Page images

In answer to the Gnostics, who said that it was Jesus only, and not the Christ that suffered, he says, indeed, that in the account of our Saviour's sufferings in the Scriptures, the word Christ is made use of. * But when he explains himself more fully, he says, it was the man only that suffered, the logos being quiescent at that time.

" As he was man, that he might be tempted, so he was the logos, that he might be glorified; the logos being quiescent in his temptation, crucifixion, and death, but being present with the man, in his victory, patience, kindness, resurrection, and ascension.”+

It is sufficiently evident that Novatian believed Christ to have a soul as well as the logos, this being God, a principle properly divine, which could not suffer or die.' “ If the immortal soul in other persons,” he says, “ could not be killed, how much less could the word of God, and God in Christ, be killed !-From this,” he says, “may be inferred, that it was only the man in Christ that was killed, and that the word could not become mortal.” As he had just before observed that in man the body only can die, he would naturally have used the term body with respect to Christ, and not that of man in him, if he had not believed that besides the logos, Christ consisted of a complete man, soul and body. I

Tertullian always supposes the same. Speaking of Christ's saying, “ My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” “ This voice,” says he, “ was from the flesh, and the soul, that is, the man, and not of the word or the spirit, that is, not of the God; and was uttered to shew that God was impassible, who thus left the Son, and gave up his man to death. S In Christ” he says, writing against the Gnostics, “ we find a soul and flesh, in plain and express terms; that is, the soul is a soul, and the flesh, flesh. Πανταχο επι του παθος του κυριου ημων και της ανθρωποτητων αυτου το του Χριςου

L. jii. C. xx. p. 246. (P.) + Ωσπερ γαρ ην ανθρωπωίνα πειρασθη, ουτω και λογ© ένα δοξασθη ησυχαζοντος μεν το λογο εν τω σειρασθαι, και σαυρεσθαι, και αποθνησκειν συγΓινομενα δε εν τω νικαν, και υπομενειν, και χρηςευεσθαι, και ανισασθαι, και αναλαμβανεσθαι. L. iii. C. xxi. p. 250. (P.)

1 “ Quod si anima immortalis occidi aut interfici non potest in quovis alio, licet (cum scilicet) corpus et caro sola possit interfici, quanto magis utique verbum Dei, et Deus in Cbristo, interfici omnino non potuit; cum caro sola et corpus occisum sit.- Per hæc colligitur non nisi hominem in Christo interfectum appareat, ad mortalitatem sermonem in loco (in illo) non esse deductum." C. xxv. p. 194. Ed. Jackson. (P.)

$ “ Sed hæc vox carnis et animæ, id est hominis: non sermonis; nec spiritus, id est non Dei, propterea emissa est, ut impassibilem Deum ostenderit, qui sic Filium dereliquit, dum hominem ejus tradidit in mortem." Ad Praxeam, Sect. xxx. p. 518. (P.)

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors][merged small]

Had the soul been flesh, or the flesh a soul, they ought to have been so called.” *

Origen, who has been supposed to be a favourer of Arianism, exactly follows these writers in this doctrine. + I shall select a few passages from him.

• He whom we are persuaded to have been from the beginning God, and with God, he is the very logos, the very wisdom, and the very truth. He took a mortal body and a human soul, and by uniting and mixing them with himself, made them partake of his divinity.” " Christ not only preached in the body, but his soul, freed from the body, preached to other souls, likewise freed from the body, that would be converted to himself.” S In answer to Celsus, who had said, that “ if God, the immortal logos, took the mortal body and the soul of man, he would be subject to change,” Origen says, “ Let him learn, that the logos, remaining essentially the logos, suffers nothing of what the body or the soul feels.”|| In his Commentaries on Matthew, he says, that Christ increased in wisdom with respect to his human soul.”

Socrates the historian, giving an account of a synod held at Alexandria, at which Athanasius attended, says, there agreed, that when Christ became incarnate, he took not only flesh, but also the soul of man, which was the opinion of all the ancient divines. For they did not think that they were introducing a new doctrine into the church, but what was agreeable to ecclesiastical tradition among Christian philosophers. This was the doctrine of all the ancient writers, who have mentioned the subject. For certainly Irenæus, Clemens, Apollinarius of Hierapolis, and Serapion bishop of Antioch, shew by their writings, that they considered it as a thing universally acknowledged, that when

66 It was

«« In Christo vero invenimus animam et carnem, simplicibus et nudis vocabulis editas; id est, animam animam, et carnem carnem; nusquam animam carnem, aut carnem animam: quando ita nominari debuissent." De Carne Christi, Sect. xv. p. 318. (P.)

+ See his Treatise against Celsus, pp. 62–64, 128, and many other places. (P.)

1 “Ομως δε ιςωσαν οι εγκαλονίες, ότι ον μεν νομιζομεν και πεπεισμεθα αρχηθεν ειναι Θεον και υιον Θεου, αυτος ο αυθολογος εςι και η αυλοσοφια και η αυλοαληθεια. Το δε θνηθω αυτο σωμα, και την ανθρωπινην εν αυτω ψυχην, τη προς εκεινο ου μονον κοινωνιο, αλλα και ενωσει και ανακρασει, τα μεγισα φαμεν προσειληφεναι, και της εκεινε θειοληλων κεκοινωηκοία, εις Θεον μεταβεβηκεναι. L. iii. p. 156. (Ρ.)

5 Και γυμνη σωματος γενομενο» ψυχη, ταις γυμναις σωμαίων ωμιλει ψυχαις, επιςρεφων κάκεινων τας βελομενας προς αυλον. L. ii. p. 85. (Ρ.)

| Ει δε και σωμα θνητον και ψυχην ανθρωπινης αναλαβων ο αθανατο» Θεος λογο. δοκει τω Κελσω αλλατίεσθαι και μεταπλατίεσθαι· μανθανετω οτι ο λογο», τη θσια μενων λογο», εδεν μεν πασχει ων πασχει το σωμα η η ψυχη. L. iv. p. 170. (Ρ)

Και εδω γε ακρω περι τη σωτηρία» αναλαβοντο ανθρωπινην ψυχην το ο Ιησος τροεκοπλεν. Ι. p. 980. (Ρ.)

Christ became incarnate he had a soul. The council which was assembled on the account of Beryllus, of Alexandria in Arabia, in their letters to Beryllus, shew the same thing ; and Origen frequently in his writings acknowledged Christ to have a soul."

Indeed, as I have observed, had some of the fathers had one opinion on this subject, and some another, it could not have failed to occasion a discussion of the point, and warm controversy, before the time of Arius. It is to this day, also, the received opinion of all those who are called orthodox, that Christ has a proper human soul, and the Arians still are the only Christians who deny this.

As this doctrine of Christ having a proper human soul, together with that of the real origin and nature of the logos, is of so much consequence to the system of Arianism, I have carefully attended to every thing that I could find to have been advanced by any Arians on the subject. But to my great surprise, I have hardly found that it has been so much as noticed by them, except by Mr. Whiston, who, in his “ Collection of ancient Monuments relating to the Trinity,”+ without mentioning any other authority whatever, infers from there being no express mention of a human soul in Christ in two particular treatises of Athanasius, viz. that against the Gentiles, and that on the Incarnation, that “this father seems as if he had never heard of such a notion among Christians at all.” | He adds, “ I solemnly appeal to the unbiassed reader, after he has carefully perused the whole discourse, whether he can believe that Athanasius owned a human, rational soul, as assumed by the word at the incarnation, when he wrote that treatise.” He then concludes with asserting, that “the acknowledgment of a human and rational soul in Christ, distinguished from his divine nature, was one of the last branches of the Athanasian heresy.

That this writer was aware of the importance of this fact, * Και τον ενανθρωπήσαντα, ου μονον ενσαρκον, αλλα και εμψυχωμενον απεφηνανίο, ο και παλαι τοις εκκλησιας ικοις ανδρασιν εδοκει ου γαρ νεαραν τινα θρησκειαν επινοησαν7ες εις την εκκλησιαν εισηγαγον, αλλα απερ εξ αρχης και η εκκλησιαςικη παραδοσις ελεγε, και αποδεικτικως παρα τους Χριςιανων σοφοις εφιλοσοφειτο: 87ω γαρ παντες οι παλαιοτεροι περι τele λογον γυμνασανίες, εγγραφον ημιν κατελειπον και γαρ Ειρηναιος τε και Κλημης, Απολλιναριος τε ο Ιεραπολιθης, και Σαραπιων και της εν Αντιοχεια προες ως εκκλησιας, εμψυχον τον ενανθρωπήσαντα εν τοις πονηθεισιν αυτοις λογοις ως ομολογεμενον αυτοις φασκεσιν ου μην αλλα και η δια Βηρυλλον τον Φιλαδελφιας της εν Αραβια επισκοπον γενομενη συνοδος γραφεσα Βηρυλλω τα αυτα παραδεδωκεν. Ωριγενης δε πανταχα μεν εν τοις φερομενους αυτε βιβλιοις, εμψυχον τον ενανθρωπήσαντα οιδεν. 'L. iii. C. vii. p. 178. (Ρ.)

† “ And locarnation, and to the History of the IVth Century of the Church," one of Three Essays, published in 1718. See his Memoirs, Ed. 2, p. 192.

+ Essays, p. 74. (P)

is very evident. “ It is indisputable,” he says, “ and is agreed on by all, that in case our Saviour did not assume a human, rational soul at his incarnation, the common orthodoxy cannot possibly be defended.”

be defended.” But if he did, the Arian hypothesis must fall to the ground.

Now, certainly, it cannot follow that because express mention is not made of the human soul of Christ, in two particular treatises, that the author did not allow, and had not even heard of such a thing. Indeed, I do not see that Athanasius had any particular occasion to mention it in these treatises. For it was the body of Christ, and the infirmities of such a body, that was the great objection to Christianity, which he was endeavouring to answer; and therefore he dwells upon the necessity of Christ taking such a body. But in several parts of these very treatises, and even some of those that are marked by Mr. Whiston himself, as inost favourable to his own conclusion, the human soul of Christ seems to be hinted at; as when the logos is said to have assumed, or to have been united to the man or human nature in general, and not the body in particular. “When human nature was gone astray,” he says, “ the Word took possession of it, and appeared as a man, that he might save it from its dangerous state, by his governing power and goodness.”*

But what is sufficiently decisive in favour of Athanasius, as well as all his predecessors, believing that Christ had a proper human soul, is, that the logos, according to his and their description of it, could not supply the place of one, because it was the proper wisdom of the Father, and consequently incapable of suffering, which was always supposed to be one end of the incarnation. The following are descriptions of the logos, in these very treatises, and in Mr. Whiston's own translation.

" But God the word was not of this nature in man ; for he was not bound fast to the body, but did himself rather hold it together, when he was therein ; and also was at the same time present to all things, and was without the beings that exist, and rested alone in his Father." +

“ He is the good product of a good being, and the true Son, and is therefore the power, wisdom, and word of the Father; and is not such by participation. Nor are those

• Τι απιςον λεγείαι παρ' ημιν, ει, σλανωμενης της ανθρωπολη7ον, εκαθισεν ο λογο. επι ταυτην και ανθρωπος επεφανη, ένα χειμαζομενην αυτην περισωση δια της κυβερνησεως Autou kai ayantoinhou. P. 97. (P.)

+ Ου γαρ συνεδεδετο το σωματι αλλα μαλλον αυτος εκρατει τελο, αςε και εν τατα ην και εν τοις πασιν ετυγχανε, και εξω των οντων ην, και εν μονο το παίρι ανεπανετο. xvii. p. 70. (P.)


qualities external or adventitious to him, as is the case of those that are partakers of them, and are instructed by him and become powerful and rational through hiin. But he is peculiarly the real wisdom, the real word, the real power of the Father,” &c. *

Athanasius, moreover, in the treatise on the incarnation, expressly says, that the logos was incapable of suffering, as indeed being of a divine nature it could never be supposed to be.

“ He himself was not hurt at all, as being impassible and the real word of God.”+

It is acknowledged that Justin Martyr and Ireneus (but I do not know that it is true of any others) speak of the logos suffering. The former says, that “ the logos was preached as suffering.” And the latter says, “ the logos of God became flesh, and suffered.” But as both these writers supposed that Christ had a human soul, proper for suffering, it is most probable that they only used the term logos in these places, as synonymous to Christ, (that being in their opinion the most honourable part of him,) whose soul and body only really suffered. This

This may be concluded with certainty to have been the case with respect to Irenæus, who expressly says that the logos was quiescent in the suf. ferings of Christ; and therefore we can hardly doubt, but that Justin also, if he had had any occasion to explain himself on the subject, would have said the same.

It is possible, however, though not probable, that some persons might imagine, that the logos, being intimately united to the soul and body of a man, might, in some sense, partake in their sufferings. But as both these writers held that Christ had a human soul, it is evident that they did not consider the sufferings of the logos, in whatever sense they might use that expression, as implying that a human soul was not necessary to Christ; and, therefore, I do not see how Arians can derive any advantage from it, as used by them.

Also, to make Irenæus consistent with himself, we must suppose that when, in opposition to the Gnostics, he said that it was Christ and not Jesus only that suffered, he only meant to say, that there was no such super-angelic being as

* Και ότι αγαθον εξ αγαθα γεννημα, και αληθινος υιος υπαρχων, δυναμις εςι τε πατρος, και σοφια, και λογος, ου κατα μετοχην ταυτα ων, έδε εξωθεν επιγινομενων τετων αυτο κατα της αυτο μετεχοντας και σοφιζομενες δι' αυτό, και δυνατες και λογικές εν αυτω γινομενες, αλλ' αυτοσοφια, αυτολογος, αυτοδυναμις ιδια το σαθρος εςιν. Ad Gentes, p. 51. (P.)

+ Εβλαπτετο μεν γαρ αυτος εδεν, απαθης και αφθαρτος, και αυτολογος ων, και Θεος. Sect. liv. p. 108. (P.)

1 Κηρυχθεντα δι' αυτων παθοντα λογον. Dial. in Jackson on Novation, p. 357. (Ρ.)


« PreviousContinue »