« PreviousContinue »
sent ; (Is. liv., John xvi. ;) that is, I am present in the gospel, who spake in the law.'
What John [x. 30] represents our Saviour as saying, “I and my Father are one,” and which had been urged by the Sabellians against those who were then deemned orthodox, was now most strenuously urged by the orthodox, in a more advanced state of the controversy, as a clear proof of Christ having proper divinity as well as the Father; and at the same time, that they did not make two Gods.
Origen, interpreting this text, observes, “ that the Father and Son are two hypostases, but one in unanimity, harmony, and will.”+
This text is urged by Novatian; † but Hilary makes it to be heretical to interpret this text to mean unity of consent, or harmony, and not sameness of nature. S Ambrose refines upon it, taking notice, that our Saviour places himself before his Father, “ Lest it should be imagined that he was inferior to him ; whereas it could not be supposed that the Father was inferior to the Son."But what is more extraordinary than even this, advantage is taken by Basilof Christ's saying, “ My Father is greater than I”[John xiv. 28). “It is,” says he, “ a proof that they are both of the same nature, because things of a different nature are not so compared.” I
Eusebius retained something of the old ideas on this subject, when he said that the Father and Son are one by a
Atque ut scias, imperator Auguste, Christum esse qui loquutus est et in pro. pheta et in evangelio, taliquam in prædestinatione evangelii per Esaiam dicit: Ipse qui loquebar adsum : hoc est, adsum in evangelio, qui loquebar in lege." De Fide, L. ii. C. iii. Opera, IV. p. 134. (P.)
* Θρησκευομεν εν τον πατερα της αληθειας, και τον υιον την αληθειαν, οντα δυο τη υποςασει πραγματα, εν δε τη ομονοια, και τη συμφωνια, και τη ταυτοτηι το βεληματG. Contra Celsum, L. viii. p. 386. (P.)
1“ Si homo tantummodo Christus, quid est, quod ait, Ego et Pater unum sumus? Quomodo enim ego et Pater unum sumus, si nou et Deus est et Filius ? Qui idcirco unum potest dici dum ex ipso est, et dum Filius ejus est, et dum ex ipso nascitur, dum ex ipso processisse reperitur, per quod et Deus est." C. xv. p. 52. (P.)
$ “ Hæc igitur quia haretici negare non possunt, quippe cum sint tum absolutè dicta atque intellecta: tamen_stultissimo impietatis suæ mendacio negando corrumpunt. Id enim quod ait, Ego et Pater unum sumus, tentant ad unanimitatis referre consensum, ut voluntatis ju bis unitas sit, non naturæ; id est, ut non per id quod idem sunt, sed per id quod idem volunt, unum sunt." De Trinit. L. viii. p. 162. (P.)
11 “ Pulchre etiam illud præmisit, Ego et Pater. Nam si Patrem præmisisset, tu ininorem Filium judicares : sed præmisit Filium, quem non convenit credi Patre superiorem.” Hexameron, L. vi. C. vii. Opera, I. p. 94. (P.)
1 Και σαλιν ο πατηρ με μειζων με εςι κεχρηναι γαρ και τελω το ρηλω τα αχαριςα κτισματα, τα τα πονερα γεννηματα εγω δε και εκ ταυλης της φωνης, το ομοεσιον ειναι τον Vior
τω πατρι δηλεσθαι πεπιςευκα" τας γαρ συγκρισεις οιδα κυριως επι των της αυλης φυσεως γινομενας αγΓελον γαρ αγελα λεγομεν μειζονα, και ανθρωπον ανθρωπα δικαιοτερον, και στηνον στην ταχύτερον" ει τοινυν αι συγκρισεις επι των ομοειδων γινονται μειζων δε κατα συγκριση είρηται ο πατηρ το υιε, ομοεσιος το πατρι ο υιος. Epist. cxli. Opera, ΙΙ. p. 167. (P.)
communication of the glory which he imparted to his disciples. For thus they also might be admitted into this unity.*
I shall now proceed to note a few proofs of the divinity of Christ from the apostolic epistles. Paul is supposed to say, t that Christ was “God over all, blessed for ever," Rom. ix. 5. This is observed by Novatian, I and many others. Gregory the Great says, that “ Paul alludes to the Trinity, in Rom. xi. 36, of him, and by him, and in him, are all things."
Both Eusebius and Jerome quote Gal. i. 12, I received not my doctrine from man, as a proof that Christ, from whom he did receive his gospel, was more than man.”ll
Eph. iv. 10, “He that descended, is the same also that ascended,” is urged by Jerome against Ebion and Photinus. I Lactantius proves that Christ is both God and man, from his being called, [1 Tim. ii. 5,] the “ Mediator between God and men.”** Origen applies to Christ, Rev. i. 8: “I am the beginning and the ending.”tt Chrysostom proves that Christ is equal to the Father from Christ's saying, (John xiv. 23,] I and my Father will come, and take up our abode with him. “ Did ever," he says, “ a deputy say concerning his king, I and my king give orders 2" **
* Ουτως αν εν εισιν ο πατηρ και ο υιος, κατα την κοινωνιαν της δοξης, ής τους αυτο μαθηταις μελαδιδες της αυτης ένωσεως, και αυτος ηξια. Εc. Theol. L. iii. C. xix. p. 193. (P.)
+ See Vol. XIV. pp. 233, 234. “ The French Editor" of Abauzit says, “ that iu the ancient copies, the reading was simply this: Of whom is, according to the flesh, Christ, who is blessed above all for ever and ever.'' Abauzit's Miscellanics, 1774, pp. 123, 124. See ibid. pp. 123–143.
1 Cap. xiii. p. 43. (P.)
Š “ Paulus quoque ut operationem sanctæ Trinitatis ostenderet, ait: Ex ipso et per ipsum, et in ipso sunt omnia, atque ut unitatem ejusdem Trinitatis intimaret, protinus addidit : Ipsi gloria in secula seculorum, amen." In Joh. C. xxvji. Opera, p. 174, B. (P.)
| Και προϊων, τους αυτοις ελεγεν, ότι, Το ευαγΓελιον μυ, το ευαγΓελισθεν εις υμας, εκ εςι κατα ανθρωπον, εδε εγω παρα ανθρωπε παρελαβον αυτο, ουδε εδιδαχθην, αλλα δι' αποκαλυψεως Ιησε Χριςο. Δι' ών, αυθις, ότι μη ανθρωπος ην ψιλος, Ιησος Χριςος παριςη. Contra Marcel. L. i. p. 7.
“ Ex hoc loco Ebionis et Photini dogma conteritur : quod Deus sit Christus, et non tantum homo." Jerome in Gal. C. i. Opera, VI. p. 122. (P.)
“ Hic locus adversum Ebionem et Photinum vel maxime facit. Si enim ipse est ascendens in cælos, qui de cælis ante descenderat, quomodo Dominus noster Jesus Christus non ante Mariam est, sed post Mariam.' In Eph. C. iv. Opera, VI. p. 178.
(P.) ** “ Unde illum Græci HEOITA, Vocant; ut hominem perducere ad Deum posset, id est, ad immortalitatem : quia si Deus tantum fuisset (ut supra dictum est) exempla virtutis homini præbere non posset ; si homo tantum, non posset homines ad justitiam cogere, nisi auctoritas, ac virtus homine major accederet." Instit. L. iv. Sect. xxv. Opera, p. 430. (P.)
tt Comment. Il. p. 19. (P.)
11 Ει ετολμησεν ειπειν επαρχος σερι βασιλεώς, ότι Εγω και ο βασιλευς διατασσομεν ; Ser. iv. Opera, VI. p. 35. (P.)
Answers to Objections. The reader will be pleased to see in what manner the orthodox fathers replied to the principal objections made to their doctrine by the heretics of that early age; and therefore, besides what may be collected to this purpose from other parts of this work, I shall in this place subjoin a few other passages.
One of the principal objections to the divinity of Christ was his being so frequently called a man. But, besides its being allowed that he was a man as well as God, which they say sufficiently justifies the language, the author of the Commentary on Matthew, which has been ascribed to Chrysostom, says, that “ God the Father being called a man in our Saviour's parable, shews that Christ being called a man is no objection to his being God.”
Another formidable objection to the new doctrine of the divinity of Christ was, that the Father is called the one God. But Austin says, “ When Christ is called the one Lord, the Lordship of the Father is not denied; so when the Father is called the one God, the Deity of the Son is not denied.” Ambrose had said the same before him.t
Our Saviour says concerning the Father, that he only is good, declining the appellation as applied to himself. “Bút," says Athanasius, “our Saviour said that God only was good, because the person he was speaking to considered him as a man." Hilary also says, “Christ would not have refused the appellation of good, if it had been offered to him as God.” But Austin is not content to reply to this as an objection; he uses it as an argument in proof of the Trinity. “Our Saviour,” says he,“ did not say there is none good
“ Homo rex dicitur Deus Pater, qui nunquam humanam suscepit formam: ut intelligamus quia nomen hominis præjudicium non facit divine suæ naturæ." In Matt, xxii. Hom. xli. Opera, VII. p. 919. (P.)
+ “ Sicut enim unum dicendo Dominum Jesum Christum Patrem Dominum non negavit; ita unum dicendo Deum Patrum, æque à deitatis veritate nec Filium separavit." Expositio Fidei, Opera, V. p. 514. (P.)
1 Και όταν λεγει: Τι με λεγεις αγαθον και εδεις αγαθος ει μη ο Θεος συναριθμησας εαυτον μετα των ανθρωπων, κατα την σαρκα τελο ειπε, προς τον νον το προσελθοντος αυτω εκεινος
Τρωπον αυτον ενομιζε μονον και του Θεον, και τελον εχει τον νεν η αποκρισις" ει μεν γαρ ανθρωπον φησι, νομιζεις με, και ου Θεον, μη με λεγε αγαθον" ου γαρ διαφερει ανθρωFivn puou to cyator, añade Oen. De Humana Natura, Opera, I. p. 599.' (P.)
$ “ Non respuit bonitatis nomen, si sibi hoc tanquam Deo deputaretur." L. ix. p. 197. (P.)
but the Father; but there is none good but one, that is God; including himself, and the Holy Spirit, as well as the Father.” This observation occurs several times in the works of Austin.
The orthodox laid great stress on Christ's being called “ the Son of God,” as implying that he was of the same nature with God the Father, and therefore that he was properly God of God. To this the Unitarians replied, that good men are frequently called “the sons of God,” as well as Christ. But the universal answer to this objection was that of Jerome : “ Christ is the Son of God by nature, but we by adoption.”+
It was alleged by the Unitarians, as a proof that Christ was inferior to the Father, that he is said to have been sent by him, as if he was subject to his authority. But Ambrose says, “ The person sent is not always inferior to him that sends him ; for then Christ would be inferior to Pilate, who sent him to Herod.” To this, Gennadius adds, that angel was sent by Tobiah."
To come forth from the Father might be interpreted to mean nothing more than being sent by the Father, as other prophets were. But Hilary, taking advantage of the literal meaning of the word, says, “ To come from the Father, and to come out of God, do not mean the same things. They differ as much as to be born, and to be present; since the one is to come from God in his nativity, and the other to come from the Father into the world, for the salvation of men.” ll
The Unitarians always laid great stress on Christ's calling the Father the one true God. What answer Tertullian made to this objection we have seen already, viz. that the one God was the original title of the Father before he had a Son, and therefore, that his having a Son could not deprive him of it. But the general answer was that of Epiphanius, viz. “ That
Ideo non ait nemo bonus nisi solus Pater, sed nemo bonus nisi solus Deus; in Patris enim nomine ipse per se Pater pronunciatur, in Dei vero et ipse et Filius et Spiritus Sanctus, quia Trinitas unus Deus.” De Trinitate, L. v. C. viii. Opera, IU. p. 320. (P.)
** Et ille quidem naturâ Filius est, nos vero adoptione.” In Epk. C. i. Opera, VI. p.
162. (P.) 1 “Esto tamen, minor sit qui mittitur, eo à quo mittitur, ergo et Pilato minor Christus, quoniam Pilatus misit cum ad Herodem.” De Fide, L. v.C. iii. Opera, IV. p. 191. (P.)
$ “ Sicut legimus angelum esse missum à Tobia, et Christus missus est à Pilato ad Herodem." Bib. Pat. V. p. 445. (P.)
|| “A Patre enim venisse, et à Deo exisse, non est significatiovis ejusdem : et quantum interest inter nasci et adesse tantum à se uterque sermo discernitur; cum aliud sit à Deo in substantia nativitatis exisse, aliud sit à Patre iu hunc mundum, ad consummanda salutis nostræ sacramenta, venisse." L. vi. p. 118. (P.)
the Father is called the one true God, in opposition to the Gods of the Heathens." * On this subject Jerome farther observes, that " Christ is also called the true God | John v. 20: We are in him that is true,—this is the true God, and eternal life.'”+ But Austin even proves the divinity of Christ from this text; for he says it ought to be read, “ That they may know thee, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent, to be the true God.” I
It was objected to the doctrine of the divinity of Christ that he said, he could do nothing of himself. But Isidore of Pelusium says, that “this intimated not his weakness but his strength, as it shewed that he would do nothing contrary to his Father," (meaning, no doubt, that it was in his power,) “ as he had fallen under a suspicion of being the antagonist of God, and of appropriating glory to himself.”ş
It was objected to the divinity of Christ, that he prayed to the Father, as one who was dependent upon him. The general answer to this objection is thus expressed by Damascenus : “ Christ being personally united to God, has no need of that ascent of the mind to God in which prayer consists; but having taken human nature upon him he shewed us a pattern of what was proper for us to do.”|| that Christ prayed for," says Hilary, “ was not for the word, but for the flesh.” But Ruffinus says,
" The glory
“ Christ was pray
Εν τω εν ειπειν τον μονον αληθινον Θεον, εις μοναρχειαν ημας ηγαγεν ίνα μηκετι υπο τα στοιχεια τα κοσμο φμεν δεδελωμενοι, ίνα μη πολυθεια εν ημιν ετι η.
Sect. ii. Opera, II. p. 7. (P.)
t'« Non secundum errorem Arianorum referimus ad personam tantum Dei Patris de quo scriptum est: Ut cognoscant te solum verum Deum, et quem misisti Jesum Christum : sed ad Filium, qui et ipse verus Deus est, dicente evangelista Johanne; Venit Filius Dei et dedit nobis mentem, ut cognascamus verum, et simus iu vero Filio ejus Jesu Christo. Iste est verus Deus et vita æterna." Opera, IV. p. 219. (P.)
“ Ut hæc sit sententia, te, et quem misisti Jesum Christum, cognoscant unum verum Deum." Epist. clxxiv. Opera, II. p.785. (P.) Some modern Trinitarians have advocated this sense of the passage. Yet see Vol. XIV. p. 435, Noles.
5 Το γαρ, ου δυναται ο υιος σoινειν αφ' εαυ7α εδεν, εκ ασθενειαν αυ7α κατηγορει, αλλα και μεγισην ρωμην, ότι ανεπιδεκτος εςι τα εναντιον τι το πατρι ποιειν επειδη γαρ υποπτευελο παρ' αυτων ως αντιθεος, και αλλοτριαν σφετεριζομενος δοξαν, τελο εφη. Εp. L. iii. p. 387. (P.)
| “Oratio est mentis ad Deum ascensus: aut eorum à Deo postulatio, quæ postulare convenit. Qui ergo fiebat, ut Dominus in Lazari suscitatione, ac passionis tempore, preces adhiberet? Neque enim sancta ipsius mens ascensione ad Deum opus habebat, quippe quæ simul Deo personaliter unita esset : nec rursus ei opus erat, ut quicquam à Deo postularet. Unus enim Christus est. Nimirum igitur id causæ erat, quod personam nostram sibi adscisceret, atque id quod nostrum erat, in seipso exprimeret, seque exemplar nobis præberet, nosque à Deo postulare, mentesque ad eum erigere doceret.” Orthod. Pid. L. iii. C. xxiii. p. 426. (P.)
q “Gloria enim omnis non verbo, sed carni acquirebatur." L. v. p. 211. (P.)