Appearance      Marker   

 

<<  Contents  >>

Hippolytus

Footnotes

Show All Footnotes

Show All Footnotes & Jump to 1663

Introductory Notice to Hippolytus.

[1653] πολὺς ἦν.

[1654] ἄλογος, ἄσοφος, ἀδύνατος, ἀβούλευτος.

[1655] On these words see Bossuet’s explanation and defence, Avertiss., vi. § 68, sur les lettres de M. Jurieu.

[1656] ἀρχηγόν, καὶ σύμβουλον, καὶ ἐργάτην.

[1657] The “begetting” of which Hippolytus speaks here is not the generation, properly so called, but that manifestation and bringing forth of the Word co-existing from eternity with the Father, which referred to the creation of the world. So at least Bull and Bossuet, as cited above; also Maranus, De Divinit. J. C., lib. iv. cap. xiii. § 3, p. 458.

[1658] φως ἐκ φωτός. This phrase, adopted by the Nicene Fathers, occurs before their time not only here, but also in Justin Martyr, Tatian, and Athenagoras, as is noticed by Grabe, ad Irenæum, lib. ii. c. xxiii. Methodius also, in his Homily on Simeon and Anna, p. 152, has the expression, σὺ εἶ φῶς ἀληθινὸν ἐκ φωτὸς ἀληθινοῦ Θεὸς ἀληθινὸς ἐκ Θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ. Athanasius himself also uses the phrase λύχνον ἐκ λύχνου, vol. i. p. 881, ed. Lips. [Illustrating my remarks (p. v. of this volume), in the preface, as to the study of Nicene theology in Ante-Nicene authors.]

[1659] νοῦν.

[1660] Justin Martyr also says that the Son is ἕτερόν τι, something other, from the Father; and Tertullian affirms, Filium et Patrem esse aluid ab alio, with the same intent as Hippolytus here, viz., to express the distinction of persons. [See vol. i. pp. 170, 216, 263, and vol. iii. p. 604.]

[1661] ἐκ τοῦ παντός.

[1662] Or reason.

[1663] παῖς.

[1664] Isa. lxv. 1.

[1665] John i. 1-3. Hippolytus evidently puts the full stop at the οὐδὲ εν, attaching the ο γέγονεν to the following. So also Irenæus, Clemens Alex., Origen, Theophilus of Antioch, and Eusebius, in several places; so, too, of the Latin Fathers—Tertullian, Lactantius, Victorinus, Augustine; and long after these, Honorius Augustodunensis, in his De imagine Mundi. This punctuation was also adopted by the heretics Valentinus, Heracleon, Theodotus, and the Macedonians and Eunomians; and hence it is rejected by Epiphanius, ii. p. 80, and Chrysostom. (Fabricius.)

[1666] John i. 10, 11.

[1667] Ps. xxxiii. 6.

[1668] ὑποστήματι, foundation. Victor reads ἐν τῇ ὑποστάσει, in the substance, nature; Symmachus has ἐν τῇ ὁμιλίᾳ, in the fellowship.

[1669] Jer. xxiii. 18.

[1670] Acts x. 36.

[1671] τὸ θέλημα. Many of the patristic theologians called the Son the Father’s βούλησις or θέλημα. See the passages in Petavius, De S. S. Trinitate, lib. vi. c. 8, § 21, and vii. 12, § 12. [Dubious.]

[1672] From this passage it is clear that Hippolytus taught the doctrine of one God alone and three Persons. A little before, in the eighth chapter, he said that there is one God, according to substance or divine essence, which one substance is in three Persons; and that, according to disposition or economy, there are three Persons manifested. By the term economy, therefore, he understands, with Tertullian, adversus Praxeam. ch. iii., the number and disposition of the Trinity (numerum et dispositionem Trinitatis). Here he also calls the grace of the Holy Spirit the third economy, but in the same way as Tertullian, who calls the Holy Spirit the third grade (tertium gradum). For the terms gradus, forma, species, dispositio, andœconimia mean the same in Tertullian. (Maranus.) [Another proof that the Nicene Creed was a compilation from Ante-Nicene theologians.]

[1673] οἰκονομία συμφωνίας συνάγεται εἰς ἕνα Θεόν, perhaps = "the" economy as being one of harmony, leads to one God.

 

 

 

10 per page

 

 

 Search Comments 

 

This page has been visited 0196 times.

 

<<  Contents  >>