[1088] Is. xliv. 6.
[1089] According to patristic usage theologia proper is concerned with all that relates to the Divine and Eternal nature of our Lord. cf. Bp. Lightfoot. Ap Fathers, Part II. vol. ii. p. 75.
[1090] henizomenen. Var. lectiones are enizomenen, "seated in," and eneikonizomenen, "imaged in."
[1091] cf. the embolismus, or intercalated prayer in the Liturgy of St. James, as cited by Mr. C.F.H. Johnston. "For of thee is the kingdom and the power and the glory, of Father, of Son, and of Holy Ghost, now and ever."
[1092] On the right use of the illustration of eikon, cf. Basil Ep. xxxviii., and Bp. Lightfoot's note on Col. i. 15. cf. also John i. 18 and xiv. 9, 10.
[1093] 2 Cor. i. 12.
[1094] 1 Cor. xi. 12. George of Laodicea applied this passage to the Son, and wrote to the Arians: "Why complain of Pope Alexander (i.e. of Alexandria) for saying that the Son is from the Father....For if the apostle wrote All things are from God...He may be said to be from God in that sense in which all things are from God." Athan., De Syn. 17.
[1095] Rom. viii. 9.
[1096] John xvi. 14.
[1097] John xiv. 17.
[1098] 1 Cor. i. 24.
[1099] parakletos occurs five times in the N.T., and is rendered in A.V. in John xiv. 16 and 26, xv. 26 and xvi. 7, Comforter; in 1 John ii. 1 Advocate, as applied to the Son. In the text the Son, the Paraclete, is described as sending the Spirit, the Paraclete; in the second clause of the sentence it can hardly be positively determined whether the words tou hothen proelthen refer to the Father or to the Son. The former view is adopted by Mr. C.F.H. Johnson, the latter by the editor of Keble's Studia Sacra, p. 176. The sequence of the sentence in John xv. 26 might lead one to regard hothen proelthen as equivalent to para` tou Patros ekporeuetai. On the other hand. St. Basil's avoidance of direct citation of the verb ekporeuetai, his close connexion of tou aposteilantos with hothen proelthen, and the close of the verse in St. John's gospel ekeinos marturesei peri emou, suggest that the megalosune in St. Basil's mind may be the megalosune of the Son. At the same time, while the Western Church was in the main unanimous as to the double procession, this passage from St. Basil is not quoted as an exception to the general current of the teaching of the Greek Fathers, who, as Bp. Pearson expresses it, "stuck more closely to the phrase and language of the Scriptures, saying that the spirit proceedeth from the Father." (Pearson On the Creed, Art. viii. where videquotations) Vide also Thomasius, Christ. Dogm., i. 270, Namentlich auf letzere Bestimmung legten die griechischen Väter groszes Gewicht. Im Gegensatz gegen den macedonischen Irrtum, der den Geist für ein Geschüpf des Sohnes ansah, führte man die Subsistenz desselben ebenso auf den Vater zuruck wie die des Sohnes. Man lehrte, , also, der heilige Geist geht vom Vater aus, der Vater ist die arche wie des Sohnes so auch des Geistes; aber mit der dem herkömmlichen Zuge des Dogma entsprechenden Näherbestimmung: nicht amesos, sondern emmesos, interventu filii geht der Geist vom Vater aus, also "durch den Sohn vom Vater." So die bedeutendsten Kirchenlehrer, während andere einfach bei der Formel stehen blieben; er gehe vom Vater aus.
[1100] Mal. i. 6.
[1101] John xvii. 4.
[1102] John xvi. 14.
[1103] Four mss. of the De S.S. read edoxasa se, a variation not appearing in mss. of the Gospel.
[1104] John xii. 28.
[1105] Matt. xii. 31.
[1106] Matt. xi. 27, "oudeis oide ton patera ei me ho Hui& 231;s" substituted for "ou de ton patera tis epignoskei ei me ho Hui& 231;s."
[1107] 1 Cor. xii. 3.
[1108] John iv. 24.
[1109] Ps. xxxvi. 9.
[1110] John i. 9.
[1111] cf. note on p. 27 and the distinction between dogma and keougma in § 66. "The great objection which the Eastern Church makes to the Filioque is, that it implies the existence of two archai in the godhead; and if we believe in duo anarchoi; we, in effect, believe in two Gods. The unity of the Godhead can only be maintained by acknowledging the Father to be the sole 'Arche or pege theotetos, who from all eternity has communicated His own Godhead to His co-eternal and consubstantial Son and Spirit. This reasoning is generally true. But, as the doctrine of the Procession of the Spirit from the Father and the Son presupposes the eternal generation of the Son from the Father; it does not follow, that that doctrine impugns the Catholic belief in the Mia 'Arche." Bp. Harold Browne, Exp. xxxix Art., Note on Art v.
[1112] 1 Cor. xv. 47.
[1113] 1 Cor. xv. 46.