not by conversion of the Manhood into God, 957 twain, or what was less should be more. Furthermore, if JOHN after change and conversion of the human nature into the 5. He which had all along the Virtue of that Nature, should permanently have It also in kind. For to the Man there was to accrue this gain, viz. to be God. But the assumed Man could in no wise have permanent unity with God, but by issuing, through unity with God, into unity with God natural: namely, in this way; that because God the Word subsisted in the Nature of God, through that subsistence the Word even made flesh should again subsist in the Nature of God, and so the man "Jesus Christ" should permanently be "in the glory of God the Father," [alluding to Phil. 2, 11.] if the flesh should be taken into oneness with the glory of the Word; and the Word should return, to wit, the Word made flesh, into oneness even as touching the assumed Manhood with the Nature of the Father, then, when the assumed Flesh should have for its own the glory of the Word. Consequently, the Father must restore His oneness to be "with His own Self" [as John 17, 5. i. e. the Father must reinstate the Word Incarnate into the original unity], so that the Nativity [or so to say, 'Begotten-ness'] of the Father's Nature should fall back into Itself [as Hil. usually speaks of the Glorification as Christ's third Nativity] to be glorified: because the new condition introduced by Incarnation had given a kind of shock or disturbance to the Unity [of the Word with the Father], and that Unity, as it was perfect before, could now be none at all, unless the Father "glorified with Himself" the Flesh which was assumed. Accordingly, having said, But this is life eternal &c." And then the text v. 5. is explained at large. That the teaching of St. Hilary on this point (couched as it is in an unusual phraseology), has raised some misgivings, is shewn, as the Benedictine Editors remark, by the frequent alterations inserted in the text of these and similar passages, by later hands, for the purpose of removing the seeming offence against sound doctrine, and by notes of warning in the margin, Caute lege. And indeed it needs a careful study of St. Hilary's Theology to justify it from the imputation of anticipative Entychianism, or the error against which St. Augustine has given the caution, Ne ita Divinitatem adstruamus hominis, ut veritatem corporis destruamus. Epist. 187, 10. Thus, de Trin. xi. 40. explaining the text 1 Cor. 15, 28. Hilary says, Natura assumpti corporis nostri naturæ paternæ Divinitatis invecta. Per id enim erit "omuia in omnibus Deus," quia Mediator, habens in se ex dispensatione, quod carnis est, adepturus est in omnibus ex subjectione, quod Dei est, ne ex parte Deus sit, sed Deus totus. Non alia itaque subjectionis causa est, quam ut "omnia in omnibus Deus sit," nulla ex parte terreni in eo corporis residente natura, ut ante in se duos continens, nunc Deus tantum sit. Yet clearly it cannot be his meaning to teach that the Body of Christ is utterly absorbed or extinguished in the Godhead, when he goes on to say, Non abjecto corpore, sed ex subjectione translato, neque per defectionem abolito, sed ex clarificatione mutato, acquirens sibi Deo potius hominem, quam Deum per hominem amittens. Subjectus vero ob id, non ut non sit, sed ut omnia in omnibus Deus sit, habens in sacramento subjectionis esse ac manere quod non est, non habens in defectione ita se carere ne 66 non sit. But the Benedictine Editors in their annotations have vindicated the Catholic sense of St. Hilary on this point of doctrine, and most fully in the Præfatio §. 5: where it is shewn at large that "when he affirms that Christ, as Man, by being glorified, is made to subsist" in forma," or in natura," or "in genere naturæ," or "in unitate naturæ Dei," so that in Him God and Man, "jam ambo unum sint," or that by glory of Resurrection He is begotten," ad id quod ante tempora erat sed quod in tempore totum non erat," or that He "in spiritualem redire naturam," and "totum Deum fieri," he means to affirm a full and perfect agreement with God, so far as this is possible for man: which "consensio" he makes to consist in this, that corruptibility, mortality and infirmity give place to incorruption, immortality, power and brightness of eternal glory-which are altogether properties of Divine, not of human nature. Which properties, as every man obtains by being made partaker of the Divine Nature, so the Man Christ would have obtained them frora the moment of assumption by the Word, had not the Word, in order to the XVII. 958 but with the glory which It had, HOMIL. Word, the Word of God shall be just so great as It was, and CV. just what It was: where shall the Man be, if not lost? 4. 7. But to this opinion, which I cannot at all see to be agreeable to the Truth, there is nothing to compel us, if, when the Son saith, And now, O Father, glorify Thou Me with Thine own Self with the glory which I had, before the world was, with Thee, we understand Him to mean the predestination of the glory of the human nature which is in Him, that of mortal it should become immortal with the Father: and that by being predestined before the world was, this same thing was already done, which should also be done in the world in its own time. For if the Apostle hath said of Eph. 1, us, As He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world; why should it be thought abhorrent from the truth, that the Father should have then glorified our Head when He chose us in Him to be His members? For we were chosen in just the same way as He was glorified: because, 1 Tim. before the world was, neither we were in being, nor was the 2, 5. Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus Himself in being. But He, Who through Him, as His Word, Is. 45, both hath made the things that are future, and, calleth the things that are not as though they were: He, God the Father, doubtless did for our sakes glorify Him as man, the Mediator between God and man, if He then also chose us Rom. 8, in Him. For what saith the Apostle? But we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them 11. Rom. 4, 17. 28-30. mystery of the Dispensation, restrained be remarked, that St. Augustine in another place tacitly disallows the language of St. Hilary on a point of doctrine connected with this: comp. Hil. de Trin. ii. 35. Subjectio enim ea est, &c. with Aug. c. Serm. Arian. §. 37. Quamvis non defuerint, &c. To Origen also it has been imputed that he taught the abolition of Christ's Humanity after His Resurrection: (see Hom. in Luc. 29. c. Cels. iii. 41.) and not only this, but that after the general Resurrection all corporeal nature will come to an end: S. Jerom. Epist. 59. But the latter charge, as even Petavius allows, is unfounded (de Incarnat. xii. 18. §. 2. 3.) and Huet Origeniana ii. 2. Qu. 3. §. 27. has shewn that his language on the former point is more in fault than his doctrine. i. e. from everlasting was predestinate to have, 959 XVII. 5. who are the called according to His purpose. For whom JOHN He did foreknow, He also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the First-Born among many brethren. Moreover, whom He did predestinate, them He also called.. 8. Unless perchance we shall fear to say that He was predestinated, because the Apostle seemeth to have said this of us, only as being predestined to be conformed to His image. As if, truly, any that stedfastly looks to the rule of faith, would deny that the Son of God was predestinated, when he cannot deny that He is man! Rightly indeed is He said to be not predestinated, in regard that He is the Word of God, God with God. For to what should He be predestinated, seeing He already was what He was, without beginning, without bound, from everlasting to everlasting? Whereas there was need to predestinate that which was not yet, that it might be done in its time in that way in which it was before all times predestinated to be done. Therefore to deny that the Son of God was predestinated, is to deny that the same was Son of Man. But because of those who are contentious, let us also upon this point hear the Apostle in the very opening of his writings. For in the first of his Epistles, which is that to the Romans, and in the very beginning of that same Epistle, is this passage where we read: Paul, a Rom. 1, servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the Gospel of God, which He had promised afore by His prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning his Son Who was made unto Him of the seed of David according to the flesh; Who was predestinated the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of sanctification, by the resurrection from the dead. In respect therefore of this predestination He was also glorified before the world was, that His glory should be by the resurrection from the dead, with the Father, at Whose right hand He sitteth. When therefore He saw that the time of that His predestined glorifying was now come, that now that should be done in accomplishment which in predestination was already done, He prayed, saying, And now glorify Thou Me, Father, with Thine own self, with the glory which I had with Thee, before the world was: as if He had said, The glory which I had with Thee, i. e. that 1-4. CV. 960 viz. that It should be immortal with the Father. HOMIL. glory which I had with Thee in Thy predestination, the time is come that I should also have with Thee, living at Thy right hand. But since the discussion of this question has held us long, the sequel must be handled in another dis course. HOMILY CVI. JOHN Xvii. 6—8. I have manifested Thy name unto the men which Thou gavest Me out of the world: Thine they were, and to Me Thou gavest them; and they have kept Thy word. Now they have known that all things whatsoever Thou hast given Me are of Thee. For I have given unto them the words which Thou gavest Me; and they have received them, and have known verily that I came out from Thee, and they have believed that Thou didst send Me. 1. In the present discourse we are to reason concerning the words of the Lord, as He shall enable us : which are these; I have manifested Thy Name unto the men which Thou gavest v. 6. Me out of the world. Now if He saith this only of these disciples with whom He has supped, and to whom, before He began to pray, He has spoken so many words: this does not come up to that glorifying (for such is the meaning of the word clarificatio, for which other interpreters have glorificatio) of which He spake above, wherewith the Son glorifies (clarificat or glorificat) the Father. For how great glory is it, or what sort of glory, to have become known to twelve or rather eleven mortals? But if in saying, I have manifested Thy name to the men which Thou gavest Me out of the world, He meant all, even those who should afterwards believe in Him, all that pertain to His great Church which was to be gathered from all nations, of which we sing in the Psalm, In the great Church I will confess unto Thee, P. 35, plainly this is a glorifying meet for the Son to glorify the Father 18. |