תמונות בעמוד
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors]

are more excelled by the Father, than he and the Holy Spirit excel other things, &c., and he, though excelling such and such great things (viz. thrones, principalities, and powers) in essence and office, and power and godhead, (for he is λογος εμψυχος and wisdom,) is by no means to be compared with the Father.” * Speaking of the difference between the prepositions òia and Úto, the former denoting instrumentalily, and the latter proper causality, he says, “ If all things were made (δια) by the logos, (that is, as the instrument,) they were not made by (υπο) the logos, (that is, as the cause,) but by one who is better and greater than the logos; and who can that be but the Father ?” +

Alluding to the Unitarians, with whom, it is plain, he wished to stand on good terms, he says, “ We may by this means solve the doubts which terrify many men, who pretend to great piety, and who are afraid of making two Gods, and through this, fall into vain and impious opinions ; denying that the nature of the Son is different from that of the Father, and who acknowledge that he is God in name only; or denying the divinity of the Son, and then maintaining that his nature and essence is different from that of the Father. . For we must tell them, that he who is God of himself, is God with the article ; but that all who are not God of themselves, who are divine by becoming partakers of his divinity, are God without the article, and severally, among whom especially is the first-born of all the creatures.”

The article, he says, is added when the word God signifies

και παρά

Ου συγκρισει, αλλ' υπερβαλλεση υπεροχη φαμεν τον σωληρα, και το πνευμα το άγιον, υπερεχομενον τοσελον η και πλεον απο το πατρος, όσο υπερεχει αυτος και το άγιον πνευμα των λοιπων, ου των τυχονίων. Αλλ' όμως των τοσαύλων και τηλικο/ων υπερεχων 8σια, και πρεσβεια, και δυναμει, και θειοληθι, (εμψυχος γαρ εςι λογος και σοφια,) ου συγκρινεται κατ' eδεν το παίρι. Comment. ΙΙ. p. 218. (Ρ.)

+ Ουτω τοινυν και ενθαδε ει σανία δια το λογο εγενετο, εχ υπο το λογα εγενετο, αλλ' υπο κρειτίoνος και μειζον Ο. παρα τον λογον τις δ' αν αλλο» όταν τυγχανη η ο πατηρ και Jo Johan, Comment. Il. p. 58. (P.) 1 Και το πολλες φιλοθεος ειναι ευχομενες ταρασσον, ευλαβαμενες δυο

αναγορευσαι θεος, τalo

σεριπιπιονίας ψευδεσι και ασεβεσι δογμασιν, ητοι αρνεμενες ιδιοτηλα μια ετεραν παρα την το παίρος, ομολογωντας θεον ειναι τον μεχρι ονοματος παρ' αυτοις υιον προσαγορευομενον η αρνεμενες την θεοληλα τα υιε, τιθενίας δε αυτε την ιδιοτηλα, και την 8σιαν κατα περιγραφην τυγχανεσαν ετεραν τα παιρος, εντευθεν λυεσθαι δυναται λεκτέον γαρ αυτοις ότι τοτε μεν αυτοθεος ο Θεος εςι, διοπερ και ο σωτηρ φησιν εν τη προς τον πατερα ευχη: ένα γινωσκωσι σε τον μονον αληθινον θεον" σαν δε το παρα το αυλο Θεος μειοχη της εκεινε θεοτητος θεοποιεμενον, εχ ο Θεος, αλλα Θεος κυριωτερον αν λεγοιτο, ων παντως ο πρωτοτοκος πασης κτισεως, ατε πρωτος τω προς τον θεον ειναι. Comment. II. p. 47.

It is evident from this passage that the ancient Unitarians would say, that if Christ be God it is only in name, and that his divinity is the same with that of the Fatber; or else that he has no divinity at all, and is of a nature entirely different from the Father. (Ρ.)

[ocr errors]

the unbegotten cause of all things. * This observation of Origen will be seen to have been borrowed from Philo, and it is void of all foundation. +

The writer of a book ascribed to Origen, expresses his opinion of the inferiority of the Son to the Father in a peculiarly strong manner, when he speaks of the propriety of praying to the Father only. For he represents it as the custom of Christians not to pray to any other than “ the principal God; not to his servants the prophets, or to Christ, or to the apostles. I

Origen speaks of " no Christian praying to any other than the God who is over all, by our Saviour, the Son of God, who is the logos, the wisdom, and the truth.” S “If we know," says he, “ what prayer is, we must not pray to any

* Τιθησι μεν γαρ το αρθρον, ότε η Θεος ονομασια επι τα αγεννητα τασσεται των όλων aitie. Orig. in Johan. II. p. 46. '(P.)

+ " If it be supposed that the meaning of the observation referred to is, that JEG without the article never signifies the one true God, it is indeed without all foundation, and is contradicted by such a multitude of instances, both in the Old and New Testament, that for this very reason I should be almost ready to conclude, that neither Philo, who must have been well acquainted with the language of one Testament, or Origen, or Eusebius, (for he makes the same remark,) who must have known the style of both Testaments, could ever intend to assert it. But if the design of the observation was only this, (though I allow that if no more was meant, it is very inaccurately expressed,) that though @ Q denotes the one true God, do without the article may, not must, have a different signification, I should think it is not wholly without ground.

“ The case appears to me to be this : '00€, especially when made the subject of a proposition, denotes some particular person, who is pointed out by that title; and when it is used absolutely, and without restriction, denotes him to whom the appellation super-eminently, or in that high sense, exclusively belongs. without the article, on the other hand, may, I repeat the distinction, not must, denote not so directly a person as a general description, and represent properly only dignity, power, and pre-eminence. Deut. xxxii

. 21: Auto Wapendwo ay le et ου θεω, καγω παραζηλωσω αυτες επ' εκ εθνει. 2 Kings xix. 18: “Οτι ου θεοι εισιν, αλλ' η εργα χειρων ανθρωπων. . Acts xix. 26: Λεγων ότι 8κ εισι θεοι οι δια χειρων γινομενοι, in which, and in other really parallel places, the addition of the article would, I conceive, be either disagreeable to the genius of the Greek language, or else vary the sense considerably; and this, I ani apt to think, is the real use which some comparatively modern writers in this controversy designed to make of this distinction; not that when it is said nau Of My hoy@y, the word cannot, merely on account of the omission of the article, mean the same with é Od just before mentioned; but that there is no necessity that it should be thus understood, and consequently that it is no conclusive proof against their system. If any have carried this observation farther, they have done it without sufficient reason, and Philo's application of it in the passage cited from him, (supra, pp. 191, 192,) has nothing of real support to it in the words that gave occasion to his remark." (X.)

1 Ιν' ως πρωτον προσεκυνηθη θεος ο σερ τω καθ' ημας θεραποντι και τους προφήταις και το αληρωματι νομα Χριση και τους απος ολους αυτ8, 8κ εςι παριον. Contra Marcionitas, p. 212. P. σωτηρος ημων υιε δια τα Θεο: ος εςιν λογος, και σοφια, και αληθεια, και όσα αλλα λεγεσι περι αυτο αι των προφητων τα Θε8 και των απος ολων το Ιησε γραφαι. Ad Celsum, L. V. p. 233. (P.)

Οκ κατι αλλο θαρρειν ευχεσθαι, η τρ προς παντα διαρκει επι πασι θερ, δια το

created being, not to Christ himself, but only to God the Father of all, to whom our Saviour himself prayed."* " We are not to pray to a brother, who has the same common Father with ourselves ; Jesus himself saying, that we must pray to the Father through him.-In this we are all agreed, and are not divided about the method of prayer; but should we not be divided, if some prayed to the Fa. ther, and some to the Son ? Common people,” he says, “ through a great mistake, and want of distinguishing, prayed to the Son either with the Father, or without the Father.”+

Here I cannot help repeating what I observed before, that, if Christ had been conceived to be what Origen, among others, supposed him to have been, viz. the operative faculties of the Father, and the very being who made the world, and who governed it, he could not but have been considered as the proper object of prayer, even in preference to the Father himself; because, on that principle, we should have had more to do with the Son than with the Father, being more immediately dependent upon him ; so that it could not have given any umbrage to the Father, if all our addresses had been made to the Son. The same reason, whatever it was, that made it proper for Christ to make and govern the world, in preference to the Father, would make it equally proper that he should be the object of prayer in preference to the Father ; since, therefore, it is acknowledged that, in early times, Christ was not the object of prayer, even to those who believed him to be their creator and governor, we may be assured that he was not generally considered in that light; and especially that he had not been so considered from the beginning; for then a different practice would necessarily have been established.

In the next place, I shall produce some passages from Novatian, whose orthodoxy, with respect to the doctrine of the Trinity, was never questioned. He says, « The Father only is the only good God.” " The rule of truth teaches

Kων δε ακρωμεν ότι ποτε εςι προσευχη, μηποτε εδενι των γεννητων προσευκτεον εςιν εδε αυτο το Χριση αλλα μονο το Θεο των όλων και παίρι, ω και αυτος ο σωτηρ ημων wspoonuxero as a pot apartemeta. De Oratione, p. 48. (P.)

+ Αδελφο δε προσευχεσθαι της καληξιωμενες ενος αυθε παίρος 8κ εςιν ευλογον μονο γαρ το παρε μετ' εμε και δι' εμε αναπεμπλεον εςιν υμιν προσευχην ταυτ' ουν λεγον7ου ακ8ονίες Ιησε, τω Θεω δι' αυτε ευχωμεθα, το αυθο λεγονλες σανίες, μηδε περι τε τροπα της ευχης σχιζομενοι” η εχι σχιζομεθα, εαν οι μεν το παίρι, οι δε τω υιο ευχωμεθα; ιδιωων αμαρλιαν κατα πολλην ακεραιοληλα δια το αβασανιζον και ανεξείαςον αμαριανονίων των προσευχομενων το υιω, ειλε μεία τα παίρος, ειλε χωρις το παιρας. Ιbid. p 51. (P.)

1“Quem solum merito bonum pronunciat Dominus."* C. iv. p. 11. (P.)

++

[ocr errors]

us to believe, after the Father, in the Son of God, Christ Jesus, our Lord God, but the Son of God, of that God who is one and alone, the maker of all things. Though he was in the form of God, he did not attempt the robbery of being equal with God. For, though he knew that he was God of God the Father, he never compared himself with God the Father ; remembering that he was of the Father, and that he had what the Father gave him.” † “ The Son is less than the Father, because he is sanctified by him." I “ God the Father is the maker and creator of all, who alone has no origin, invisible, inmense, immortal, eternal, the one God, to whose greatness, majesty, and power, nothing can be preferred or compared.” . If Christ had been uncreated, and likewise unbegotten, there would have been two unbegotten, and therefore two gods." || 6. The Son does nothing of his own pleasure, nor does he coine of himself; but in all things obeys his Father's commands." Alluding to the Sabellians, he says, that

very many of the heretics, being moved with the greatness and truth of his divinity, extending his honours too far, have dared to advance that he is not the Son, but God the Father himself.” ** This, he says, afterwards is to acknowledge the divinity of Christ in too boundless and unrestrained a manner. tt

Arnobius says, that “the omnipotent, and only God, sent Christ.”" And again, “ Christ, a God, spake by the order of the principal God." +

• " Eadem regula veritatis docet nos credere post patrem etiam in filium Dei, Christum Jesum dominum Deum nostrum, sed Dei filium, hujus Dei qui et unus et solus est, conditor scilicet rerum omnium." C. ix. p. 26. (P.)

t“ Hic ergo quamvis esset in forma Dei, non est rapinam arbitratus æqualem se Deo esse. Quamvis enim se ex Deo patre Deum esse meminisset; nunquam se Deo patri aut comparavit aut contulit, memor se esse ex suo patre, et hoc ipsum quod est habere se, quia pater dedisset. C. xxii. p. 84. (P.)

1 “ Dum ergo accipit sanctificationem à Patre, minor Patre est." C. xxvii. p. 102. (P.)

$ “ Est ergo Deus pater omnium institutor et creator, solus originem nesciens, invisibilis, immeusus, immortalis, æternus, unus Deus, cujus neque magnitudini neque majestati neque virtuti quicquam non dixerim præferri, sed nec comparari potest." C. xxxi. p. 119. (P.)

11 "Si enim natus non fuisset ; innatus comparatus cum eo qui esset innatus, æquatione in utroque ostensa, duos faceret innatos, et ideo duos faceret deos: si non genitus esset; collatus cum eo qui genitus non esset, et æquales inventi, duos deos merito reddidissent non geniti : atque ideo duos Christus reddidisset deos." Ibid. p. 122. (P.)

q - Filius autem nihil ex arbitrio suo gerit, nec ex consilio suo facit, need se venit, sed imperiis paternis omnibus et præceptis obedit." Ibid. p. 123. (P.)

** “ Usque adeo hunc manifestum est in scripturis esse Deum tradi, ut plerique hæreticorum, divinitatis ipsius magnitudine et veritate commoti, ultra modum extendentes honores ejus, ausissent non Filium, sed ipsum Deum patrem promere vel putare." C. xxiii. p. 87. (P.)

tt “Effrenatius et effusius in Christo divinitatem confiteri." Ibid. (P.)

“ The Son,” says Lactantius, “ patiently obeys the will of the Father, and does nothing but what the Father wills or orders.” “ He approved his fidelity to God; for he taught that there is one God, and that he only ought to be worshipped; nor did he ever say that he was God. For he would not have preserved his allegiance, if, being sent to take away a multiplicity of gods, and to preach one God, he had brought in another, besides that one. This would not have been to be the herald of one God, or him who sent him, but have been doing his own business, and separating himself from him whom he came to honour. Wherefore, because he was so faithful, because he assumed nothing to himself, that he might fulfil the commands of him who sent him, he received the dignity of perpetual priest, the honour of supreme king, the power of a judge, and the title of God.”ş

The same language was held by Eusebius, who wrote about the time of the Council of Nice.

“ Christ,” he says, “ the only-begotten Son of God, and the first-born of every creature, teaches us to call his Father the only true God, and commands us to worship him only."||

- There is one God, and the only-begotten comes out of him.”[ " Christ being neither the supreme God, nor an angel, is of a middle pature between them; and being neither the supreme God, ñor a man, but the mediator, is in the middle between them, the only-begotten Son of God." ** He has the same senti

* “ Tum demum emiserit Christum, Deus omnipotens, Deus solus." L. ii. p. 57. (P.)

“ Deus inquam Christus (hoc enim sæpe dicendum est ut infidelium dissiliat et dirumpatur auditus) Dei principis jussione loquens.” Ibid. p. 50. (P.)

1 “Quia voluntati Patris fideliter paret, nec unquam faciat aut fecerit, nisi quod Pater aut voluit, aut jussit." L. iv. Sect. xxxix. p. 447. (P.)

$ “ Ille vero exhibuit Deo fidem. Docuit enim quod unus Deus sit, eumque solum coli oportere: nec unquam se ipse Deum dixit: quia non servasset fidem; si missus, ut-deos tolleret, et unum assereret; induceret alium, præter unum. Hoc erat, non de uno facere præconium ; nec ejus, qui miserat, sed suum proprium negotium gerere; ac se ab eo, quem illustratum venerat, separare. Propterea quia tam fidclis extitit, quia sibi nihil prorsus assumpsit, ut mandata mittentis impleret; et sacerdotis perpetui dignitatem, et regis summi honorem, et judicis potestatem, et Dei nomen accepit." L. iv. Sect. xiv. p. 895. (P.)

Οτι και αυτος ο μονογενης του Θεα και πρωλολοκος των όλων η πανίων αρχη, τον αυτα πατερα μονον ηγεισθαι Θεον αληθη, και μονον σεβειν ημιν παρακελευελαι. Preparatio, L. vii. Č. xv. p. 327. (P.)

Η Διο δη και μονος Θεος αυτος μονογενης δ' εξ αυ7α προεισιν. De Laudibus Const. p. 752. (P.)

* * “Ωςε μη/ε αυλον ειναι τον επι πανίων Θεον ηγεισθαι, μηδε των αγελων ενα τελων δε μεσον και μεσιτην δει το ταίρι και αγΓελοις μεσιλευει, ώς αν σαλιν, δίε μεσιλης γινεται Θεου και ανθρωπων, μεσος ων εκαλερο ταγμαίος ουδεθερος εςιν, μεσιλης υπαρχων" ουτ' αυλος VOL. VI.

2 H

« הקודםהמשך »