« הקודםהמשך »
ing for his body the Church, when he said, "My God, my God, why has thou forsaken me?"».
Our Saviour expressly says that his father was greater than he. But this was generally explained by saying, that he referred to his human nature only. This is the reply of Athanasius, who says, that, “ being the logos of the Father, he was at the same time equal to him.”ť But Epiphanius intimates that our Saviour said this as a mere compliment to the Father, such as became a son to make. $ In the Ancoratus, he says, it was to prove that Christ was the genuine Son of the Father. $
What Paul says concerning the subjection of Christ to the Father, who " put all things under his feet,” (1 Cor. xv. 27.) was made an objection to the Trinitarians, as implying that Christ was certainly inferior to the Father, and that his kingdom was to have an end. “Very many,” says Hilary, “ think that when all things are subjected to him, Christ will be subject to God; that on account of this subjection he is not God.”|| Of this difficulty many solutions were proposed, and some of them curious enough.
Chrysostom says, that“ when Paul spake of the subjection of the Son to the Father, he was afraid lest some unreasonable persons should imagine either that the Son was greater than the Father, or that there was another unbegotten principle (agx»). I Damiani says, that“ to deliver up the kingdom to God even the Father, means bringing men to contemplate the Father.” ** Gregory Nyssen says, that " the subjection of Christ to the Father means the subjection of the body of Christ, which is his church.” tt He afterwards says, “ his
•“ Suscepit mortem pro nobis, et nos fecit corpus suum, pro quo orat ad Patrem, cum dicit, Deus, Deus meus, respice in me, quare me dereliquisti:" In Ps. xxi. Opera, II. p. 45. (P.)
+ Και ότε λεγει, ο πατηρ με ο πεμψας με μειζων με εςιν, επει ανθρωπος γεγονεν, μειζω αυτα λεγει τον πατερα λογος δε ων τα πατρος, ισος αντε εςιν. De Humana Natura, Opera, I. p. 597. (P.)
1 Τινι γαρ επρεπε δοξαζειν ιδιον πατερα αλλα τα γνησια υιο. Ηer. Ixii. Opera, I. p. 516. (P.)
ΚΑΙ Εδει γαρ αληθως τον γνησιον υιον τιμαν τον ιδιον πατερα ένα δειξη της γνησιοτητα. Ancoratus, Opera, II. p. 23. (P.)
11 “ Plerique enim ita volunt, ut aut dum subjectis omnibus Deo subjicitur, per conditionem subjectionis Deus non sit." De Trinitate, L. xi. p. 282. (P.)
Η Εφοβηθη λοιπον μη δια τελο δοξη σαρα τισι των αλογοτερων, η μειζων ειναι τα παιρος ο υιος, η έτερα τις αρχη αγεννηθος. Ιn 1 Cor. Χν. Opera, IX. p. 680. (P.)
** “ Cum tradere regnum Deo Patri nihil aliud sit juxta sobrium intellectum, nisi perducere credentes ad contemplandam speciem Dei Patris." Epist. Bib. Pat. App. p. 435. (P.)
Και ουτως ή τα σωματος τεία υποταγη, αυτα λεγεται ειναι το υιε υποταγη, το ανακεκραμενα προς το ιδιον σωμα, όπερ εςιν η εκκλησια. In 1 Cor. Χν. 28, Opera, I. p. 847. (P.)
body is all human nature, with which he is mixed.” This last idea will receive some illustration from what I have observed with respect to the supposed use of the incarnation of the logos.
However, it was the general opinion of the fathers, that Christ will not cease to reign when all things shall be put under him. Eusebius says, “ Christ does not cease to reign when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father.” + Jerome says, “ Christ will rather begin than cease to reign, when his enemies shall be put under his feet,” I meaning, probably, that all obstacles would then be removed, and that he would reign in peace; and in this, many of the moderns concur with him.
The orthodox were not a little embarrassed with Christ's saying, that places at his right hand and at his left, were not his to give, but that they would be bestowed as his Father pleased. Basil of Seleucia says, “ This is to be understood as if he had said, You are not worthy to receive it; shew me your deserts, and then I will shew iny power." To the same purpose, Cyril of Alexandria says, that “those places were not to be given at all, but were to be the reward of merit.”||
After this fair exhibition of the doctrine of the Trinity from the writers of the age in which it was advanced; having seen the absurdity of the principles from which it originated, and the still greater absurdities into which it was afterwards carried; and also after seeing the wretched illustrations, and miserable defences that were made of it, can we wonder at its being sometimes treated with ridicule, and sometimes regarded with abhorrence, by the Unitarians of that age; or that it should have exposed Christianity to the derision of unbelievers, notwithstanding it was originally caculated to gain over the more philosophical part of them? The orthodox made heavy complaints on this subject, of which several specimens have been given already. They particularly say, that they did not know how to speak of Christ without giving an advantage to some or other of their adversaries. “ If Christ,” says Jerome, “ be called a man, Ebion and Photinus take the advantage; if he be called a god, Manes and Marcion." +
Σωμα δε αυτε, καθως ειρηται πολλακις, πασα η ανθρωπινη φυσις, ή κατεμιχθη. In 1 Cor. xv. 28, Opera, I. p. 849. (P.)
+ Βασιλενων δε τολε ο υιος τα Θεου, της υπ' αυτω βασιλευομενες σαντας, των αντε παραδωσει πατρι, ου παυσαμενος της βασιλειας, εδ' αναχωρων αυτης. Ec. Theol. L. iii. C. xvi. p. 187. (P.)
1 * Num quid tamdiu regnaturus est Dominus, donec incipiant esse inimici sub pedibus ejus; et postquam illi sub pedibus fuerint, regnare desistet, cum utique iunc magis regnare incipiet, cum ivimici cæperint esse sub pedibus." Ad Helvid. Opera, II. p.311. (P.)
5 Και νυν λεγεις, 8κ εςιν εμον δεναι και δια τις επειδη της τα λαμβανοντος αξιας, ου της το διδοντος εξασιας μονον το δωρον καματων αθλον ο θρονος, ου φιλοτιμιας το χαρισμα εκ κατορθωματων και θρονος, εκ εξ αιτησεως η δοσις δειξον μοι την σην αξιαν, και βλεπε την suny Egerlar. Or. xxiv. Opera, p. 135. (P.)
11 “ Non est meum dare: non enim certandi munera sic mihi proposita sunt ut velim petentibus dare quibuscunque, sed illis solum qui certando superabunt." Thesaurus. L. x. C.v. Önern. U. 300.
“ With respect to the divinity of Christ,” says Photius, “ to acknowledge three essences is Polytheism, and consequently Atheism ; and to assert one hypostasis, is Judaism and Sabellianism. And with respect to his humanity, to say there is one nature and one hypostasis, is Manichæism; and to say that there are two natures and two hypostases, is Paulianism.”+
The orthodox were charged with holding different opinions concerning the Trinity, and a great variety of such opinions have been exhibited. Gregory Nazianzen denies this, and says, that “ the difference in other things, which he allows, was not so great as their adversaries pretended; that they were in part composed, and would be entirely so." They were, however, no farther composed than the authority of councils, and that of the civil powers, were able to do it; and this prophecy concerning the total cessation of those differences has never been fulfilled, nor is there any prospect that it ever will.
From the very beginning it has been seen that the orthodox were charged with making more Gods than one. This appears by the apologies which all the orthodox writers make on this subject. Among others, see Novalian. S And this complaint continued till the latest periods, and appears not to have been less after the Council of Nice than before.
“Si Christum fateatur hominem, Ebion Photinusque subrepunt; si Deum esse contenderit, Manichæus et Marcion.” In Gal. C. i. Opera, VI. p. 120. (P.)
* Ωσπερ επι της θεολογιας, και το, τρεις ομολογειν εσιας, πολυθεον και δια τε7ο αθεον" και το μιαν λεγειν υποςασιν, Ιεδαικον και Σαβελλιον: δυτω και επι της οικονομιας, το τε μιαν φυσιν φρονειν και μιαν υποςασιν Μανιχαϊκον και αποβλητον» και το δυο φυσεις, και δυο υποςασεις, Παυλιανιςον και μισοχριςον. Εpist. p. 95. (Ρ.)
Ου γαρ περι θεοτηθος διηνεχθημεν, αλλ' υπερ ευταξιας ηγωνισαμεθα, εδ' οποτεραν δει των ασεβειων ελεσθαι μαλλον ημφισβητησαμεν, ειτε την συναιρεσαν Θεον, η την τεμνεσαν" ειτε το πνευμα μονον απο της θειης ασιας, ειτε τον υιον προς το πνευμαίι, την μιαν μοιραν, η τας δυο της ασεβειας ταυλα γαρ ως εν κεφαλαιο περιλαβει τα νυν αρρωστηματα. -Αλλ' υπερ μεν θεοτητος, συμφρονεμεν τε και συμβαινομεν, εχ ήτίον η προς εαυτην η θεοτης (ει μη μεγα τελο ειπειν) και γεγοναμεν.-Αλλα δε εςιν υπερ ών διηνεχθημεν κακως μεν και περι τελων, ου γαρ αρνησομαι. Τα μεν ουν ημετερα ημεις εν ημιν αυτοις και διαλελυμεθα και διαλυσομεθα. Εγω της ειρηνης εγfυτης, ο μικρος τα τoσετε πραγματος. Οr. xiii. Opera, p. 207. (P.)
$ “ Et imprimis illud retorquendum in istos qui duorum nobis Deorum controversiam facere præsumunt." Cap. xxx. p. 118. (P.)
“ We are accused of blasphemy against God.” * There is extant, a whole tract of Basil's against those who calumniated the orthodox, on account of their worshipping three Gods. t
Gregory Nyssen complains, that he and his friends were “accused of preaching three Gods; that this accusation was sounded in the ears of the multitude, and made to appear very plausible to them.”
In a Commentary on the Book of Job, published among the works of Origen, but written probably by some Arian, we have heavy complaints of the Trinitarian doctrine, called the heresy of three Gods, as a type of which the devil made three horns, or three bands, to plunder Job. It has, he says, filled the whole world, as with darkness. S
The writer of the Homilies on Matthew, falsely ascribed to Chrysostom, frequently inveighs against the doctrine of the Trinity ; speaking of it as the heresy foretold by Christ to overspread the world, under the einblem of briars and thorns; and alluding to the word tribulus, he calls it “ the triangular heresy."||
Nor were the Heathens less backward than the Christians to upbraid the orthodox fathers with their own Polytheism, while they pretended to reclaim them from theirs. The Heathens, acccording to Chrysostom, would say to them, “Who is this Father, who is this Son, or this Holy Spirit ? Do not you make three Gods, while you accuse us of Polytheism?"
In ridicule of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, one of the speakers in Lucian's Philopatris, bidding the other to swear“ by the Supreme God, by the Son of the Father, • Εγκαλεμεθα γαρ την εις Θεον βλασφημιαν. Εpist. Ixxix. Opera, ΠΙ. p. 140. (Ρ.) + Om. xxviii. Opera, I. p. 534. (P.)
f Τρεις Θεους πρεσβευεσθαι παρ' ημων αιτιωνται, και περιηκοσι τας ακοας των πολλων, και πιθανως κατασκευαζονίες της διαβολην ταυτην, ου παυονται. De Trinitate, Il. p. 439. (P.)
§ “ Tria cornua fecit diabolus in typum atque figuram trionymæ sectæ, triumque Deorum hæresis, quæ univresum orbem terræ in modum tenebraruın replevit, quæ Patrem et Filium et Spiritum Sanctum aliquando tres colit, nontiunquam unum adorat, quemadmodum Græcorum lingua memoratur: triada vel homousion. Istam ergo Trinitatis sectam et hæresim atque in fidelitatem jam olim de longe designans versutissimus ille diabolus tria cornua misit ad Job deprædandum, sic namque etiam nunc memorata trionyma harresis, præsertim pradatur atque expugnat ecclesiam.” L. i. Opera, I. p. 398. (P.)
11 “ Et verum est quidem, quia spinas et tribulos omnes iniquos hæreticos appelJavit : tamen forsitan sciens Dominus hanc hæresim esse prævalituram præ omnibus tribulos eos appellavit, quasi Trinitatis professores, et triangulam impietatem in sua perfidia bajulantes.” Hom. xix. p. 842. (P.)
I Αν τοινυν ερηται τις Ελληνων τις αοτε εςιν ουτος ο πατηρ; Τις δε ο υιος; Τις δε το πνευμα το άγιον: H πως και υμεις τoεις λεγον7ες Θιες ημιν εγκαλειτε απολυθειαν; Jn Jo* Και τινα επoμoσωμαι γε; Τρι. Υψιμεδoντα Θεον, μεγαν, αμβροιον, ερανιωνα,-ειον πατρος, πνευμα εκ πατρος εκπορευομενον, εν εκ τριων, και εξ ενος τρια ταυλα νομιζε. Ζηνα τον δ' ηγε Θεον. Κρι. Αριθμεειν με διδασκεις, και ορκος η αριθμητικη και γαρ αριθ. μεεις ως Νικομαχος ο γερασινος ουκ οιδα γαρ τι λεγεις, έν τρια, τρια έν. Opera, ΙΙ. p. 998. (P.)' On Philopatris, see Moyle's Works, I. p. 292; Lardner, vill. pp. 76,81.
and by the Spirit proceeding from the Father, one out of three, and three out of one, and 10 consider it as being Jupiter;" the other answers, “ You make me have recourse to pumeration, and give me an arithmetical oath-I know not what you say, one three, and three one.".
Julian who had himself been educated a Christian, and was acquainted with the Scriptures, charges the orthodox with grossly misrepresenting them, in order to make out their favourite doctrine of the divinity of Christ. To shew in what light he considered their conduct, I shall quote several passages from his writings.
« Moses,” he says, “ taught one only God, and said, that he had many sons, to whom the countries were distributed; but no only-begotten Son, no God the logos, such as you afterwards falsely substituted. This he neither knew from the first, nor taught." + “ If he would have no one to be worshipped, why do you worship his Son, and one whom he never considered as his proper Son, as I can easily shew? But you, I do not know how, have obtruded him."
He reproaches the Christians with calling Jesus the logos of God. Ŝ Speaking to them he says, “ You are so unfortunate as not to abide by what was taught by the apostles, but have added things that are worse, and more impious, to those that were held before. For neither Paul, nor Matthew, nor Luke, nor Mark, dared to call Jesus God, but only that good man John.”||
He tells us that the doctrine of the divinity of Christ is not to be found in the Old Testament. Speaking of the prophecy of Isaiah (vii. 4, &c.,) he says, “ He does not say
ή “Ενα και μονον εδιδασκε Θεον, υιες δε αυτα πολλες της κατανειμαμενες τα εθνη πρωτοτοκον δε υιον, η θεον λογον, η τι των αφ' υμων ύςερον ψευδως συντεθεντων δε, ετε ηδει κατ' αρχήν, ουτε εδιδασκε φανερως. Cyril contra Jul. Juliani, L. viii. Opera, Π. p. 290. (Ρ.)
1 Ει γαρ έδενα θελει προσκυνεισθαι, του χαριν τον υιον του/ον προσκυνείτε, και αν εκείνος ιδιον ουτε ενομισεν, ουθ' ήγησαίο πωποτε και και δειξω γε του7ο ραδιως υμεις δε, ουκ οιδ' όθεν, υποβληταν αυτό προσιθελε. Ιbid. L. ν. Opera, I. p. 159. (Ρ.)
5 Και τουλων μεν των θεων ουδενα προσκυνειν τολμαθε όν δε ουτε υμεις ουτε οι σαλερες υμων έωρακασιν Ιησουν οιεσθε Χρηναι θεον λογον υπαρχειν. Εpist. i. Opera, I. p. 494. (Ρ.)
Π Ούλω δε εςε δυςυχεις, ώςε ουδε τοις υπο των αποφολων υμιν παραδεδομενοις εμμεμενηκαλε, και ταυτα δε επι το χειρον και δυσσεβεςερον: υπο των επιγινομενων εξειργαστη, τον γουν Ιησεν, ουδε Παυλος ελολμησεν ειπειν Θεον, ουλε Ματθαι, ουλε Λουκας, ουίε Μαρκίδου αλλ' ο χρησος Ιωαννης, αισθομεν ηδη πολυ πληθOεαλωκος εν πολλαις των Ελληνιδων και Ιταλιωλιδων πολεων υπο τανλης της νοση. Cyril contra Jul. L. X. Juliani Opera,