| << | Contents | >> |
Hippolytus
Show All Footnotes & Jump to 1684
Introductory Notice to Hippolytus.
[1674] This mode of speaking of the Father’s commanding, and the Son’s obeying, was used without any offence, not only by Irenæus, Hippolytus, Origen, and others before the Council of Nicæa, but also after that council by the keenest opponents of the Arian heresy—Athanasius, Basil, Marius Victorinus, Hilary, Prosper, and others. See Petavius, De Trin., i. 7, § 7; and Bull, Defens Fid. Nic., pp. 138, 164, 167, 170. (Fabricius.)
[1675] συνέτιζον.
[1676] Referring probably to Eph. iv. 6.
[1677] The Christian doctrine, Maranus remarks, could not be set forth more accurately; for he contends not only that the number of Persons in no manner detracts from the unity of God, but that the unity of God itself can neither consist nor be adored without this number of Persons.
[1678] This is said probably with reference to Peter’s denial.
[1680] Τριαδος. [See Theophilus, vol. ii. p. 101, note.]
[1681] ἀλλ᾽ ἄλλως ἀλληγορεῖ. The words in Italics are given only in the Latin. They may have dropped from the Greek text. At any rate, some such addition seems necessary for the sense.
[1683] Mic. ii. 7, 8. δόξαν: In the present text of the Septuagint it is δοράν, skin.
[1684] Hippolytus omits the words διὰ τῆς σαρκός and καὶ περὶ ἁμαρτίας, and reads φανερωθῇ for πληρωθῇ.
[1685] ὅν Υἱὸν προσηγόρευε διὰ τὸ μέλλειν αὐτὸν γενέσθαι.
[1686] Hippolytus thus gives more definite expression to this temporality of the Sonship, as Dorner remarks, than even Tertullian. See Dorner’s Doctrine of the Person of Christ (T. & T. Clark), div. i. vol. ii. p. 88, etc. [Pearson On the Creed, art. ii. p. 199 et seqq. The patristic citations are sufficient, and Hippolytus may be harmonized with them.]
[1687] τὴν σύστασιν.
[1688] “Σύστασις,” says Dorner, “be it observed, is not yet equivalent to personality. The sense is, it had its subsistence in the Logos; He was the connective and vehicular force. This is thoroughly unobjectionable. He does not thus necessarily pronounce the humanity of Christ impersonal; although in view of what has preceded, and what remains to be adduced, there can be no doubt [?] that Hippolytus would have defended the impersonality, had the question been agitated at the period at which he lived.” See Dorner, as above, i. 95. [But compare Burton, Testimonies of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, etc., pp. 60–87, where Tertullian and Hippolytus speak for themselves. Note also what he says of the latter, and his variations of expression, p. 87.]
[1690] Reading ἐξῆλθον. The Latin interpreter seems to read ἐξελθόν = what is this that came forth.
[1691] πνεῦμα. The divine in Christ is thus designated in the Ante-Nicene Fathers generally. See Grotius on Mark ii. 8; and for a full history of the term in this use, Dorner’s Person of Christ, i. p. 390, etc. (Clark).
[1692] την περὶ τοῦτον οἰκονομιαν.
[1693] τὴν τοῦ δημιουργήσαντος ἔμπειρον καὶ ἀνεκδιήγητου τέχνην.
[1694] i.e., Matthew and Luke in their Gospels.
Search Comments
This page has been visited 0196 times.
| << | Contents | >> |
10 per page