You see the other sect of your teachers, in which you supposed that you had learnt the suffering of the Godhead of the only Begotten, abhors this blasphemy, preaches the impassibility of the Godhead, and quits the ranks of them who dare to attribute the passion to it.
Eran.--Yes; I am astonished at the conflict, and I admire the man's sense and opinions.
Orth.--Then, my good Sir, imitate the bees. As you flit in mental flight about the meads of the divine Scripture, among the fair flowers of these illustrious Fathers, build us in your heart the honey-comb of the faith. If haply you find anywhere herbage bitter and not fit to eat, like these fellows Apollinarius and Eusebius, but still not quite without something that may be meet for making honey, it is reasonable that you should sip the sweet and leave the poisonous behind, like bees who lighting often on baneful bushes leave all the deadly bane behind and gather all the good. We give you this advice, dear friend, in brotherly kindness. Receive it and you will do well. And if you hearken not we will say to you in the word of the apostle "We are pure." [1574] We have spoken, as the prophet says, what we have been commanded.
[1413] Gen. ii. 17
[1414] The vena cava, by which the blood returns to the heart. The physiology of Eranistes would be held in the main "orthodox" even now, and shews that Theodoret was well abreast of the science accepted before the discovery of the circulation of the blood.
[1415] Matt. x. 28
[1416] Matt. xxv. 41
[1417] Matt. xix. 26; Mark x. 27
[1418] Job x. 13, lxx.
[1419] Job x. 9-12
[1420] Job x. 13, lxx.
[1421] Cf. note on Page 37. From the middle of the IIIrd century onward we find acceptation of the Pauline authorship. Among writers who quote the Ep. as St. Paul's are Cyril of Jerusalem, the two Gregories, Basil, and Chrysostom, as well as Theodoret.
[1422] Heb. vi. 18
[1423] 2 Tim. ii. 11-13
[1424] John iii. 16
[1425] Romans v. 10
[1426] cf. note on page 155.
[1427] Gen. xxvii. 1
[1428] Amos vii. 12
[1429] 1 Sam. ix. 18
[1430] Heb. xii. 12, 13
[1431] John x. 30
[1432] John xiv. 9
[1433] John i. 1
[1434] John iv. 6
[1435] Isaiah xl. 28, 29. cf. Sept.
[1436] Isaiah xl. 31
[1437] 1 Cor. viii. 6
[1438] The text of John iv. 6 is kekopiakos ekathezeto, i.e., after being weary sate down. kopion ekathezeto would = "while being weary sate down." The force of the passage seems to be that Scripture states our Lord to have been wearied once,--not to be wearied now; though of course in classical Greek legei (historicè) auton kopian might mean "said that he was in a state of weariness."
[1439] Rom. v. 10
[1440] Acts xiii. 30
[1441] Acts viii. 2
[1442] Gen. xlix. 29
[1443] Gen. xlix. 31
[1444] "The Machpelah," always in Hebrew with the article htkphlh = "the double (cave)." It is interesting to contrast the heathen idea, that the shadow goes to Hades while the self is identified with the body, with the Christian belief, that the self lives while the body is buried e.g. Homer (Il. i. 4) says that while the famous "wrath" sent many heroes' souls to Hades, it made "them" a prey to dogs and birds. cf. xxiii. 72. "psuchai eidola kamonton."
[1445] Acts xii. 2
[1446] Matt. x. 28
[1447] Vide note on Pages 37 and 220.
[1448] Heb. ii. 11, 12, 13
[1449] Heb. ii. 14, 15
[1450] Rom. v. 15, 16, 17
[1451] Rom. v. 18, 19
[1452] 1 Cor. xv. 20, 21, 22
[1453] Rom. xiii. 32
[1454] Gen. xxii. 16
[1455] John viii. 56
[1456] The sacrifice of Isaac so far as his father's part in it is concerned is regarded as having actually taken place at the moment of his felt willingness to obey. In the interval of the journey to Mount Moriah Isaac is dead to his father.
[1457] hupostasis
[1458] prosopon
[1459] It is to be noted that Theodoret thus apparently regards the divine image as consisting in the intelligence or logos. And in the implication that Isaac had the divine image, he expresses the Scriptural view that this was marred, not lost, by the fall.
[1460] Heb. x. 1
[1461] 1 Cor. x. 11
[1462] Heb. xiii. 12
[1463] Lev. xvi
[1464] John iii. 14, 15
[1465] John i. 29, 36
[1466] Is. liii. 7
[1467] 2 Cor. v. 21
[1468] Gal. iii. 13
[1469] Matt. xxv. 32
[1470] Gal. iv. 24et seqq.
[1471] Matt. xxviii. 6
[1472] St. Thomas was buried at Edessa. Soc. iv. 18, Chrys. Hom. in Heb. 26.
[1473] Vide p. 96.
[1474] St. Stephen's remains were said to have been found at Jerusalem, and widely dispersed. cf. Dict. Christ. Ant. II. 1929.
[1475] Matt. xxvii. 57-60
[1476] Mark xv. 42-46
[1477] Luke xxiii. 50 et Seqq.
[1478] John xix. 38-42
[1479] Matt. xxviii. 6
[1480] Deut. x. 6
[1481] 1 Sam. xxv. 1
[1482] 1 Cor. xv. 3, 4
[1483] 1 Cor. xv. 12, 13, 17
[1484] 1 Cor. xv. 21, 22
[1485] 1 Cor. xv. 21
[1486] 1 Thess. iv. 14
[1487] 1 Peter iv. 1
[1488] Matt. i. 23
[1489] 1 Tim. vi. 16
[1490] Matt. x. 28
[1491] Heb. x. 10
[1492] John xii. 27
[1493] John ii. 19
[1494] John ii. 21, 22
[1495] John vi. 21
[1496] Matt. xvii. 26. Mark xiv. 22. Luke xxii. 19. 1 Cor. xi. 24
[1497] Luke xxii. 19
[1498] 1 Cor. xi. 24
[1499] Matt. xxvi. 28 and Mark xiv. 24
[1500] Luke xxiv. 39
[1501] Acts ii. 29 et seqq. and Ps. xvi. 10
[1502] Ez. xxxvii. 7 et seqq.
[1503] 1 Cor. ii. 8
[1504] Gal. i. 19
[1505] 1 Cor. ii. 8
[1506] John vi. 62
[1507] John iii. 13
[1508] Heb. xiii. 8
[1509] 1 Cor. ii. 8
[1510] John x. 33
[1511] Vide note on page 72.
[1512] See the Creed as published by the Council. p. 50.
[1513] The quotation is not quite exact, "'Eucharistias kai prosphoras ouk apodechontai" being substituted for eucharistias kai proseuches apechontai. Bp. Lightfoot (Ap. Fath. II. ii. 307) notes, "the argument is much the same as Tertullian's against the Docetism of Marcion (adv. Marc. iv. 40), Acceptum panem et distributum discipulis corpus suum illum fecit. Hoc est corpus meum dicendo, id est figura mei corporis. Figura autem non fuisset, nisi veritatis esset corpus, ceterum vacua res quod est phantasma, figuram capere non posset.' The Eucharist implies the reality of Christ's flesh. To those who deny this reality it has no meaning at all; to them Christ's words of institution are false; it is in no sense the flesh of Christ." Cf. Iren. iv. 18, 5.
[1514] 1 Cor. xv. 12
[1515] 1 Cor. xv. 21
[1516] Rom. xiv. 15
[1517] Ephes. ii. 13. Observe slight differences.
[1518] Gal. iii. 13 and Deut. xxi. 23
[1519] 1 Cor. xv. 20
[1520] Coloss. i. 18
[1521] cf. Luke xxiv. 39. And for the application of these words to St. Thomas cf. page 210.
[1522] The effusion of water and blood is now well known to have been a natural consequence of the "broken heart." On the rupture of the heart the blood fills the pericardium, and then coagulates. The wound of the lance gave passage to the collected blood and serum. cf. Dr. Stroud's "Physical Cause of the Death of Christ," first published in 1847.
[1523] Prov. viii. 22, lxx.
[1524] i.e. literally, try not to lay hold of me.
[1525] John xx. 17
[1526] Acts ii. 36
[1527] John x. 18
[1528] Rom. ix. 5
[1529] Isaiah liii. 2, 3. Sept.
[1530] Isaiah liii. 3. Sept.
[1531] The quotation seems to be a confusion between Acts ii. 24, and Acts xiii. 29. Sic in Athan. Ed. Migne. II. 1030.
[1532] John iii. 19
[1533] But "after his resurrection" appears to qualify the statement "arose" as well as "appeared" in Matt. xxviii. 53
[1534] Hebrews iv. 12
[1535] Malachi iii. 6
[1536] John x. 18
[1537] Acts xiii. 30
[1538] John ii. 19 and 21
[1539] John v. 26
[1540] Heb. ii. 14
[1541] This passage is not found in the discourse on the Incarnation, but a similar passage occurs in the third oration against the Arians. Ed. Ben. p. 606.
[1542] Ps. xvi. 10
[1543] Epist. iii. Ad Paulinum.
[1544] Matt. x. 28
[1545] cf. note on p. 72.
[1546] Acts ii. 36
[1547] cf. Heb. v. 8
[1548] Isaiah lxiii. 1
[1549] John v. 24
[1550] John xiv. 28
[1551] Matt. xxvi. 39
[1552] Acts ii. 36
[1553] Acts ii. 24. The citation is loose.
[1554] John ii. 19
[1555] John v. 19
[1556] 1 Cor. xv. 53. Observe the inaccuracy of the quotation.
[1557] The Latin translator, as though observing the apparent impropriety of the epithet, here renders theion "sanctissimum."
[1558] Ps. xvi. 10
[1559] John v. 17
[1560] John ii. 18
[1561] John ii. 19
[1562] John ii. 21
[1563] cf. 2 Cor. iii. 6
[1564] Matt. xxvi. 39
[1565] Eusebius, bishop of Emesa (now Hems, where Heliogabalus received the purple, and Aurelian defeated Zenobia) c. 341-359 is called by Jerome "Signifer Arianæ factionis." Chron. sub ann. x Constantii. Theodoret also mentions writings of his against Apelles (Hær. fab. i. 25.)
[1566] John vi. 51
[1567] Luke xxiii. 46
[1568] Luke xxiii. 46
[1569] Romans viii. 32
[1570] John vi. 51
[1571] Luke xxiii. 46
[1572] i.e. Paul of Samosata.
[1573] ton onton in the original; lit: of the things that are, which might have an orthodox interpretation, tho' strictly speaking there is no such thing as "to on;" there is only "ho on," i.e. God. But Schulze is no doubt right in explaining ton onton here to refer to created things.
[1574] Acts xx. 26
Demonstrations by Syllogisms.
That God the Word is Immutable.
1. We have confessed one substance of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, and have agreed that it is immutable. If then there is one substance of the Trinity, and it is immutable, then the only begotten Son, who is one person of the Trinity, is immutable. And, if He is immutable, He was not made flesh by mutation, but is said to have been made flesh after taking flesh.
2. If God the Word was made flesh by undergoing mutation into flesh, then He is not immutable. For no one in his senses would call that which undergoes alteration immutable. And if He is mutable He is not of one substance with Him that begat Him. How indeed is it possible for one part of an uncompounded substance to be mutable and the other immutable? If we grant this we shall fall headlong into the blasphemy of Arius and Eunomius, who assert that the Son is of another substance.
3. If the Lord is consubstantial with the Father, and the Son was made flesh by undergoing change into flesh, then the substance is at once mutable and immutable, which blasphemy if any one has the hardihood to maintain, he will no doubt make it worse by his blasphemy against the Father, for inasmuch as the Father shares the same substance, he will assuredly call Him mutable.
4. It is written in the divine Scriptures that God the Word took flesh, and also a soul. And the most divine Evangelist says the Word was made flesh. [1575] We must therefore perforce do one of two things: either we must admit the mutation of the Word into flesh, and reject all divine Scripture, both Old and New, as teaching lies, or in obedience to the divine Scripture, we must confess the assumption of the flesh, banishing mutation from our thoughts, and piously regarding the word of the Evangelist. This latter we must do inasmuch as we confess the nature of God the Word to be immutable, and have countless testimonies to the assumption of the flesh.
5. That which inhabits a tabernacle is distinct from the tabernacle which is inhabited. [1576] The Evangelist calls the flesh a tabernacle, and says that God the Word tabernacled therein. "The Word," he says, "was made flesh and dwelt among us." [1577] Now if He was made flesh by mutation, He did not dwell in flesh. But we have been taught that He dwelt in flesh; for the same Evangelist in another place calls His body a temple. [1578] We must therefore believe the Evangelist's explanation and interpretation of what to some seemed ambiguous.
6. If when the Evangelist wrote "the Word was made flesh" he had added nothing which could remove the ambiguity, perhaps the controversy about the passage might have had some reasonable excuse, from the obscurity of the terms used. But since he immediately went on to say "and dwelt in us," the combatants contend to no purpose. The former clause is explained by the latter.
7. The immutability of God the Word is plainly proclaimed by the most wise Evangelist, for after saying "the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us," he immediately adds, "And we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth." [1579] But if, according to the foolish, He had undergone mutation into flesh, He would not have remained what He was, but if even when enveloped in the flesh He emitted the rays of His Father's nobility, it follows that the nature which He has is immutable, and it shines even in the body and sends abroad the brightness of the nature which is unseen. For that light nothing can dim. "For the light shineth in the darkness, and the darkness comprehendeth it not," [1580] as saith the very divine John.