תמונות בעמוד
PDF
ePub

from what Chrysostom says, with some degree of pleasantry. “ The Arians suffering shipwreck, lost both the glory of Christ, and the power of the Holy Spirit: the Macedonians, striving to escape, lost half their lading.”.

The great weight of the opposition to the doctrine of the divinity of the Holy Spirit was in Asia Minor, where it was encountered by Basil, and the two Gregories; but it was so violent that it amounted to a kind of persecution. Nothing gives so much alarm to the people, as a change in the public offices in religion; and Basil seems to have given occasion to the violent outcry against him by singing glory to the Holy Spirit as well as to the Father and the Son. He speaks of his being persecuted on this account, in his treatise on the Holy Spirit. † He speaks of the doctrine about the Holy Spirit as what interested all people. I He represents it as a subject of universal discussion, even by women and eunuchs, by whom he was beset, assuming the character of judges, and not of learners.” S In another place, he complains of persons “ teasing him with questions about the Holy Spirit, not with any view to information, but that if his answers should not please them, they might have a handle to make war against him."|| He speaks of the zeal of his opponents in the strongest They would sooner,” he says,

“ cut out their tongues than say Glory to the Holy Spirit. This is the cause of the most violent and irreconcileable war with us. They say that glory is to be given to God in the Holy Spirit, not to the Holy Spirit; and they obstinately adhere to this language concerning the Spirit, as expressing a low opinion of him.” " When I was lately praying before the people, and sometimes concluding with the doxology to the Father, with the Son and Holy Spirit, and sometimes through the Son in the Holy Spirit, some who were present said, that I used phrases which were not only new, but contradictory.”* He says that « he was accused of novelty, and as an inventor of new phrases, and that they spared no kind of reproach, because he made the Son equal to the Father, and did not separate the Holy Spirit from the Son;t on which account,” he says, “ he applied to himself our Saviour's saying, Blessed are ye when men reproach you,&c. † And speaking of his own resolution, he says, “ We must obey God rather than man."$ These circumstances clearly shew that the great mass of the people exceedingly disliked the doctrine for which Basil contended. The same state of things appears also from the writings of Gregory Nazianzen, who says, « The heretics say, “Who ever worshipped the Spirit, either of the ancients or moderns ?!”||

terms,

“Οι Αρειανοι ναυαγησανίες, απωλεσαν και Χριςου δοξαν και άγιο πνευμαλος δυναμιν Μακεδονιανοι φιλονεικέσι μεν αναβηναι, το δε ήμισυ το φορλια απωλεσαν. De Spiritu Sancto, Opera, VI. p. 220. (P.)

+ C. xxvi. Opera, 11. p. 361. (P.)

1 Πασα γαρ ακοη νυν προς την ακροασιν των λογων των περι τα άγιο πνευματος ampetssal. Hom. xxvii. Opera, I. p. 522. (P.)

5 Επειδη δε περιεςηκατε ήμας, δικαςαι μαλλον η μαθηται, ήμας δοκιμασαι βελομενοι, GUK AUTOL TI NABELY ETISexles. lbid. pp. 523, 526. (P.)

| Αλλ' οπως εαν μη συμβαινεσας τη εαυτων επιθυμια τας αποκρισεις ευρωσι, ταυτην αφορμης δικαιαν εχειν δοξωσι τα πολεμε. De Spiritu Sancto, Opera, I. p. 292. (Ρ.)

Ο Αλλα τας γλωσσας αν προοινιο μαλλον η την φωνην ταυτην δεξαινθο τελο μεν ουν εςιν, , και τον ακηρυκίον ημιν και ασπονδον πολεμον επεγειρει· εν τω πνευμαίι, φησι, τα άγια την δοξολογιας αποδοθεον τω Θεώ, εχι δε και το πνευμαίι, και εκθυμολαία της φωνής ταυλης

IL:

(P)

If what Jerome and others say, I be true, that“ Donatus agreed with the Arians, with respect to the Holy Spirit,” it will be an argument of some weight in favour of the novelty of the orthodox opinion; for the Donutists were not distinguished from other Christians, with respect to the divinity of Christ.

One kind of argument used by the Macedonians, seems to have gravelled the orthodox exceedingly; as it affected the distinction between the Son and Spirit, which it has been seen they could never clearly make out; I shall recite the objection, as it is stated by Athanasius, Basil, and Didymus of Alexandria ; and it is of a nature to relieve the dryness of these discussions.

“ If the Spirit is not a creature, nor yet one of the angels, but proceeds from the Father, is he not also a son; so that he and the logos are brothers; and if he be a brother, how is the logos the only-begotten Son; and why are they not equal ? But the Son is said to be begotten atter the Father,

Προσευχομενα μοι πρωην μετα το λαό, και αμφοτερως την δοξολογιαν αποπληρoνι τα Θεα και πατρι, νυν μεν μετα το υια συν τω πνευμαζι τω αγιω, νυν δε δια το υιε εν αγιω πνευμαίι, επεσκηψαν τινες των παρονίων, ξενιζεσαις ημας φωναις κεχρησθαι λεγοντες, και άμα προς αλληλας υπεναντιως εχεσαις. De Spiritu Sancto, Opera, ΙΙ. p. 293. (Ρ.)

+ Οτι μετα πατρος αποπληρεμεν το μονογενει την δοξολογιαν, και το άγιον πνευμα μη διίσωμεν απο τα υιο· όθεν νεωθεροποιος ήμας και καινοτομες και εφευρείας ρημαλων, και τι γαρ οχι των επονειδιςων αποκαλεσιν. Ιbid. C. vi. pp. 301, 304. (Ρ.)

Η Ων τοσε7ον απεχω δυσχεραίνειν ταις λοιδοριαις, ώςε ει μη λυπην ήμιν ενεποιει και αδιαλειπον οδυνης και κατ' αυτες ζημια, μικρά αν ειπον και χαριν αυτους της βλασφημίας εχειν, ως μακαρισμε προξενους μακαριοι γαρ εςε, φησιν, όταν ονειδισωσιν υμας (και διωξωσι και ειπωσι σαν τονηρον ρημα καθ' υμων ψευδομενοι) ένεκεν εμο. -Επι τελoις το πολεμικών τελο καθ' ημων συγκεκινησαι σιφος σασαι δε πολεις, και κωμαι και εσχαλιαι, σασαι πληρεις των ημετερων διαβολων. C. Χxvi. Opera, ΙΙ. p. 861. (Ρ.)

και Προς ες δικαιον την των αποστολων φωνην αποκρινασθαι, ότι πειθαρχειν Θεω δει μαλλον ηα νθρωποις. Ιbid. p. 313. (Ρ.)

Ο Αλλα τις προσεκύνησε το πνευμαίι, φησι τις ην των παλαιων, η των νεων; Or. Xxxvii. Opera, p. 599. (Ρ.)

Η « Extant ejus naulta, ad suam heresim pertinentia, et de Spiritu Sancto liber, Ariano dogmati congruens." Catalogus Scriptorum, Opera, I. p. 311. (P.)

and the Spirit is after the Son. If he be from the Father, why is he not said to be begotten, so that he is a Son, and not simply a Holy Spirit. But if the Spirit is from the Son, is not the Father the grandfather of the Holy Spirit?” *

“ The Holy Spirit, if he be God,” as the objection is stated by Basil, “ must either be begotten or unbegotten. If he be unbegotten, he is the Father ; if begotten, the Son; and if he is neither begotten nor unbegotten, he is a creature.” + “If the Holy Spirit is not created,” as the objection is stated by Didymus," he is either the brother of God the Father, and the uncle of Jesus Christ, or else he is the son of Christ, and the grandson of God the Father; or he himself is the son of God, and then Jesus Christ will not be the only-begotten Son. These,” he says, were usual topics of argument.” I. As no satisfactory answers could ever be given by the orthodox to these questions, which are calculated to set their doctrine in a very ridiculous point of light, it is no wonder that so long a space of time, aided by the authority of councils and emperors, was necessary to establish it,

One argument to prove that the Holy Spirit is a creature, was drawn from John i. 3, where it is said, that every thing was made by the logos, and without him nothing was made. But to this Ephiphanius answers, that the true reading was without him nothing was made that was made by him. § But this, besides suggesting no meaning at all, appears to have no authority besides his own.

In this controversy great stress was laid on the force of some Greek particles; as appears from Basil: As it is said, i Cor. viii. 6, there is one God, the Father, of whom (E OU) are all things; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom (ài' ou)

* Ει μη κτισμα εςι, μηδε των αγελων εις εςιν, αλλ' εκ τ8 πατρος εκπορευελαι, εκαν υιος εςι και αυλος και δυο αδελφοι εισιν αυθος τε και ο λογος και ει αδελφος εςι, πως μονογενης ο λογος, η σως ουκ ισοι, αλλ' ο μην, μετα τον πατερα γεγεννηθαι, το δε, μετα τον υιον ονομαζεται πως δε ει εκτα πατρος εςιν, ου λεγείαι και αυτο γεγεννησθαι" η ότι υιος εςιν αλλ' απλως πνευμα άγιον ει δε του υιου εςι πνευμα, θκον παππρος εν πατηρ του wVEVUSTOG. Epist. ad Serapion, Opera, I. p 189. (P.)

+ Αγεννηθον εςιν η γεννηθον ει μεν γαρ αγεννηθον, σαληρει δε γεννηθον, υιος" ει δε μηdelepov 787wx, Ktigua. 'Hom. xxvii., Opera, I. p. 524. "(P.)

“ Idcirco illud quod soleut tractare prætereo, sacrilega adversus nos audacia proclamantes. Si Spiritus Sanctus creatus bon est, aut frater est Dei Patris, aut patruus est unigeniti Jesu Christi: aut Filius Christi est, aut nepos est Dei Patris: aut ipse Filius Dei est, et jam non erit unigenitus Jesus Christus, cum alterum fratrem habeat." De Spiritu Sancto, in Jerome's Works, VI. p. 234. (P.)

και Νομιζοσι δε παραγινωσκονίες, και μη νοενες διατελλειν την αναγνωσιν τινες εν τω ειπειν παντα δι' αυτο εγενείο, και χωρις αυγα εγενείο δεν εως ωδε απολιθενlες το δηλον, υπονοιαν βλασφημιας εις το πνευμα το άγιον λαβονλες, σφαλλονlαι σερι την αναγνωσιν και τε απο το σφαλμαλος της αναγνωσεως σκαζασιν εις βλασφημιαν τρεπομενοι" η δε αναγνωσις έτως εχει σπανία δι' αυτε εγενείο και χωρις αυτε εγενελο αδεν, ο γεγονεν εν αυτώ: τετει ότι

ó

11

[ocr errors]

(P)

are all things ; and one Holy Spirit, in whom (ev (o) are all things; they (that is, the heterodox) say, that the ôi' ou and sy are proofs of a different nature; and therefore, that the Son was avouotos (unlike) to the Father.”*

Considering the violence with which this controversy was conducted, it shews great moderation in Gregory Nazianzen, to express himself so favourably concerning the Macedonians:

"We admire their lives, but do not approve their faith.” †' It is evident that Basil thought proper to yield, in some measure, to the times and the circumstances in which he found himself. That he might not exclude too great a number from communion, he advised that, without entering into nice distinctions, all those should be admitted who did not say that the Holy Spirit was a creature. #

for he says,

CHAPTER X.

Of the Doctrine of the Trinity after the Council of Nice.

AFTER the Council of Nice, we find a very different kind of orthodoxy from that which prevailed before. It was a maxim with the Antenicene writers, that the Son was inferior to the Father. They even expressed themselves, as has been seen, in the strongest manner upon this subject, and were solicitous so to do in order to remove the odium under which it is evident that the new doctrine of the divinity of Christ then lay. But as the Christian world, and especially both the philosophical and the governing part of it, began to relish this doctrine, (being one of which they were less ashamed, than of being the disciples of a mere man,) the Platonic doctrine of Christ being the logos of the Father was pursued to its just extent; and, accordingly, the Son was then pronounced to be of the same substance with the Father, and therefore equal to him in all respects.

At this, though nothing more than the natural consequence of the doctrine of Christ being the logos of the Father, many revolted; and this circumstance, among others, contributed, no doubt, to the schism of the Arians; who, firmly retaining the former doctrine of the inferiority of the Son to the Father, and yet seeing the impossibility of holding this with that of his being the proper logos of the Father, maintained that he was a created logos, or simply a superangelic spirit, created (as was then the opinion) out of nothing, but still the maker of the world under God, as had been asserted of the former logos.

“Εις Θεος και πατηρ εξ και τα παντα, και εις κυριος Ιησος Χριςος, δι' και τα παντα, και ν πνευμαιαγιον, εν και τα παντα.- -Ανομοιον δε τω εξ ου το δι' ου, ανομοιος αρα και τα шатр: & 0.5. De Spiritu Sancto, Opera, II. p. 294. (P.)

* Ων τον βιον θαυμαζονίες, ουκ επαινομεν παντη τον λογον. Οr. xliv. Opera, p. 710. (P.)

1 Επει εν πολλα Σομαλα ενοικίαι κατα τα πνευμαίος τα άγια, και πολλαι γλωσσαι ηκονηνίαι εις την καλα αυτά βλασφημιαν, αξι εμεν υμας, οσον εςιν εφ' ημιν, εις ολιγον αριθμον σεριςησαι τες βλασφημεντας, και τες μη λεγοντας κτισμα το πνεύμα το άγιον δεχεσθαι εις κοινωνια

Ep. ccii, Opera, Ill. l. 293.

(P)

The alarm given by the new doctrine of the perfect equality of the Son to the Father was the greater, as, in the Sabellian controversy, it had been incautiously asserted, not only that Christ was inferior to the Father, but even of a different substance from him ; for, as the learned Unitarians had talked of the divinity in the Father and that in the Son being the very same, their opponents had maintained, that it was quite different; and this language had been uniformly held till the rise of the Arian controversy; so that those bishops who deposed Paul of Samosata, and those who were assembled at Nice, held, in fact, quite opposite doctrines; the one saying, that the Son was not consubstantial with the Father, and the other that he was so. But at those different times they had different objects, and attended less to the propriety of their language than to contradict their opponents.

Notwithstanding the prevalence of the new doctrine, we perceive several remains of the old, viz. that of the Father being the sole fountain of Deity, which necessarily implied some kind of interiority in the Son, both at the time of the Council of Nice and afterwards. Indeed, that great principle (which strongly mnilitates against the doctrine of the equality of the Son) was never properly given up at any period; and in words it is, I believe, in general, maintained by those who are called orthodox in the present age. “ There is one God,” says Athanasius, “because there is one Father.” *

Basil also says, “ There are not two Gods, because not two Fathers.”+ And Cyril of Alexandria acknowledges, that “ when the Scriptures speak of one God, that name is to be applied to the Father only, with whom the Word was.” # But Pope Damasus, in the fourth century,

* 'Euş EOS Óti Kau waimp &us. Contra Sabell. Opera, 1. pp. 655, 656. (P.) 1.Οι δυο Θεοι, ουδε γαρ δυο πατερες. Ηom. xxvii. Opera, I. p. 521. (Ρ.)

1. “ Quare quum unum Deum prædicare scripturam inveniamus, Patri solum. modo id nomen vere attribuimus, apud quem erat Verbum." In Johan. C. iii. Opera, I. p. 603. (P.)

« הקודםהמשך »