|
<.]
[Footnote 746: See the remarks on the saying: "The Father is greater
than I," in Joh. XIII. 25, Lomm. II., p. 45 sq. and other passages. Here
Origen shows that he considers the homoousia of the Son and the Father
just as relative as the unchangeability of the Son.]
[Footnote 747: [Greek: Peri archon] II. 2. 6 has been corrupted by
Rufinus; see Jerome ep. ad Avitum.]
[Footnote 748: See [Greek: Peri archon] I. 2. 13 (see above, p. 354,
note 3).]
[Footnote 749: Athanasius supplemented this by determining the essence
of the Logos from the redeeming work of Christ.]
[Footnote 750: See [Greek: peri archon] praef. and in addition to this
Hermas' view of the Spirit.]
[Footnote 751: [Greek: Peri archon] I. 3. The Holy Spirit is eternal, is
ever being breathed out, but is to be termed a creature. See also in
Job. II. 6, Lomm. I., p. 109 sq.: [Greek: to hagion pneuma dia tou logou
egeneto, presbuterou] (logically) [Greek: par' auto tou logou
tugchanontos]. Yet Origen is not so confident here as in his Logos
doctrine.]
[Footnote 752: See [Greek: peri archon] I. 3, 5-8. Hence Origen says the
heathen had known the Father and Son, but not the Holy Spirit (de
princip. I. 3: II. 7).]
[Footnote 753: L.c. Sec. 7.]
[Footnote 754: See Hom. in Num. XII. I, Lomm. X, p. 127: "Est haec trium
distinctio personarum in patre et filio et spiritu sancto, quae ad
pluralem puteorum numerum revocatur. Sed horum puteorum unum est fons.
Una enim substantia est et natura trinitatis."]
[Footnote 755: [Greek: Peri archon] praef.]
[Footnote 756: From Hermas, Justin, and Athenagoras we learn how, in the
2nd century, both in the belief of uneducated lay-Christians and of the
Apologists, Son, Spirit, Logos, and angels under certain circumstances
shaded off into one another. To Clement, no doubt, Logos and Spirit are
the only unchangeable beings besides God. But, inasmuch as there is a
series which descends from God to men living in the flesh, there cannot
fail to be elements of affinity between Logos and Spirit on the one hand
and the highest angels on the other, all of whom indeed have the
capacity and need of development. Hence they have certain names and
predicates in common, and it frequently remains uncertain, especially as
regards the theophanies in the Old Testament, whether it was a high
angel that spoke, or the Son through the angel. See the full discussion
in Zahn, Forsc]]>
|