| << | Contents | >> |
Archelaus
Show All Footnotes & Jump to 2069
Introductory Notice to Archelaus.
[2059] Minor.
[2061] It would seem that Archelaus read the passage in Matthew as meaning, notwithstanding, he that is less, is, in the kingdom of heaven, greater than he. Thus, he that is less is understood to be Jesus in His natural relations. [A very lean and hungry proculdubio of the author.]
[2062] Routh appends a note here which may be given. It is to this effect: I am afraid that Archelaus has not expressed with sufficient correctness the mystery of the Divine Incarnation, in this passage as well as in what follows; although elsewhere he has taught that the Lord Jesus was conceived by divine power, and in ch. xxxiv. has called the Virgin Mary Dei genetrix, Θεοτόκος. For at the time of the Saviour’s baptism the Holy Spirit was not given in His first communication with the Word of God (which Word, indeed, had been united with the human nature from the time of the conception itself), but was only received by the Christ ἀνΘρωπίνως and οἰκονομικῶς, and for the sake of men. See Cyril of Alexandria, De Rectâ Fide, xxxiv. vol. v. 2, p. 153, editio Auberti.[Routh, R.S., vol. v. p. 178.]
[2064] Parat.
[2065] Inferre coneris.
[2066] Artifex.
[2068] Hominem.
[2069] Hominem eum tantummodo ex Maria.
[2070] Or, effect, per profectum.
[2071] Effect. [i.e., progressively.]
[2072] Routh puts this interrogatively = Is it then your position that He really is a man, that is to say, one who is flesh and blood? Well, but if so, then it will follow, etc.
[2073] Or, as.
[2074] Reading “sicut homo, hac opinione,” for the “sicut homo ac opinione” of the Codex Casinensis.
[2075] The Codex Casinensis reads, “hanc quæstionem diffigenter aptare tam manifestarem atque manifeste dissolverem.” We follow the emendation, “hanc quæstionem diligenter aptatam manifestarem,” etc.
[2076] [A signum verecundiæ which rebukes the awful inquisitiveness concerning the conception of Mary which disgraced the late pontiff, Pius IX. To what blasphemous pruriency of thought and expression has not such an invasion of decency given rise! See St. Bernard, Opp. tom. i. p. 392. He rebukes the heresy as profane.]
[2077] The text gives tempus recusat. Routh proposes tempus requirit = which the occasion requires.
[2078] This is a purely conjectural reading, “ut dicam silex,” etc. The Codex Casinensis gives, “ut dicam dilere non homo.” But Routh, in reference to ch. xv., throws out the idea that we should read delire = thou dotard, or, lunatic. [P. 190, supra, as if Manes = μανικὸς.]
[2079] Columbarium furem.
Search Comments
This page has been visited 0166 times.
| << | Contents | >> |
10 per page