Hymns on Faith

Notes

1. p. 107, n. e.
2. The use of the sun as furnishing by its light a type of the Father generating the Son is very frequent indeed in the Fathers. The use made of it here and R. lxxiii. §. 1. is much less frequent: indeed I am not able to furnish any other instance of a passage exactly parallel, as they speak rather of the Holy Spirit as Light of Light, than as heat of light. St. Cyril Thes. p. 337. speaks of the Spirit ‘passing naturally from the Father through the Son to those fitted to receive It as heat out of fire would do in a body;’ which procession of heat from fire he elsewhere, e. g. 175. uses, as is commonly done, of the Procession of the Son from the Father. It may be added that a simile of a like kind used by Greg. Naz. p. 612, a. is urged by Veccus Or. ii. 13. G. Orth. vol. ii. p. 57. to shew the Procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son. ‘Who is there with any parts or sense who would deny that the procession of the light through the ray is its existence through the same? For if the existence of the light from the sun were not through the ray, the light would never have been called the light of the ray, &c.’ …
3. p. 210, ref. 4.
4. S. [Syriac], ‘single natures.’ So Alexander, Alex. in Theod. H. E. i. 4 calls the Father and the Son τὰς τῇ ὑποστάσει δύω φύσεις, where Lowth quotes St. Clement Al. Strom. vii. §. 5. p. 831: whether St. Cyril also used the word φύσις in the sense of Person is too wide a question to enter upon here. St. E. of course uses his word only of the type, and that in a way answering rather to the Greek ὑπόστασις than to the Latin persona.—[Syriac] here rendered ‘himself’ is used of the substance of the sun, the light and heat being strictly not substances, perhaps, in St. E.’s view, but rather emanations. Still as the word is contrasted in part with [Syriac], the passage goes to shew the indefiniteness of the word in St. E.’s time. See n. c. p. 210.
5. S. generations, comp. n. b. p. 110.
6. S. [Syriac], comp. Heb. [Hebrew].
7. See R. xviii. §. 1. “The race of birds is brought up by a threefold advance, &c.” and note d. In vol. ii. p. 551. there occurs a Rhythm which will throw some light on this passage; the following are parts of it: “Let us reprove Bardesanes, since no man can take away any one of the forms appertaining to man, any more than he can the form of fire, for if he did, he would annihilate it; since it is by three parts that it liveth in perfection, as man is of a threefold composition.....Their own simile reproveth them: by it they have given the body the surname of ‘egg,’ and the soul of ‘bird,’ and do not examine how bones and flesh come forth from the said egg, which is like the earth in which the body is conceived, and rends at the resurrection its earth and its sepulchre, and flieth at the advent. The comparison for the soul does not stand, for the bird has two generations: the first that of copulation, the second that of incubation. The womb generates by copulation, and the earth without it, after the type of the bird, performs the second generation in the Resurrection. Let us notice to what they compare our Saviour’s work: for if He rent the bodies and made the souls to fly, then our Lord has overthrown the type of the unbelievers. But if the tombs were broken open as an egg, and the entombed bodies rose and came to life, then hath our Lord given the cause in our favour.....Eggs are reckoned like the dead by these frantic men, and they are quick in their nests to the wings of the bird. Corpses in their tombs are dead to the heretics, but alive in the grave to the Quickener of all: thus not even as powerful as that wing of the feeble bird have they rec-koned the overshadowing of the Good One who raiseth all! Three things in the Resurrection are brought to be one whole, the soul, and the mind, ([Syriac]) and their harp the body. The mind ([Syriac]) dwelleth in the head, the word thereof in the mouth, and the soul participateth with them both in every thing. Distinct are their names, easy are they in their significations, difficult in their primary essences.”
8. R. xxviii. §. 3.
9. Here that Catholic belief, (which though contradictory not only in the words, but also in the ideas we use, yet is not necessarily so in fact,) that each one Person of the Trinity is as wholly and entirely God as if the Others had no existence,—is contemplated by St. E. as the Archetype which the sun shadows out in its measure. See on Athan. p. 325, n. g. and p. 439, n. c.
10. S. [Syriac]. St. E. probably means to refer to the Perichoresis as one of (what we are obliged to contemplate as) the causes of the Unity of God. The Sun’s self, its light and heat, each contain the other, and are contained each by the other. If the mind expands its idea of them, it finds it threefold; if it gathers it up into one, as it does at the moment of contemplating the unity of the sun, it must as it were draw each and all of them up into one at the same time. This object of contemplation ‘is what it is and not another thing,’ and you cannot leave out sun, light, or heat; you must use them all conjointly to contemplate the one sun aright. Thus the impression the sun makes on the mind answers, in its measure, to the reality of the Trinity in Unity, so far as we can conceive of that reality. His design seems to be to set up an explanation of this natural type counter to that of the Sabellians noticed above in note d. on R. xviii. and by Petavius de Trin. i. 6. §. 3., and to assert, that even as far as this type went, there was no reason for heretics to think the Son was put forth as an emanation from the Father to be absorbed again, the sun, ray, and heat remaining distinct. Upon the phase of Sabellianism alluded to by Petav. see the Bened. note on St. Ambr. de Fide v. §. 162.
11. On Athan. p. 45, n. h. and on contr. Scrut. i. §. 30.
12. See Rom. 5, 5. Tit. 3, 6. Acts 2, 33. It is to be noticed, that St. E. here views, through the type, the Spirit as (not coming, but) sent: a view which approximates to that of St. Austin, who makes it the eternal property of the Spirit, so to proceed as to be capable of being given, as being love. See on Athan. p. 305, g. Perhaps St. E. wishes to guard against any such representation of God’s relations to man, as should make the Third Person subject to an economy as well as the Second. (See p. 241, n. c. and Fulg. ad Mon. ii. 6. who considers this question in connection with the Eucharistic Sacrifice.) The only passage supposed to imply such an economy is Rom. viii. 26. which St. E. vol. i. p. 413. in common with many others (see Justiniani ad loc. and Petav. de Trin. ii. 6. §. 5.) understands of the Spirit as shed abroad in our hearts. “They put their requests, he says, into the hands of grace to offer before God,” where grace is personified. Whatever is said of the relations of the Third Person to us must be conceived of, then, as flowing from His eternal Properties: whereas the Son has relations to us which flow from Properties not eternal, but consequent upon His Incarnation. (See Petav. de Trin. viii. 3. §. 1.) Now St. E. in this section conceives the fire as a fresh type of God, emitting heat which he now conceives as a type of the Son, (as the Fathers do commonly,) and its light as a type of the Spirit Still he seems in this section first to regard fire as a type of the Triune God, as He is in Himself, since the heat which is ‘hidden and mighty,’ will not other wise make a type of the Son. Hence the joyous and tranquil light must be understood to be sent, in the sense here given: i. e. the mission must be taken to flow from eternal Properties. What St. E. meant precisely to be Prototype of the heat ‘coming at its own pleasure’ is not clear to me, though I believe from the sequel he meant the condescension of the Son in creating. see p. 128, n. g. p. 209, n. b. The ‘order’ of the Persons has been noticed above, p. 181, n. c.
13. p. 128, &c.
14. R. xxxvi. §. 5.
15. This proves the type has changed from the sun to fire, as stated in the last note, but does not suit very well with the sequel: for there the Spirit is plainly compared not to light, but to heat. Perhaps St. E.’s intention is, after mentioning the Trinity, to go off to that special mission of the Second Person implied in His Presence in the Eucharist. The Spirit here compared to the light may then be next viewed as conveying heat (i.e. the Son) to us who were far off. A passage from vol. ii. p. 451. may help to explain his meaning: ‘Never did a man ever see a ship in the sea tossed about by itself with no sailor in it, managing itself and steering itself. And as ships, all things that are made, are imperfect: the soul is so, without free-will; the creation, without a Creator; the Church, without a Saviour; and the Altar, without the Holy Ghost.’ Compare R. x. §. 3. §. 5. §. 7. and the note d. and vol. i. p. 239, d. from whence it is plain that St. E. held that the change effected in the elements was by the agency of the Holy Spirit, (though in vol. i. p. 460, c. he speaks of the shew bread as ‘figuring the mystery of our Sacrifice which is offered by Christ, through the ministers of the Church.) … for the same thing is said by St. Austin de Trin. iii. 4. ‘The element is not consecrated to be so great a Sacrament, save by the Spirit of God working invisibly.’ And so in the Missa Leoniana ap. Assem. B. Lit. iv. p. 27. Gothic. iv. p. 39. &c. Yet there can be little doubt that the Western Churches held, that the elements were consecrated by our Lord’s words then repeated. See Gotti Theol. Scholastico- Dogm. Tr. vii. qu. 2. §. 2. and Le Quien on Damascene, p. 268, n. 2. Bened. xiv. de Miss. Sacr. ii. 15. Orsi de Liturg. Inv. Sp. Scti. ii. §. 2. Martene de Rit. i. 4. 8. §. 19. Benedict. Antirrheticon, ii. cap. 5. who quotes a passage from Theodulus Ben Althib. which will be of service here: ‘The power of the Holy Ghost descendeth at this day upon the Bread offered upon the Altar, and consecrates it and makes it the Body of God the Word. For the power of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and their operation is one. (see p. 166, n. c.) When the Son blesseth and consecrateth, then the Spirit blesseth and consecrateth; and when the Spirit blesseth and consummates, then the Son blesseth and consummates; when the Father imparteth His Divine power, it do the Son and the Spirit impart in like manner. For albeit the Persons are distinct, yet is the Substance and Nature one. Thus in like way is Their power and operation. Therefore the Bread which we receive is His Body, as He Himself saith; and since He Himself calleth It His own Body, Who will not confess It so to be?” (comp. St. John Maro. cap. xxxiii. Assem. Cod. Lit. v.) on which B. remarks, that Theodulus here conceives (1) the words of Christ to be the efficient cause of the Real Presence, and (2) operation of the Holy Spirit to be not distinct from that of Christ. Here also is perhaps the key to St. E.’s meaning: The Son and the Spirit are said to be sent, and not the Father: and this mission is of course not any thing new, but Their Eternal Procession from the Father considered as affecting us. Vide Petav. de Trin. viii. Hence St. E. passes off from the doctrine of the Trinity to that in which the Mission of the Two Persons (as explained in note f.) is continually brought before us, viz. the Eucharist.
16. R. v. §. 5. p. 105, n. i.
17. p. 87, n. h.
18. Comp. xli. §. 2. the word ‘blended’ or ‘mingled,’ twice used in this section, has been noticed above, p. 210, n. d. as employed to express the Perichoresis: in the former place in this section it is plainly used in this sense, and therefore it is perhaps no great strain on these words to suppose them intended to express concisely, that ‘the Holy Spirit by virtue of His coinherence in the Son conceals Himself under the appearance of bread, that it may, &c.’ See the passages quoted p. 210, ref. 4. It is plain that a great importance was attached in the Oriental Liturgies (see Renaudot. i. p. 238. ii. p. 88.) to the ‘Invocation of the Spirit.’ It may be right with a view to throw light on the text, to attempt stating what seems to be the view implied in those Liturgies, as concisely as so intricate and extensive a subject will admit of. Orsi de Lit. Inv. &c. v. 3. owns the truth of Renaudot’s assertion, but reconciles it with assertions in the Oriental Church, ascribing the consecration to our Lord’s words (see Martene as ab. §. 20.) by supposing that Invocation an accommodation to the weakness of the human intellect, whereby that is represented to take place at intervals with us, which with God takes place in one instant. The two events of the Descent of the Holy Spirit at the Baptism of Christ in the Jordan and on the day of Pentecost seem to me best calculated to illustrate the Invocation: it is to them and not to the operation of the Holy Ghost at the Conception that the liturgies themselves (as contrasted with later commentators on them) refer almost universally in the form for the Invocation. (See Assem. Cod. Lit. vol. v. p. 39. p. 138. Renaudot. ii. p. 33. p. 290. p. 490. p. 497. or (with some variations) in a Ms. of the Syriac Liturgies belonging to Mr. Palmer of Magdalen Coll. p. 19. p. 57. p. 140. p. 144. p. 190. As then the words of the Angel to St. Mary are viewed by St. E. (ii. p. 328, b. and see Feuard. on Irenæus, v. 19. §. 1.) as the cause of her conception, so the words of Christ used by the priest, ‘who is not able to make the Body,’ (ab. p. 146, n. d.) may answer to the words of Gabriel, at the time whereof ‘He was anointed with the Holy Ghost as if with oil,’ vol. i. p. 336, b. p. 228, e. the Holy Spirit in either case working the miracle. But as Christ was very God, and had in Him and was Himself in the Holy Spirit from the moment of His Incarnation, the Spirit of course did not really descend upon Him at the Jordan, (see Petav. de Incarn. xi. 9. §. 8. Thomassin de Inc. vi. 2. §. 2. Pusey on Bapt. p. 275. &c. Tostatus Abul. on the place, p. 352—4.) it was for our sakes that He so seemed to do, He being Himself Omnipresent, [or ‘dwelling in every thing,’ as above,] and so incapable of motion to a place. This accommodation to the weakness of the human intellect would be parallel to that at the Altar according to Orsi’s view; while the other event mentioned in the form of Invocation, viz. the descent on the Apostles, fitly symbolizes the influence of the Holy Ghost in sanctifying and uniting men, which is what St. Fulgentius insists upon. This premised it is clear how St. E. may say the Spirit is blended with bread, without asserting thereby that the Invocation is the cause of the consecration. In R. x. §. 7. we find the operation of the Spirit dwelt upon in all the events here noticed: and St. E. by dwelling here with a seeming disproportionateness upon the operation of the Spirit may have also had the Macedonians in view, and have wished to insist strongly on the doctrine that He doeth what the Father and the Son do. See p. 166, note. As for the use of the Syriac words [Syriac] and [Syriac] insisted on by Renaudot. i. p. 241. ii. p. 89. it is plain that they refer as naturally to the brooding of the dove as to any thing. see p. 169, n. m. Perhaps the Greek view of the procession of the Holy Spirit influences the view they now certainly hold of the Invocation, this question running up as it does into the relations of the Spirit to Christ’s Humanity. Taking in the next sentence St. E. might also seem to have before his mind a question which was afterwards discussed, viz. in what sense the whole Trinity could be said to be present in that Sacrament. See Vasquez. in Quæst. lxxvi. Disp. 185. Art. ii. §. 16. Suarez. ibid. Disp. 5. §. 6. Art. i. (referred to by Clericatus Decis. Sacram. de Euch. Sacram. Dec. xxii.) and Samonas Gaz. 4. ap. Galland. xiv.
19. R. x. §. 4.
20. R. xlii. §. 5.
21. R. xxxii. §. 4.
22. Assem. makes the apodosis begin here: the force of St. E.’s argument seems to require this version, which may be thus paraphrased: We are all agreed, that fire is three yet one, we do not dispute, we do not cease to love each other on this point—about a created nature we are agreed—a fortiori, &c.
    [Syriac] is contrasted with God in R. l. §. 3. [Syriac].