Anti-Marcion

Footnotes

^[5915] Si quando corpus in hujus modi prænominatur.

^[5916] 1 Thess. v. 23. For a like application of this passage, see also our author’s treatise, De Resurrect. Carnis, cap. xlvii. [Elucidation I.]

^[5917] It is remarkable that our author quotes this text of the three principles, in defence only of two of them. But he was strongly opposed to the idea of any absolute division between the soul and the spirit. A distinction between these united parts, he might, under limitations, have admitted; but all idea of an actual separation and division he opposed and denied. See his De Anima, cap. x. St. Augustine more fully still maintained a similar opinion. See also his De Anima, iv. 32. Bp. Ellicott, in his interesting sermon On the Threefold Nature of Man, has given these references, and also a sketch of patristic opinion of this subject. The early fathers, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alex., Origen, as well as Didymus of Alex., Gregory Nyssen., and Basil, held distinctly the threefold nature. Our own divines, as is natural, are also divided in views. Bp. Bull, Hammond, and Jackson hold the trichotomy, as a triple nature is called; others, like Bp. Butler, deny the possibility of dividing our immaterial nature into two parts. This variation of opinion seems to have still representatives among our most recent commentators: while Dean Alford holds the triplicity of our nature literally with St. Paul, Archdeacon Wordsworth seems to agree with Bp. Butler in regarding soul and spirit as component parts of one principle. See also Bp. Ellicott’s Destiny of the Creature, sermon v. and notes.

^[5918] On this paradox, that souls are corporeal, see his treatise De Anima, v., and following chapters (Oehler). [See also cap. x. supra.]

^[5919] Quæ = caro.

Chapter XVI.—The Second Epistle to the Thessalonians. An Absurd Erasure of Marcion; Its Object Transparent. The Final Judgment on the Heathen as Well as the Jews Could Not Be Administered by Marcion’s Christ. The Man of Sin—What? Inconsistency of Marcion’s View. The Antichrist. The Great Events of the Last Apostasy Within the Providence and Intention of the Creator, Whose are All Things from the Beginning. Similarity of the Pauline Precepts with Those of the Creator.

^[5920] Circumferri.

^[5921] Utriusque meriti: “of both the eternal sentences.”

^[5922] 2 Thess. i. 6-8.

^[5923] 2 Thess. i. 8, 9.

^[5924] Crematoris Dei.

^[5925] 2 Thess. i. 8.

^[5926] Non omnibus scibilis.

^[5927] 2 Thess. i. 9.

^[5928] Isa. ii. 19. The whole verse is to the point.

^[5929] 2 Thess. ii. 3, 4.

^[5930] The prophets of the Old and the New Testament.

^[5931] 1 John iv. 1-3.

^[5932] Solventes Jesum. This expression receives some explanation from the Vulgate version of 1 John iv. 3: “Et omnis spiritus qui solvit Jesum Christum ex Deo non est.” From Irenæus, Vol. I., 443 (Harvey, ii. 89), we learn that the Gnostics divided Jesus from Christ: “Alterum quidem Jesum intelligunt, alterum autem Christum,”—an error which was met in the clause of the creed expressing faith in “One Lord Jesus Christ.” Grabe, after Socrates, Hist. Eccles. vii. 32, says that the oldest mss. of St. John’s epistle read πᾶν πνεῦμα ὅ λύει τὸν ᾽Ιησοῦν. If so, Tertullian must be regarded as combining the two readings, viz., that which we find in the received text and this just quoted. Thus Grabe. It would be better to say that T. read John 4.2 as we have it, only omitting ᾽Ιησοῦν; and in John 4.3 read the old lection to which Socrates refers instead of πᾶν πνεῦμα ὅ μὴ ὁμολογεὶ.

^[5933] 2 Thess. ii. 9.

^[5934] Instinctum fallaciæ.

^[5935] 2 Thess. ii. 10-12.

10 per page

Search Comments

This page has been visited 0697 times.

Contents