תמונות בעמוד
PDF
ePub

66

liar hypostasis of its own. It was only the hypostasis of Christ.” *

“ What God has joined,” says Fulgentius, “ let not man put asunder. Wherefore,” he says, "not that the body of Jesus, but that Jesus was laid in the sepulchre ; for he knew that the God who assumed the whole man was wholly with his flesh in the sepulchre, wholly with his soul in hell,” &c.t

This, however, was a refinement of later ages, for originally it was supposed that the logos, as well as the soul, quitted the body at its death. This is expressly said by Eusebius. I

As the soul and the body of Christ retained their separate properties, the divine logos was also supposed to retain all its peculiar and extraordinary powers, and its former functions, so as to lose nothing of its omnipresence, and its active power in supporting the world.

Let us not,” says Origen, say

in our hearts that Christ is contained in any place, and is not every where, and diffused through all things; for when he was on earth, he said that he was in heaven.” At the very time," says Eusebius," that Christ was conversing on earth, he filled all things, and was with the Father, and administered the affairs of the universe, things in heaven and things on earth." || “He is a crying infant, says Hilary, “ and yet in heaven; he increases in wisdom, and is the God of fulness.” I

* “ Quamvis igitur Christus, ut homo, mortem obierit, sanctaque ipsius anima ab immaculato corpore distracta sit: divinitas tamen à neutro, hoc est nec ab anima, Rec à corpore, quoquo modo sejuncta est : neque propterea persona una in duas personas divisa est. Si quidem et corpus, et anima, ab initio in verbi persona eodem momento extiterunt: ac licet in morte div ulsa fuerint, utrumque tamen eorum unam verbi hypostasim perpetuo habuit. Quamobrem una eademque verbi hypostasis tum verbi, tum animæ, tum corporis hypostasis erat. Neque enim unquam, aut aniina, aut corpus, peculiarem atque à verbi hypostasi diversam hypostasim habuit: verum una semper fuit verbi hypostasis, ac nunquam duæ. Ac proinde una quoque semper Christi hypostasis fuit." Orthod. Fid. L. iii. C. xxvii. Opera, p. 430. (P.)

† “ Et quia quod Deus conjunxit, homo non separat, propterea non corpus Jesu, sed Jesum dicit in monumento positum: sciebat enim quod ille susceptor pleni honiinis Deus, totus esset cum carne sua in sepulchro, totus cum anima sua in inferno, totus in mundo, totus in cælo, totus in unitatenaturæ in patre, de quo exivit, totus per omnipotentiam divinitatis suæ in tota creatura quam fecit.” Ad Trasimundum, L. iii. C. xxv. p. 474. (P.)

1 “Ο των όλων ζωοποιόν τε Θες λογος-το μεν σωμα προς βραχυ καταλιπων. De Laudibus Const. Sect. xv. p. 764. (P.)

$ “ Ne scilicit dicamus in corde nostro et putemus quod Christus in aliquo continetur, et non ubique est, ac per omnia ipse diffunditur; quippe qui, cum esset in terris, dicebat quia esset et in cælo." In Rom. Opera, II. p. 585. (P.)

| Αλλα γαρ και εν τω τοτε καθ' ον εν ανθρωποις επολιτευετο, τα παντα επληρο, και τα ταίρι συνην και εν αυτω γε ην, και των παντων αθροως εν τω το7ε, των τε κατ' ερανον και TWV ETTU YS ET EVENETO. De Laudibus Const. p. 761. (P.)

q“ Vagit infans, sed in cælo est; puer crescit, sed plenitudinis Deus permanet.”

D. Trinitate. L. X. p. 960.

(P.)

[ocr errors]

“ He was not,” says Athanasius, “ circumscribed by the body, nor was he so in the body, as not to be every where. Nor did he so actuate the body, as that other things were deprived of his providential care. But what is wonderful, being the logos, he was not contained by any thing, but rather himself contained every thing."*

Fulgentius represents Christ as “ wholly in the Father, as well as wholly out of him. He was wholly,” he

says,

in the virgin's womb when he was building himself a house, as we read Prov. viii. He was wholly in heaven, wholly in the world, and wholly even in hell.”ť

Here I would observe, that the opinion of Christ retaining all his divine powers while he was on earth, held by Origen, Clemens Alexandrinus, and all the ancients, is a proof, that in their opinion, the logos was no created spirit, or any principle that could be confined in its operations, by any circumstances in which it could be placed. Otherwise, as they found that, when Christ was upon earth, he applied to his Father upon all occasions, they would have more naturally thought that his own proper powers were sus. pended; and that the function which he had before discharged was for a time discontinued, or transferred to some other, which seems to be the opinion of all the modern Arians, and certainly best agrees with their principles. For what occasion had Christ to apply to his Father, to enable him to do nothing more than his own natural powers could have performed, if those powers had been at liberty, and if he had continued to have the full use of them? We never think of praying to God for power to move our hands or feet, whenever we have occasion to make use of them, though we daily thank God for having given us that power. We know and feel that it is a power at the command of our own will, and therefore we look no farther than to ourselves for the immediate exercise of it. The same would necessarily have been the case with Christ, if he had cured diseases, and raised the dead, by a power as properly his own, and as much at his command, as that by which we move our

* Ου γαρ περικεκλεισμενος ην εν τω σωμαλι εδε εν σωμαλι μεν ην, αλλαχοσε δε ουκ ην, εδε εκεινο μεν εκινει" αλλα δε της αυλα προνοιας εςερει7ο αλλα το παραδοξολαίον, λογος ων, ου συνειχείο μεν υπο τινος, συνειχε δε τα παντα μαλλον αυτος. De Incarnatione, Opera, I. p. 69. (P.)

† “ Neque enim pars ejus remansit in patre, et pars ejus descendit in virginem, cum totus in patre maneret quod erat, et totus in virgine fieret, quod non erat; totus cum patre totum implens et continens mundum, totus sibi in utero virginis ædificans domum ; scriptum est enim, sapientia ædificavit sibi domum ; totus in patre sempiterno, totus in homine suscepto, totus in cælo, totus in mundo, totus tiam in inferno." Ad Trusimundum, L. iij. C. viii. p. 468. (P.)

limbs. His praying to the Father, therefore, and the miracles that he wrought being ascribed to the Father, who only, as he said, did these works, is a proof that, while he was on earth, he had not the power of doing them himself. Yet, contrary to the plainest evidence, all the ancient fathers supposed that Christ then had that power, and they made his exertion of it a proof of his divinity.

SECTION II. of the Ignorance of Christ concerning the Day of Judgment.

A PECULIARLY difficult question occurs with respect to the union of the divine nature of Christ to his human soul; for as both were capable of knowledge, it might be supposed that whatever was known to the one must also have been known to the other, if there was any proper union between them. This consequence was so natural, that it would, I doubt not, have been maintained, if it had not been said, (Luke ii. 52,) that “ Jesus increased in wisdom," and our Lord had not so expressly said, that he did not know the time of the day of judgment.

With respect to the former, it seems to have been allowed, that the human soul of Christ acquired knowledge gradually, as other human souls do. But sometimes the fathers shew a confusion of ideas on the subject. Origen, who believed the pre-existence of all souls, but that they had lost all their attainments in their prior state, seems to have thought the same of the soul of Christ. “ Jesus,” he says, “ not yet a man, because he had emptied himself, advanced (in wisdom). For no one who is perfect can make advances, but we who stand in need of improvement.” * In this Origen could not mean the logos, because he supposed that to be omniscient, and even omnipresent, while it was connected with Christ on earth.

Afterwards, it was generally thought that even the soul of Christ knew every thing, in consequence of its union to the logos, and that Christ's knowledge shewing itself more and more was all that was meant by his increasing in wisdom. This is expressed by Nicephorus.f

Ιησες ουκ ανηρ γενομενος, αλλ' ετι παιδιον ων, επει εκενωσεν εαυτον, προεκοπτεν εδεις προκοπτει τελελειωμενος, αλλα προκοπίει δεομενος προκοπης. In Jerom. Ηom i. Comment. I. p. 57. (P.)

+ Ιησες δε προεκοπίε σοφια και χαριλι, το κατα μικρον αυτα παραδεικνυσθαι, ου το

[ocr errors]

couco

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

As Christ expressly says, that he did not know the day of judgment, * he certainly either was, or pretended to be, ignorant of something which, at least in his divine nature, he must have known. Here, then, is a question worthy of an Apollo to answer; and it may be amusing to observe what different solutions have been given of this difficulty.

Irenæus evidently supposed, that the time of the day of judgment was altogether unknown to the Son, and he advises us to acquiesce in our ignorance of many things, after his example.”+ “ If any one," says he, “ asks his reason why the Father, who communicates every thing to the Son, is alone said to know the day and the hour of the future judgment, no better reason can be given but that we may learn of our Lord himself, that the Father is above all; for he said, The Father is greater than I.”

This being the earliest account that we have of any interpretation of this text, is a most unfavourable circumstance to the orthodox. It looks as if, at that time, whatever might be pretended concerning the super-human nature of Christ, the general opinion was, that he was wholly ignorant of the time of the future judgment. The fact must have been, that the doctrine of the divine logos in Christ was not received by the generality of Christians, and though adopted by the philosophers among them, had not been pursued to its proper consequences. Otherwise, it could not but have been applied to this case, as well as to many others, which in due time it was.

The next interpretation of this passage that I have met with, is that of Origen; and he did not hesitate to pronounce that Christ certainly did know what he professed not to know. “ Christ,” says he,“ being the truth, cannot be ignorant of any thing that is true.” “ Have ye understood all these things ?” He did not ask this question because he was ignorant, but having assumed human nature, he did

* Mark xiij. 32. See Vol. XIII. p. 298.

+ “ Irrationabiliter autem inflati, audaciter inenarrabilia Dei mysteria scire vos dicitis: quandoquidem et dominus, ipse filius Dei, ipsum judicii diem et horam concessit scire solum patrem, manifeste dicens: De die autem illa, et hora nemo scit neque filius, nisi pater solus. Si igitur scientiam diei illius filius non erubuit referre ad patrem, sed dixit quod verum est; neque nos erubescimus, quæ sunt in questionibus majora secundum nos, reservare Deo.” L. i. C. xlviii. p. 176. (P.)

* “ Et enim si quis exquirat causam, propter quam in omnibus pater communicans filio, solus scire horam et diem à domino manifestatus est ; neque aptabilem magis neque decentiorem, nec sine periculo alteram quam hanc inveniat in præsenti (quoniam enim solus verax magister est dominus) ut discamus per ipsum, super omnia esse patrem. Et enim Pater, ait, major me est.” L. ii. C. xlix. p. 178. (P.) και Επιςαλεον αυτον εκ τ8 αληθειαν ειναι τον σωληρα, και προς ακλεον οτι ει ολοκληρος εςιν

Comment In

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

he says,

every thing that belongs to man, one of which is to ask questions. This implies that even the human soul of Christ was acquainted with every thing, but that he feigned ignorance; and this we find to have been a pretty common interpretation. According to Hilary, “ Christ knew the time of the future judgment, but pretended ignorance, because it was not time to discover it.”+ In another place,

6. The Son is said not to know the day of judgment, because he does not speak of it, and that the Father only knows it, because he only speaks of it to him." I

Didymus of Alexandria says, that “ignorance of the day of judgment is ascribed to Christ, as forgetfulness, repentance, &c., are ascribed to God, viz. for the sake of the hearers.” If God,” says Cyril of Alexandria, “ affected ignorance of where Adam was, and of what Cain had done, why should we wonder that the Son of God affected ignorance concerning the day of judgment?” Adding, that “Christ also affected ignorance, when he asked how many loaves his disciples had." || Theophylact says, that “ Christ pretended not to know the day of judgment, to put an end to his disciples' teasing him; as fathers, when they see their children crying for a thing which they do not choose to give them, will hide it, and then shew their hands emply, as if they had it not."

• “ Non igvarus interrogat, sed quoniam semel assumpserat hominem, utitur omnibus quæ sunt hominis; quorum unum illud est interrogare." Opera, II. p. 11. (P.)

+ “In omnibus enim quæ ignorare se Deus loquitur, ignorantiam quidem profi. tetur, sed ignoratione tamen non detinetur; dum id quod nescit, nou nesciendi infirmitas est, sed aut tempus est non loquendi, aut dispensatio est non agendi.” L. ix. p. 226. (P.)

1 “ Filius itaque diem idcirco quia tacet nescit, et patrem solum idcirco scire ait quia solus uni sibi uon tacet." Ibid. p. 231. (P.)

§ “ Sicut enim cum Deus solus sit sapiens et scientiam habeat omnium, oblivio passibilis et penitentia aut aliquid bujusniodi in eo nequaquam existit, cum utique de eo dispensa vitæ dicantur. Ita ergo sapientia et veritate Dei ignorantiam non recipiente, propter quandam utilitatem horum, et diem judicii dicitur ignorare, quorum singula aperte monstrabuntur, cum de his fuerit dicendi propositum." In Johan. C. 1.; Bib. Pat. VI. p. 653. (P.)

11 “ Sed respondeant quæso, quando Deus in paradiso Adam patrem nostrum vocabat dicens: Adam, Adam, ubi es ? et quando Caiu interrogabat: Ubi est Abel frater tuus ? quid dicent? nam si ignorantem Deum interrogasse affirmabunt, manifesta impietate tenebuntur; sin autem dispensationis modo quodam sic interrogasse Deum dicent, cur mirantur si Filius quoque Dei, per quem etiam tunc facta interrogatio est, utiliter dispensans ignorare se dicit horam illam ut homo, quamvis universa sciat ut sapientia patris ? Quod autem dispensative solebat ignorantiam sibi attribuere salvator, manifeste ab ipso evangelista in alio loco dicitur. Nam quando miraculose multiplicatis panibus sequentes se voluit alere, ut ignorans interrogabat: Quot panes habetis ?" Thesaurus, L. ix. C. iv., Opera, II. p. 292. (P.)

Νυν δε, σοφωλερον μελαχειριζελαι, και απειργει αυτες ολως το ζηλειν μαθεις και ενοχλειν αυτω, εν τω ειπειν οτι ετε οι αγΓελοι, ετε εγω οιδα απο δε παραδειγματος τινος, νοησεις το

« הקודםהמשך »