Page images

stance; but not so much so when it was considered that he made that very body. Clemens Alexandrinus, speaking of the Son, says, “ he forms himself.”* “ The logos, going forth, was the author of creation, and produced itself, when it was made flesh, that it might be seen.” | “ Having formed to himself a body out of the Virgin,” Athanasius says, " he gave no small proof of his divinity, for he who made that, did also make all things." I

As Christ made his own body, so he likewise made his own human soul. “ The logos of God,” says Anastusius Sinaita, “when he came to

“ when he came to renew Adam, made for himself such a soul as he first imparted from himself to Adam, by breathing into him."||

According to the same system, which made Christ the creator of his own body, he likewise raised that body from

“ If,” says Athanasius, “ when he hung upon the cross, he raised the bodies of the saints, when they were dissolved, much more could he raise his own body, which he carried about him, being the logos of the ever-living God.”" He who quickeneth all the dead, quickened the man Christ Jesus, whom he had assumed." Eusebius says, that Christ raised his own body, being the right-hand and power of the Father. It This Paulinus supposed to have been foretold by Jacob, when he compared Judah to a lion. “ The same Lord is the lion who conquered, and the lion's whelp, who went to sleep of his own accord, and raised himself up, of whom it is written, Who shall raise him

the grave.


But, according to Origen, he was raised to life by God Και


uny LAUTOY KTISEL Kes Snusepyes. Sirom. L. vii. p. 706. (P.) + Προελθων δε ο λογος, δημιεργιας αιτιος, επειτα και εαυτον γεννα, όταν ο λογος σαρξ γεννηται, ίνα και θεαθη. Ιbid. L. V. p. 558. (Ρ.)

Η Εκ παρθενο πλατίει εαυτο το σωμα, ίνα μη μικρον της θεοτητος αυτε γνωρισμα σασι παρασχη» ότι ο τατο πλασας, αυτος εςι και των αλλων ποιητης. De Incarnatione, Opera, 1. p. 71. (P.)

Š A Monk of Mount-Sinai. See Nouv. Dict. Hist. I. p. 131.

| Επιδημησας Bν ο τε Θει λογος επι το ανακαινισαι τον Αδαμ τοιαυτην εαυτο ψυχην εδημιουργησεν, διαν απαρχης εξ εαυτο δια τα εμφυσηματος τω Αδαμ μετεδωκεν. De Hominis Creatione, Bandini Collectio, II. p. 64. (P.)

Η Ει γαρ επι ςαυρο ων τα προδιαλυθεντα νεκρα των αγιων ηγειρε σωματα πολλα μαλλον εγειραι δυναται ο εφορησε σωμα, ο αει ζων Θεος λογος. Opera, ΙΙ. p. 542. (Ρ.) ** 'O

yap , σανίας τες νεκρός ζωοποιων, και τον εκ Μαριας ανθρωπον Χριςον Ιησεν Sworonoiy, 'ey avesanper. Sermo Major de Fide, in Montfaucon's Collectio, II. p. 6. (P.)

t1 Και αυτος το εαυτο ανεσησε σωμα, δεξια και δυναμις ων τα παιρος. In Ps. ibid. I. p. 701. (P.)

11 “ Idem enim Dominus et leo ille, qui vicit et catulus est leonis, suå sponte sopitus, et à semetipso resuscitatus, de quo scriptum est : Quis suscitabit eum :" Ad Severum, Ep. iv., Opera, p. 53. (P.)

the Father : “ The same," he says, “whom Christ honoured as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and whom he called not the God of the dead, but of the living.”

The logos of the Father having now assumed a proper personal character, and being inseparably united with the man Jesus, a new and immense field of speculation is opened unto us; and great scope was given to the ingenuity of those who maintained so complex and so extraordinary a system. Christ was now a three-fold being, consisting of the divine logos, a human soul, † and a human body; and the combination of all the powers peculiar to each of these component parts was certainly in great danger of considerably affecting them all, some being lowered and others raised.

Considering Christ as one compound being, it was generally agreed that he held a middle rank between the supreme God and the creatures. Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, says, that “ Christ, by whom God made all things, is called a middle nature between the Father who is unbegotten, and the creatures." I

Theophilus following Philo, says, that “ the Father is not confined to place, but that the logos, by which he made all things, being his power and wisdom, assuming the character of the Father, and Lord of all, was present in paradise, in the character of God.”

Bishop Bull acknowledges that Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Novatian thought that the Father could not be confined to place, but that the Son might. ||

Methodius calls Christ the oldest of the æons, and the chief of the archangels. I

Ου γαρ υπ' αλλα ισασιν εκ νεκρων εγγερμενον Ιησεν Θεε, η τετων πατερων ον και ο Χριςος δοξαζων Θεον τε Αβρααμ, και Ισαακ, και Ιακωβ φησιν ειναι, ουκ οντων νεκρων, ahha Swytwy. In Johan. Comment. II. p. 183. (P.)

† According to Watts, in his “ Christian Doctrine of the Trinity," 1722, it is a matter of opinion, not to be rashly rejected," that this human soul “ had a being, and was personally united to the Divine Nature—from the foundation of the world." Again, in “The Arian invited to Orthodox Faith," 1725, it is conjectared to be that Logos of Philo-the glorious God-Angel who appeared to the Patriarchs—a sublime spirit, superior to all angels and every created being." See Watts's Works, V. pp. 58, 174, 175, 182.

Η Αγνονται οι ανασκητοι, ως μακρον αν ειη μελαξυ ταιρος αγεννηθου και των κλισθενίων υπ' αυτου εξ ουκ οντων, λογικων τε και αλογων, ων μεσιλευουσα φυσις μονογενης, δι' ης τα ολα 25 GUK OYTWY. ETTOINT EN ó waldp tou cou horyou. Theodoriti Aist. L. i. C. iv. p. 17. (P.)

5 Ακοε ο φημι· ο μεν Θεος και πατηρ των όλων αχωρηθος εςι, και εν τοπο ουχ ευρισκεται ου γαρ εςι τοπος της καταπαύσεως αυτε· ο δε λογος αυτε δι' ου τα παντα πεποιηκε, δυναμις ων και σοφια αυτό, αναλαμβανων το προσωπον τα παιρος και κυρια των όλων, ουτος παρεγενετο εις τον παραδεισον εν προσωπώ το Θεου. L. ii. p. 129. (Ρ.)

Il Defensio, Sect. iv. C. iii. p. 236. (P.) Π Ην γαρ πρεπωδεςατον, τον πρεσβυτατον των αιώνων, και πρωτον των αρχαγγελων, ανθρωπους μελλων συνομιλειν, εις τον πρεσβυτατον και πρωτον των ανθρωπων εισοικισθηναι. De Convivio Virginum, p. 79. (P:)

CHAPTER VI. Christ, besides being the Logos of the Father, was thought to

have a proper Human Soul. As Christ reasoned and conversed like other men, it might have been thought that he had only one reasoning intelligent principle within him, whatever that had been. But it is reinarkable, that all the fathers till the time of Arius held that Christ had a proper human soul as well as a human body; which, of itself, affords a strong presumption, that the ancient opinion was that of Christ being a mere man, without any pre-existent soul at all. Had the generallyreceived opinion been, that the soul of Christ was a great pre-existent spirit, they who aimed at nothing more than advancing the rank and power of that spirit, would not have thought it necessary to give Christ another soul, (one being sufficient for all the purposes of intelligence,) and whatever this soul had been capable of before, it might have done afterwards.

Since, therefore, the philosophizing Christians did not proceed in this inanner, it is plain that they had a different foundation to build upon. They found the popular opinion to be, that Christ was a man; and the received opinion of that age was, that a man consisted of two parts, viz. soul and body. What they said, therefore, at first, was, as I have shewn, little more than all Christians had supposed, and what might be considered as only a different way of expressing the same thing. The common people believed that the man Jesus was under the direction and influence of the spirit and power of God, and the philosophers among them supposed that the divine spirit, which they called the logos, was attached and inseparably united to the man Jesus. They would say, that this was only the same principle or power by which God made the world, and inspired the ancient prophets; and the common people would not know how to object to this.

Accordingly, it does not appear that the common people were alarmed at this new doctrine, till those who had advanced it proceeded one step farther, and maintained, that in consequence of this intimate and permanent union of the divine logos to the man Jesus, he might be called God. Still, however, they were particularly careful to represent this new God as greatly inferior to the Supreme Being, and as having no divinity but what he derived from him; and, therefore, might still be called his. In this manner we have seen they endeavoured to turn off the force of the popular objections.

When, afterwards, the Arians supposed the logos that was in Christ to be a created being, and not the proper logos or reason of the Father, they naturally dropped the notion of Christ having a human soul; and at this, as being quite a novel opinion, the orthodox made loud exclamations. Had the ancient doctrine, therefore, been, that the logos was a creature, the notion of Christ having a human soul would never have been adopted.

It is evident, that the Christian writers never speak of more than one logos, and this was the logos or wisdom of the Father, and uncreated. Whether, therefore, they thought that this logos could be so far united to a man, as to partake of his sufferings (which some of them probably did), or they did not, it is evident that it could not be a human soul. Besides, had there been any such difference of opinion among the fathers, as that some of them should have held that the logos in Christ was uncreated, while others held that it was created ; if some of them should have maintained that it was the proper wisdom and power of the Father, and others that it was a spirit so far similar to a human soul, as to be capable of a proper union with a human body, and of all the functions of other souls, there would certainly have been a discussion of the question. Considering how attentive Christians actually were to every opinion concerning the person of Christ, from the time of the apostles to that of the Council of Nice, as well as afterwards, a difference of opinion of this magnitude would certainly have excited as much controversy before the time of Arius as it did after his time.

Since, therefore, it is evident from their writings, that all the fathers before the Council of Nice, who mention the logos at all, had the same idea of it, and there was no controversy among them on the subject, (though they were highly offended at the notion of the Gnostics, whose Christ very much resembled the Arian logos,) it may be presumed, à priori, that they did not differ with respect to the other constituent parts of Christ, but that whatever opinion was clearly held by some of them, was held by them all. And there is this farther probability in favour of it, that there was no more controversy among them about the soul of Christ, than there was about he logos.

That Christ had a human soul, was clearly, as I shall now proceed to shew, the opinion of all the orthodox fathers before the Council of Nice. Clemens Romanus says, “ Christ gave his own blood for us by the will of God, his flesh for our flesh, his soul for our souls."* Justin Martyr says, “Our doctrine is more sublime than any thing that was ever taught by man, as the whole of the rational being, Christ, who appeared for us, consisted of a body, the logos, and a soul.”+

Irenæus unquestionably had the idea of Christ having a human soul, as well as a body. In describing the whole person' of Christ, he represents it as the union of God and man, and not of the logos and the body of a man only. “ The prophets," he says, “ preached his coming according to the flesh, by which he was made a mixture and union of God and man.” He always supposes man to consist of two parts, soul and body, and expressly speaks of Christ as having both. “ If Christ,” he

“ If Christ,” he says, “ was not what we are, it is of little consequence that he suffered. We consist of a body which is from the earth, and a soul from the breath of God. The word of God therefore took this, his own work, upon himself, and on this account confesses himself to be the Son of man.”S

He speaks of Christ as being three days in the place where the dead are, preaching to the souls there ; || and he could not think that such a logos as he describes could have been particularly in that place ; for he considered the logos not as any thing that was created, but what had always existed with God. “ Thou, Oman,” says he, “art not uncreated, nor didst thou co-exist with God, like his own word.”

Εν αγαπη προσέλαβετο ήμας και δεσποτης δια την αγαπην ήν ειχεν προς ημας, το αιμα αυτε εδωκεν υπερ ημων ο Χριςος ο κυριος ημων, εν θεληματι Θεου, και την σαρκα υπερ της σαρκος ημων, και την ψυχην υπερ των ψυχων ημων. Sect. xlix. p. 175. (Ρ.)

* Μεγαλειοτερα μεν ουν πασης ανθρωπεια διδασκαλιας, φαινεται τα ημετερα δια τουτο λογικον το όλον (δια το λογικον όλον), τον φανεντα δι' ήμας Χριςον γεγονεναι και σωμα και horyov kot tuxny. Apol. ii. p. 123.' (P.)

1“ Prophetæ - prædicaverunt ejus secundum carnem adventum, per quem commixtio et communio Dei et hominis facta est.” L. iv. C. xxxvii. p. 331. (P.)

" Si hoc non factus est quod nos eramus, non magnum faciebat quod passus est et sustinuit. Nos autem, quoniam corpus sumus de terra acceptum, et anima accipiens adeo spiritum, omnis quicunque confitebitur. Hoc itaque factum est verbum Dei, suum plasma in semetipsum recapitulans, et propter hoc Filium honinis se confitetur." L. iii. C. xxxiii. p. 260. (P.)

11 “ Tribus diebus conversatus est ubi erant mortui. Et propter hoc Dominum in ea quæ sunt sub terra descendisse, evangelizantem et illis adventum suum remissam peccatorum existentem his qui credunt in eum.” L. v. C. XXXV. p. 451, L. iv. C. Ixv. p. 346. (P.)

q“Non enim infectus es, O homo, nec semper co-existebas Deo, sicut proprium ajus verbum." L. ii. C. xliii. p. 169. (P.)

« PreviousContinue »