Bibliothek der Kirchenväter

31.

Of old time He was wont to come to the Saints individually, and to hallow those who rightly ¹ 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 flesh ²,’ 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 will ³, afterwards for our sakes He became man, and ‘bodily ⁴,’ 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 instrument ⁵, 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 body ⁶. 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’s ⁷. And well has P. 411 the Prophet said ‘carried ⁸;’ 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 hurt ⁹ Himself by ‘bearing our sins in His body on the tree,’ as Peter speaks, we men were redeemed from our own affections ¹⁰, and were filled with the righteousness ¹¹ of the Word.

Or.i. 39, n. 4. ↩
Gal. iv. 4 ; 1 Pet. iv. 1 . ↩
κατὰ τὸ βούλημα . 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 κατὰ τὸ βούλημα , but is the βουλὴ 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 νεύματα 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. Basilcontr.*Eunom.i. 21. ↩
Col. ii. 9 . ↩
τούτῳ χρώμενος ὀργάνῳinfr.42. and ὄργανον πρὸς τὴν ἐνέργειαν καὶ τὴν ἔκλαμψιν τῆς θεότητος . 53. This was a word much used afterwards by the Apollinarians, who looked on our Lord’s manhood as merely amanifestationof God. vid.Or.ii. 8, n. 3. vid. σχῆμα ὀργανικὸν inApoll.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 ὄργανον must not be confused with its heretical application to our Lord’s Divine Nature, vid. Basilde Sp. S.n. 19 fin. of whichde Syn.27 (3). It may be added that φανέρωσις is a Nestorian as well as Eutychian idea; Facund.Tr. Cap.ix. 2, 3. and the Syrian use ofparsopaAsseman.B. O.t. 4. p. 219. Thus both parties really denied the Atonement. vid.supr. Or.i. 60, n. 5; ii. 8, n. 4. ↩
Orat.iv. 6. andfragm. ex Euthym.p. 1275. ed. Ben. This interchange [of language] is called theologically the ἀντίδοσις or communicatio ἰδιωμάτων . 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. ↩
θεοῦ ἦν σῶμα . alsoad Adelph.3.ad Max.2. and so τὴν πτωχεύσασαν φύσιν θεοῦ ὅλην γενομένην .c.Apoll.ii. 11. τὸ πάθος τοῦ λόγου . ibid. 16, c. σὰρξ τοῦ λόγου .infr.34. σῶμα σοφίαςinfr.53. alsoOr.ii. 10, n. 7. πάθος Χριστοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ μου . Ignat.Rom.6. ὁ θεὸς πέπονθεν . 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.] ↩
Is. liii. 4 . ↩
οὐδὲν ἐβλάπτετο . ( 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. ↩
παθῶν , vid. §33, n. 2. ↩
Orat.i. 51. ↩

Drucken

Fehler melden