331 John i. 1, John i. 3; Col. i. 16.

332 He says in effect, `Before the generation of the works, they were not; but Christ on the contrary' (not, `was before His generation,' as Bull's hypothesis, supr. Exc. B. wonld require, but) `is from everlasting,' vid. §57, note.

333 Isai. xlix. 5. LXX.

334 §7

335 Vid. the well-known passage in S. Ignatius, ad Eph. 19 [and Lightfoot's note].

336 Supr. 20.

337 Heb. ii. 7.

338 Ps. ii. 6. LXX.

339 epelamye, vid. of the Holy Spirit, Serap. i. 20, c.

340 John viii. 58.

341 Prov. viii. 27, Prov. viii. 30, LXX.

342 p. 335, note 1.

343 eqoj esti th qeia grafh: and so Orat. iii. 18, b. And thj grafhj eqoj exoushj, ibid. 30, d.

344 Vid. Naz. Orat. 30. 2.

345 John i. 1.

346 Naz. ibid.

347 John i. 14.

348 Phil. ii. 6-8.

349 Infr. 62.

350 John xiv. 6, John xiv. 9, John xiv. 10; John x. 30; John viii. 12.

351 Rom. i. 1, Rom. i. 2.

352 It is the general teaching of the Fathers that our Lord would not have been incarnate had not man sinned. [But see Prolegg. ch. iv. §3, c.] Cf. de Incarn. 4. vid. Thomassin. at great length de Incarn. ii. 5-11. also Petav. de Incarn. ii. 17, 7-12. Vasquez. in 3 Thom. Disp. x. 4 and 5.

353 John vi. 38-40.

354 Ib. xii. 46.

355 Ib. xviii. 37.

356 1 John iii. 8.

357 Two ends of our Lord's Incarnation are here mentioned; that He might die for us, and that He might renew us, answering nearly to those specified in Rom. iv. 25. `who was delivered for our offences and raised again for our justification.' The general object of His coming, including both of these, is treated of in Incarn. esp. §§4-20. and in the two books against Apollinaris. Vid. supr. §8. §9. Also infr. Orat. iv. 6. And Theodoret, Eran. iii. p. 196, 7. Vigil. Thaps. contr. Eutych. i. p. 496. (B. P. ed. 1624.) and S. Leo speaks of the whole course of redemption, i.e. incarnation, atonement, regeneration, justification, &c., as one sacrament, not drawing the line distinctly between the several agents, elements, or stages in it, but considering it to lie in the intercommunion of Christ's and our persons. Serm. 63. 14. He speaks of His fortifying us against our passions and infirmities, both sacramento susceptionis and exemplo. Serm. 65, 2. and of a duplex remedium cujus aliud in sacramento, aliud in exemplo. Serm. 67, 5. also 69, 5. The tone of his teaching is throughout characteristic of the Fathers, and very like that of S. Athanasius.

358 Heb. ii. 14, Heb. ii. 15.

359 1 Cor. xv. 21.

360 Rom. viii. 3, Rom. viii. 4.

361 John iii. 17.

362 Ib. ix. 39.

363 Eph. ii. 14, Eph. ii. 15.

364 The word autoj, `Himself,' is all along used, where a later writer would have said `His Person;' vid. supr. §45, n. 2; still there is more to be explained in this passage, which, taken in the letter, would speak a language very different from Athan.'s, as if the infirmities or the created nature of the Word were not more real than His imputed sinfulness. (vid. on the other hand infr. iii. 31-35). But nothing is more common in theology than comparisons which axe only parallel to a certain point as regards the matter in hand, especially since many doctrines do not admit of exact illustrations. Our Lord's real manhood and imputed sinfulness were alike adjuncts to His Divine Person, which was of an Eternal and Infinite Nature; and therefore His Manhood may be compared to an Attribute, or to an accident, without meaning that it really was either.

365 Note on iii. 19.

366 Eph. ii. 10.

367 Prov. viii. 30.

368 John xiv. 10.

369 eleuqeron to fronhma. vid. also beginning of the paragraph, where sanctification is contrasted to teaching. vid. also note on 79, infr. Contr. Apoll. i. 20. fin. ibid. ii. 6. also Orat. iii. 33, where vid. note, and 34. vid. for arxh, Orat. i. 48, note 7. Also vid. infr. Orat. iii. 56, a. iv. 33, a. Naz. Epp. ad Cled. 1. and 2. (101, 102. Ed. Ben.) Nyssen. ad Theoph. in Apoll. p. 696. Leo, Serm. 26, 2. Serm. 72, 2. vid. Serm. 22, 2. ut corpus regenerati fiat caro Crucifixi. Serm. 63, 6. Haec est nativitas nova dum homo nascitur in Deo; in quo homine Deus natus est, carne antiqui seminis suscepta, sine semine antiquo, ut illam novo semine, id est, spiritualiter, reformaret, exclusis antiquitatis sordibus expiatam. Tertull. de Carn. Christ. 17. vid. supr. i. 51, note 5. and note on 64 infr. 65 and 70. and on iii. 34.

370 Prov. viii. 25.

371 John i. 1.

372 Gen. i. 1.

373 Ps. cxix. 73.

374 Ps. ii. 7.

375 Ps. xlv. 1.

376 John i. 1.

377 Matt. xix. 4.

378 Ps. cii. 25.

379 Ps. lxxiv. 2.

380 Gen. ii. 3.

381 Supr. i. 29, n. 10.

382 arxh, vid. Orat. iv. 1.

383 In this passage `was from the beginning' is made equivalent with `was not before generation,' and both are contrasted with `without beginning' or `eternal;' vid. the bearing of this on Bishop Bull's explanation of the Nicene Anathema, supr. Exc. B, where this passage is quoted.

384 qeologwn, vid. §71, note.

385 The technical sense of eusebeia, asebeia, pietas, impietas, for `orthodoxy, heterodoxy,' has been noticed supr. p. 150, and derived from 1 Tim. iii. 16. The word is contrasted ch. iv. 8. with the (perhaps Gnostic) `profane and old-wives fables,' and with `bodily exercise.'

386 Deut. xxxii. 6. LXX.

387 Ibid. 18.

388 Gen. i. 26.

389 Deut. xxxii. 6.

390 Ibid. 17.

391 John i. 12, John i. 13.

392 parathrhsewj, §12, note.

393 De Decr. 31 fin.

394 Mal. ii. 10.

395 ton en hmin uion. vid. also supr. 10. circ. fin. 56. init. and ton en autoij oikounta logon. 61. init. Also Orat. i. 50 fin. iii. 23-25. and de Decr. 31 fin. Or. i. 48, note 7, §56, n. 5. infr. notes on 79.

396 Gal. iv. 6.

397 Gen. i. 26.

398 §45, note 2.

399 Ch. 20.

400 pp. 367, 374.

401 §48.

402 §6, note 49.

403 Col. i. 18.

404 Rom. viii. 29. Bishop Bull's hypothesis about the sense of prwtotokoj thj ktisewj has been commented on supr. p. 347. As far as Athan.'s discussion proceeds in this section, it only relates to prwtotokoj of men (i.e. from the dead), and is equivalent to the `beginning of ways.'

405 Marcellus seems to have argued against Asterius from the same texts (Euseb. in Marc. p. 12), that, since Christ is called `first-born from the dead,' though others had been recalled to lite before Him, therefore He is called `first-born of creation,' not in point of time, but of dignity. vid. Montacut. Not. p. 11. Yet Athan. argues contrariwise. Orat. iv. 29.

406 §10. n. 7; Orat. iii. 31. note.

407 John xiv. 6; John x. 9.

408 Rev. i. 5.

409 Here again, though speaking of the `first-born of creation,' Athan. simply views the phrase as equivalent to `first-born of the new creation or "brother" of many;' and so infr. `first-born because of the brotherhood He has made with many.'

410 Bp. Bull considers sugkatabasij as equivalent to a figurative gennhsij, an idea which (vid. supr. p. 346 sq.) seems quite foreign from Athan.'s meaning. In Bull's sense of the word, Athan. could not have said that the senses of Only-begotten and First-born were contrary to each other, Or. i. 28. Sugkatabhnai occurs supr. 51 fin. of the Incarnation. What is meant by it will be found infr. 78-81. viz. that our Lord came `to implant in the creatures a type and semblance of His Image;' which is just what is here maintained against Bull. The whole passage referred to is a comment on the word sugkatabasij, and begins and ends with an introduction of that word. Vid. also c. Gent. 47.

411 Vid. Rom. viii. 29.

412 This passage has been urged against Bull supr. Exc. B. All the words (says Athan.) which are proper to the Son, and describe Him fitly, are expressive of what is `internal' to the Divine Nature, as Begotten, Word, Wisdom, Glory, Hand, &c., but (as he adds presently) the `first-born,' like `beginning of ways,' is relative to creation; and therefore cannot denote our Lord's essence or Divine subsistence, but something temporal, an office, character, or the like.