Page images

they held, which flew away from Jesus when he was upon the cross; but that the logos, which had been united to him before, continued still united to him, even in his sufferings, though he did not properly partake of them. This agrees with his saying that the logos was quiescent in his sufferings, meaning perhaps that he did not interpose to prevent or alleviate them.

Mr. Jackson considers these casual expressions of Justin Martyr and Irenæus as circumstances by which we may discover the true doctrine of the apostolic age. But this is a conjecture unsupported by any other fact or circumstance whatever; and it is highly improbable, on several accounts, that Christians of the apostolic age should have supposed that Christ had no other than a created soul, and that this soul was the logos; and that all the writers from that time till the Council of Nice should invariably hold that the logos was uncreated, and that Christ bad a human soul besides the logos, without any discussion of the subject, without any controversy; when it is known that, from the first appearance of the Gnostics, all the Christian world were so attentive to every opinion concerning the person of Christ.

Origen, Tertullian, and others, who wrote not long after Irenæus, expressly say that the logos could not suffer, as Irenæus himself says in effect; and they write in such a manner on the subject, as if they considered it to be the universal opinion. It may be presumed, therefore, that these writers did not imagine that Justin Martyr, or any other Christian writer, held any other opinion on the subject.

Mr. Jackson might have found much stronger language than what he has quoted from Justin Martyr or Irenæus concerning the suffering of Christ as God, in Cassian, and others who wrote in the Nestorian controversy, (as will be seen when I consider that subject,) and yet when they were charged with asserting that the logos itself really suffered, they strongly disclaim having had any such meaning. Cyril of Alexandria says, “ They were charged with asserting that the logos suffered, but that no one was ever so mad as to suppose it.”+ What Cyril here says of himself and his friends, was, I doubt not, true of Justin Martyr, who speaks as highly of the logos as Cyril or any Christian writer whatever, making it to have been an attribute of the Father ; and therefore he must have thought it to be as incapable of proper suffering as the Father himself.

* Adnotationes in Noratianum, p. 356. (P.)

+ “ Præmiuin vero in maledicta ab hæreticis tanquam acerbe facta invehitur, et velut ostendere conatur, corpus esse quod passum est, vou Deus verbum, quasi sint qui dicant verbum Dei, quod nulli est passioni obnoxium, passioni esse subjectum. Sed nemo usque adeo insanit, ut hoc dicat." Epist. vi. Opera, II. p.

17. (P.)

It will likewise appear highly improbable, that any persons near the apostolic age should have considered Christ as having a created logos in the place of a huinan soul, if it be considered, that the opinion of all the Jews at the time of the promulgation of the gospel was, that the Messiah was a mere man, and that the apostles did not, for some time at least, preach any other doctrine, as will be abundantly proved in its proper place. How, then, was there time, in the nature of things, for the Christian world in general to have passed from this opinion, first to that of Christ having had a preexistent soul, capable of creating all things; then, before the time of Justin Martyr, have imagined that soul to have been uncreated, the proper logos or wisdom of the Father, and again to have superadded a proper human soul, such as they first began with, to this logos ? The very mention of such an hypothesis as this, is, I should think, sufficient to expose it.

Upon the whole, I cannot help thinking that there is the strongest evidence that the anti-nicene fathers believed that Christ had a proper human soul, as well as a human body; their logos being such as could not supply the place of it, being that power which, at the very time that it was incarnate, supported all things, and was even then as much in the Father as ever it had been. Consequently, those fathers could not have been Arians.

That the soul which the fathers ascribed to Christ, besides the logos, was a proper soul, and not merely the sensitive soul of some philosophers, is evident from ihe man being said by them to consist of this soul and a body; a kind of definition in which the term soul always expressed every thing belonging to a man that was not body. This will have been observed to have been the case with respect to Irenæus. *

Those philosophers who, following the principles of Plato, maintained that man has two souls, gave. Christ two souls also, and disposed of them according to their respective natures.“ Christ,” said Theophylact, was in paradise not only as God, but also in his rational and intellectual soul; and the animal soul only was in hell." +

• “ With respect to Irenæus, Origen's words, quoted supra, p. 274, are also decisive as to this point; since he there says, that the soul of Christ, divested of the body, preached to souls divested of bodies; which can vever be understood of the merely susitive soul.” (X.)

» *

To the soul of Christ, Origen gave the peculiar power of quitting its body, and returning to it again, whenever it pleased ; meaning, that the logos dismissed the soul and re-united it to the body. “ Christ,” says he, 6 according to the common course of nature, but by the exertion of a power given him by God for that purpose. He says, that his “ soul both left the body, and returned to it again at his own pleasure.”+ The same sentiment is also advanced by Cyprian, who says, “ that Christ being crucified, preventing the office of the executioner, of his own accord dismissed his spirit, and on the third day he, of his own accord, rose from the dead.” I This doctrine is still held by many modern Arians, though it is highly derogatory from the character of Christ, and destroys the force of his example in suffering; as it supposes that he had a power of putting an end to his torments, and consequently of lessening the agony of them, which his followers had not. S

Anastasius Sinaila says, that Christ gave his soul a pecu- . liar privilege, above that which was given to Adam, which was only " the breath of God.

" the breath of God. For the soul of Immanuel had its essence in God, with God, and like God.”||

Eue, ali ?

προσελαβετο λογικην και νοεραν, και εν τω παραδεισο γεγονε μετα του νοου και εις αδε kainage META toxis. In Luc. C. xxiii. Opera, I. p. 535. (P.)

Ελεγε δε ο εμος Ιησες περι της εαυτο ψυχης (ου κατα το ανθρωπινον χρεων χωριζομενης τα σωματος, αλλα κατα την δοθεισαν αυτο και περι τελο παραδοξον εξεσιαν) το, εδεις αιρει την ψυχην με απο εμα, αλλα εγω τιθημι αυτην απ' εμαυτο. Ad Celsum, L. ii. p. 130. (P.)

* Και σερι την εαυτο τελευτην ειχε τι πλειον" ένα εκρσα μεν το σώμα καταλιπη η ψυχη, οικονομησαμενη δε τινα εξω αυτό, παλιν επανελθη οτε βολεται τοιολον δ' αναγεγραπίαι παρα των Ιωαννη ειρηκεναι ο Ιησες λογον, εν τφ, εδεις αιρει την ψυχην με ar'

syw τιθημι αυτην απ' εμαυτό. Εξεσιαν εχω θειναι αυτην, και σαλιν εξασιαν εχω λαβειν αυτην.

Ibid. L. č. p. 70. (P.) 1 “ Nam et crucifixus, prævento carnificis officio spiritum sponte dimisit, et die tertio rursus à mortuis sponte surrexit.' De Idolorum Vanitate, p. 16. (P.)

§ Matt. xxvii. 50: Aprue to wrevja. Some critics translate these words, He dismissed his spirit. They frame an hypothesis that Christ was in full vigour when he died, that his strength was not exhausted by pain and suffering, and that this expiration of life was owing to his own voluntary dismission of it. See Macknight in loc., and Dr. Benson's Life of Christ, p. 514. [Doddridge, Sect. 191, Note l.) But the phrase here employed by the sacred writer is never used in this

It signifies simply to die, to expire, to breathe our last. See Josephus de Bello Jud. pp. 164, 390, Havercamp: Eusebii Hist. Eccles. (speaking of Maximin, the persecutor of the Christians), L. ix. C. viii., Cantab. 1720; Euripidis Hecuba, (representing the death of Polyzena,) ver. 571. See also his Helena, ver. 1447, edit. Heidelberg, 1597.” Harwood's Introduction, II. pp. 351, 352. See, on Matt. xxvii. 50, Vol. XIII. p. 361.

| Η μεν γαρ τε Αδαμ ψυχη εκ Θεε την υπαρξιν δια τα εμφυσηματος εσχεν: η δε το Εμμανοηλ ψυχη ενθεον, και συνθεον, και ομοθεον Βσιωσιν εσχεν. De Hominis Creatione, Bandini Collectio, II. p. 66. (P.) Sce supra. p. 268, Note ş.






of this Union in general. SEVERAL curious questions may be started with respect to the union between the divine logos and the soul and body of Christ; for this union was always represented as being equally strict with that which subsists between the soul and body of man; the maxim being, that as the soul and body make one man, so God and man make one Christ. Austin says, - God mixed with man makes Christ, as the soul and body make a man.” * On this system, a considerable difficulty occurred. It was a maxim that the properties of divinity could not be impaired by any circumstance whatever, the divine nature being absolutely unchangeable. It was therefore, contrary to all reason, supposed that the human nature was a gainer by the union, and the divine nature no loser. “ Christ,” says Eusebius, “imparted of his divine nature to man, but did not receive the properties of mortal nature.”+ This he compares to the sun, the light of which is not contaminated by shining on dirty objects. In this, indeed, he had not a view to the body of Christ in particular, but to human nature in general which was benefited by the union of divinity, while this was no loser ; but there can be no doubt but he had the same idea with respect to the union of the logos to a single man. They did not, however, suppose that the human nature of Christ was materially changed by its union with the divine nature. “ As the introduction of fire,” says Basil, “ does not alter the property of iron, so the divinity is not changed by the body of Christ.” I

* “ Sicut in unitate personæ anima unitur corpori ut homo sit, ita in unitate personæ Deus upitur homini, ut Christus sit. Quomodo est enim unus homo anima et corpus, sic unus Christus verbum et homo." In Johan. Tr. xlviii. Opera, IX. p. 349. (P.)

+ Αλλα τα μεν εξ αυτε παραδιδες το ανθρωπο, τα δ' εκ τε θνητο μη αντιλαμβανων. De Laudibus Const, p. 761. (P.)

[ocr errors]

When the doctrine was more advanced it was maintained that “ the whole of the divinity of Christ was united to the whole of the humanity, and not part to part,” as we read in Damascenus. * This was agreeable to the established maxim with respect to the union between the soul and body of man.

So very different were the divine and human natures of Christ conceived to be, and yet so necessary was it, for the purpose of the orthodox Christian fathers, to make an union between them, that no embarrassment or discordance of opinion among them can surprise us. Epiphanius must have considered the soul of Christ as having had but little proper union with his divinity, when he supposed that while he was on the cross the former prayed to the latter. † Fulgentius says, that “when the human nature of Christ suffered, the divine nature did not even feel compassion, any more than the soul of Christ died when the body did.” The same writer, however supposes that, though the soul of Christ did not know the Father, it had a perfect knowledge of the divinity of the Son, with which it made one person.

As a man consists of two parts, it was necessary, in order to complete this system, that the logos should be united to the body, as well as to the soul of Christ. Accordingly we read, in the account of the embassy to the Armenians, that “ the divinity of Christ was never separated from his body, or his soul.”|| Even the death of the body was not supposed to break this union. “ The divinity of Christ,” says Damascenus, “ was not separated from the body of Christ even in death. Even in that state, all the three made but one hypostasis. Neither the soul nor the body had any pecuπυρ των τα σιδηρο ιδιωματων μεταλαμβανει" μελας και σιδηρος και ψυχρος" αλλ' όμως πυρακτωθεις την τα συρος μορφην υποδύεται, αυτος λαμπρυνομενος εχι μελαινων το συρ, και αυτος Expàgyenevos oun aprofuxwe tnv proya. Hom. xxv. Opera, I. p. 507. (P.)

* “In incarnatione unius ex sanctæ trinitatis personis Dei verbi, totam ac perfectam divinitatis naturam cum tota humana natura copulatam fuisse dicimus, ac non partem cum parte." Orthod. Fid. L. ii. C. v. Opera, p. 375. (P.)

* Ως εν η κινησις ουτως εγενετο, απο προσωπο της ενανθρωπησιως, η φωνη ελεγεν αυτη τη ιδια θεοληλ.: Θεε με, Θεε με, ένατι με εγκατελιπες; Ηer. Ixix. p. 789. (Ρ.)

I "Et in homine toto patiens, non est divina natura compassa, sicut moriente carne, non solum deitas, sed nec anima Christi potest ostendi commortua." Ad Trasimundum, L. iii. C. xviii. p. 471. (P.)

§ “ Et quia unigenitus Deus æqualis est patri, nec potest totum nosse filium, qui totum non noverit patrem, caveanus, ne cum anima Christi totum patrem nosse non creditur, ipse uni Christo ex aliqua parte, non solum patris, sed etiam sui, et spiritus sancti cognitio denegetur. Quam vero perdurum est, et à sanitate fidei penitus alienum, ut dicamus animam Christi non plenam suæ deitatis habere notitiam, cum qua naturaliter unum creditur habere personam." Ad Ferrandum, Qu. iii. p. 627. (P.)

11 “Quum ergo divinitas ejus nunquam nec à corpore, nec ab anima dirempta


Bib. Pat App. p. 1830. (P.)

« PreviousContinue »