ontos somatos antitupa esti ta theia musteria. The view of Orthodoxus, it will be seen, is not that of the Roman confession. cf. note on p. 206.
[1302] proskuneitai
[1303] John vi. 51
[1304] Heb. xiii. 8
[1305] Ad Smyr. III.
[1306] The quotation is not from the canonical gospels. Eusebius (iii. 36) says he does not know from what source it comes. Jerome states it to be derived from the gospel lately translated by him, the gospel according to the Hebrews (Vir. Ill. 2). Origen ascribes the words to the "Doctrina Petri." (de Princ. Præf. 8) Bp. Lightfoot, by whom the matter is fully discussed, (Ap. Fath. pt. II. Vol. ii. p. 295) thinks that either Jerome, more suo, was forgetful, or had a different recension of the gospel to the Hebrews from that used by Origen and Eusebius. Ignatius may be quoting a verbal tradition. Bp. Lightfoot further points out that Origen (l. c.) supposes the author of the Doctrina Petri to use this epithet asoaaton not in its philosophical sense (= incorporeal) but as meaning composed of some subtle substance and without a gross body like man. Further Origen (c. Cels. V. 5) warns us that to Christians the word dæmon has a special connotation, in reference to the powers that deceive and distract men.
[1307] 1 John v. 1
[1308] Isaiah xxvii. 6
[1309] Vide note on page 38.
[1310] The only fragment of this work.
[1311] Several fragments of this letter will be found in Dialogue III.
[1312] Coloss. i. 18
[1313] Vide John xx. 27 and Luke xxiv. 39. The quotation confuses the words of the resurrection day and of the week after.
[1314] 1 Cor. v. 7. The addition of ho Theos has no authority.
[1315] Probably the cxixth Ps. It is doubtful whether the work forms part of a Commentary on the Pss. or is quoted from a homily on this special Psalm.
[1316] The word pheugein is not used of the Saviour in the Gospel. Joseph was bidden pheuge eis Aigupton. When our Lord was brought to the cliff overhanging Nazareth dielthon dia mesou auton eporeueto
[1317] Ps. xxiv. Sept.
[1318] Proverbs viii. 22. Sept.
[1319] Romans viii. 29
[1320] The original here is corrupt.
[1321] charakter cf. Heb. i. 3. I have used the equivalent given in A.V. for the Greek word of the text meaning literally stamp or impression, as on coin or seal, and so exact representation.
[1322] Phil. iii. 20, 21
[1323] Gal. iv. 4
[1324] Luke ii. 22, 24
[1325] Oratio Secunda contra Arianos. Ben. Ed. I. 1. 538.
[1326] Ps. cx. 1
[1327] Jerem. xxiii. 24
[1328] 1 Cor. xi. 24
[1329] Matt. xxvi. 28; Mark xiv. 24
[1330] Acts ii. 22
[1331] Phil. ii. 9
[1332] John vii. 39
[1333] Luke i. 38
[1334] John ii. 19
[1335] Luke xxiv. 39
[1336] De incarnat. sacram. Chap. 6.
[1337] John x. 30
[1338] De Fide ii. Chap. 9.
[1339] Chap. 7.
[1340] 1 Cor. ii. 8
[1341] John iii. 13
[1342] Id. Chap. 9.
[1343] 1 Cor. ii. 4
[1344] De Incarn. Sac. 6.
[1345] De incarn. sacram. Chap. 4.
[1346] "Offeras transfigurandum altaribus." The Benedictine Editors, by a curious anachronism, see here a reference to transubstantiation. But metapoiesis, the word translated "transformation" implies no more than the being made to undergo a change, which may be a change in dignity without involving a change of substance. cf. pp. 200 and 201, where Orthodoxus distinctly asserts that the substance remains unchanged. Transubstantiation, definitely declared an article of faith in 1215, seems to have been first taught early in the 9th c. Vide Bp. Harold Browne on Art. xxviii.
[1347] Gen. iv. 7. Sept.
[1348] Id. Chap. 6.
[1349] Luke i. 35. The Latin of the Benedictine edition of Ambrose is:-- Desinant ergo dicere naturam Verbi in Corporis naturam esse mutatam; ne pari interpretatione videatur natura Verbi in contagium mutata peccati. Aliud est enim quod assumpsit, et aliud quod assumptum est. Virtus venit in Virginem, sicut et Angelus ad eam dixit "quia Virtus Altissimi obumbrabit te." Sed natum est corpus ex Virgine; et ideo cælestis quidem descensio, sed humana conceptio est. Non ergo eadem carnis potuit esse divinitatisque natura.
[1350] In the Greek text the last sentence is unintelligible and apparently corrupt. The translation follows the Latin text from which the version in the citation of Theodoret varies in important particulars. The Greek text of the quotation runs:-- Pausasthosan toinon hoi legontes hos he tou Logou phusis eis sarkos metabebletai phusin; hina me doxe metabletheisa kata ten hauten hermeneian gegenesthai kai he tou Logou phusis tois tou somatos pathemasi sumphthoros. & 169;Eteron gar esti to proslabon kai heteron esti to proslephthen. Dunamis elthen epi ten parthenon, hos ho angelos pros auten legei hoti Dunamis hupsistou episkiasei soi: & 135;ll' ek tou somatos en tes Parthenou to techthen; kai dia touto Theia men he katabasis he de sullepsis anthropine; ouk aute oun edunato tou te somatos pneuma kai tes theotetos phusis
[1351] Cf. Phil. ii. 16
[1352] The passage quoted is not in the 43rd discourse de nova dominica but in the 40th on Holy Baptism.
[1353] Acts i. 11
[1354] Zechariah xii. 10
[1355] 2 Cor. iv. 16
[1356] Here the text is corrupt.
[1357] Ephes. i. 17
[1358] 1 Tim. ii. 5
[1359] John iv. 24
[1360] Luke xxiv. 39
[1361] John xiv. 28
[1362] Coloss. i. 16, 17
[1363] Acts ii. 33
[1364] Acts ii. 36
[1365] Cf. John i. 2
[1366] John xiv. 28
[1367] John v. 19
[1368] Matt. xix. 26. Mark x. 27
[1369] 1 Cor. xv
[1370] John xiv. 9
[1371] Hebrews i. 3
[1372] Matt. xxvi. 38
[1373] Coloss. i. 15
[1374] John x. 18
[1375] Phil. ii. 7
[1376] 2 Cor. v. 20
[1377] Ephes. i. 21
[1378] Ephes. ii. 7
[1379] Cf. Luke xxiv. 39. and John xx. 27. and cf. note on page 235.
[1380] Ephes. ii. 6
[1381] Ephes. ii. 5
[1382] John i. 14 eskenosen
[1383] skenosis
[1384] Psalm cx. 1
[1385] Gen. iii. 19
[1386] Ps. cvi. 2
[1387] Matt. xiv. 15, etc., Mark vi. 35, etc., Luke ix. 9, etc., John vi. 5, etc.
[1388] John xi. 43
[1389] Matt. vii. 24; John vi. 19
[1390] This and another fragment in the Catena on St. John xix. 443, is all that survives of the works of Antiochus of Ptolemais, an eloquent opponent of Chrysostom at Constantinople, and like him, said to have a "mouth of gold."
[1391] Hilary of Poictiers, a.d. 368. The treatise quoted is known as "de Trinitate," and "contra Arianos," as well as "de Fide." The Greek of Theodoret differs considerably from the Latin. Of the first extract the original is nescit plane vitam suam nescit qui Christum Jesum ut verum Deum ita et verum hominem ignorat. Et ejusdem periculi res est, Christum Jesum vel Spiritum Deum, vel carnem nostri corporis denegare. Omnis ergo qui confitebitur me coram hominibus, confitebor et ego eum coram patre meo qui est in coelis. Qui autem negaverit me coram hominibus, negabo et ego eum coram patre meo, qui est in coelis. Haec Verbum caro factum loquebatur, et homo Jesus Christus dominus majestatis docebat; Mediator ipse in se ad salutem Ecclesiae constitutus et illo ipso inter Deum et homines mediatoris sacramento utrumque unus existeus, dum ipse ex unitis in idipsum naturis naturae utriusque res eadem est; ita tamen, ut neutro careret in utroque, ne forte Deus esse homo nascendo desineret, et homo rursus Deus manendo non esset. Haec itaque humanae beatitudinis fides vera est, Deum et hominem praedicare, Verbum et carnem confiteri: neque Deum nescire quod homo sit, neque carnem ignorare quod Verbum sit.
[1392] Matt. x. 32, 33
[1393] Natus igitur unigenitus Deus ex Virgine homo, et secundum plenitudinem temporum in semetipso provecturus in Deum hominem hunc per omnia evangelici sermonis modum tenuit, ut se filium Dei credi doceret, et hominis filium prædicari admoneret: locutus et gerens homo universa quae Dei sunt, loquens deinde et gerens Deus universa quae hominis sunt; ita tamen, ut ipso illo utriusque generis sermone numquam nisi cum significatione et hominis locutus et Dei sit; uno tamen Deo patre semper ostenso, et se in natura unius Dei per nativitatis veritatem professo: nec tamen se Deo patri non et filii honore et hominis conditione subdente: cum et nativitas omnis se referat ad auctorem, et caro se universa secundum Deum profiteatur infirmam. Hinc itaque fallendi simplices atque ignorantes haereticis occasio est, ut quae ab eo secundum hominem dicta sunt, dicta esse secundum naturae divinae infirmitatem mentiantur: et quia unus atque idem est loquens omnia quae loquitur de se ipso omnia eum locutum esse contendant. Nec sane negamus, totum illum qui ejus manet, naturae suae esse sermonem. Sed si Jesus Christus et homo et Deus est; et neque cum homo, tum primum Deus; neque cum homo, tum non etiam et Deus; neque post hominem in Deo non totus homo totus Deus; unum atque idem necesse est dictorum ejus sacramentum esse, quod generis. Et cum in eo secundum tempus discernis hominem a Deo, Dei tamen atque hominis discerne sermonem. Et cum Deum atque hominem in tempore confiteberis, Dei atque hominis in tempore dicta dijudica. Cum vero ex homine et Deo rursus totius hominis, totius etiam Dei tempus intelligis, si quid illud ad demonstrationem ejus temporis dictum est, tempori coaptato quae dicta sunt: ut cum aliud sit ante hominem Deus, aliud sit homo et Deus, aliud sit post hominem et Deum totus homo totus Deus; non confundas temporibus; et generibus dispensationis sacramentum, cum pro qualitate generum ac naturarum, alium ei in sacramento hominis necesse est sermonem fuisse non nato, alium adhuc morituro, alium jam aeterno. Nostri igitur causa haec omnia Jesus Christus manens et corporis nostri homo natus secundum consuetudinem naturæ nostræ locutus est, non tamen omittens naturæ suae esse quod Deus est. Nam tametsi in partu ac passione ac morte naturæ nostræ rem peregit, res tamen ipsas omnes virtute naturæ suæ gessit.