Imágenes de páginas

norance which it betrays of the Greek language. As far as I see, this judgment is too severe. Still the tract may not be Fulgentius's. Indeed it seems rather the work of an earlier writer.

The title of the Chapter is, Testimonia de Æqualitate Patris et Fili: and in the series of these testimonies, as we find them closely strụng together, he writes (Adversus Pintam Arianuin p. 720) In Epistula Joannis (2 Joan. v. 9,) Omnis qui non manet in doctrina Christi, Deum non habet. Qui permanet in doctrind, et Filium et Patrem habet. Filius prius. In Epistola Jude; Dominatorein et Deum nostrum Jesum Christum negantes, Et Deuş et Dominus. In Apocalypsi dicunt Montibus et Petris, &c. (Apoc, vi. 16.)”

In the other writers where I find this verse quoted, it is alway$ without the Osov. Even then the clause must be allowed to be an important one: it may, therefore, be worth our while, and is by no means stepping out of our way, to see how, in that case, the words are interpreted.

4. The following is the text, and commentary of Didymus Alexandrinus.

.66 Subintroierunt enim quidam homines, impii, qui olim prescripti et predestinati erant in hoc judicium. Domini nostri gratiam transferentes in luxuriam et solum dominatorem, et cet.

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

gratíam Domini nostri Jesu Christi in luxuriam mutaverunt, per ipsam spurcitiam suam, negantes unum dominatorem Dominum Jesum Christum eorum, qui per evangelium sunt vocati.” And again, afterwards

per quam luxuriam, et effectus ejus negant solum dominatorem et Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum. Animadvertendum est solum dominatorem esse Christum, eo quod solus verus sit Deus. Sic enim, cui solus sit dominator et Dominus Jesus, 'non expellit auctoritate Patrem, dicens ei, Domine cæli et terre (Matt. c. xi. 25.) Sic neque Pater, cum solus sit verus Deus (John c. xvii. 3.) extraneum facit a verà dictate Filium."

There can be no doubt but that Didymus understood the τον μονον δεσποτην και κυριον of one person,


5. And we may say the same also of Cyrillus Alexandrinus.

-- και τον μονον δεσποτης και κυριον ημών Ιησουν Χριστον αρνούμενοι. Κατα τινα τροπον αρνησεται τις των απαξ πεπιστευκότων τον κυριον ημών Ιησουν τον Χριστον και Και του παραδεξαμεθα τον της ενανθρωπήσεως λογον, αλλ' ει φαμεν, ότι έτερος μεν εστι υιος ο εκ Θεου Πατρος Λογος, έτερος δε κατ' ιδίαν ο εκ γυναικος, ηρνησαμεθα τον μόνον δεσποτην. είς γαρ κυριος Ιησούς Χριστος, καθ' ένωσιν οικονομικην, την προς γε, φημι, τον εκ Θεου Λογον, εις την της Θεοτητος δοξαν αναφοιτωσης αυτου της σαρκος. εις ουν αρα Χριστος και υίος εσται γαρ ούτω των όλων δεσποτης. (De Rectà Fide, vol. 5. part ii. P: 78.)

6. Again,

6. Again the same writer (vol. v. part ii. p. 190. Epistol.)

Περι των τοιουτων, ως γε οιμαι, γεγραφασι του Σωτήρος οι μαθηται. Παρεισέδυσαν γαρ τινες κ. τ. εξ. ––και τον μονον δεσποτης και κυριον ημών Ιησουν Χριστον αρνούμενοι. . Ιησους δε Χριστος ονομαζοιτω αν εικότως εν ανθρωπου μορφη πεφηνως ο Λογος. Επει φραζετωσαν κ. τ. εξ. But this example can hardly be said to be determinate.

7. The verse is also quoted by Ephraim Syrus (vol. i. p. 113 of the Latin translation of Gerard Vossius); and by a writer, later than Nestorius, among the works of Chrysostom (vol. viii. p. 76. Appendix.) these however I need not transcribe, as they contain nothing of explanation,

8. The Latin writers * which leave out the " Deum," are Lucifer Calaritanus, and a writer among the works of St. Augustin. The latter discloses nothing for our purpose (Vol. x. p. 30. Appendix. Also Augustine's Speculum vol. iii. p. 612. omits the “ Deum”) but Lucifer evidently understood the words of Christ only.

“ Subintraverunt enim quidam homines, olim quidem præscripti ad hoc judicium, impii, qui Dei gratiam transferunt ad impudicitiam, et qui est dominator noster et Dominus Jesus Christus, eum negantes. Cum negato

* See Appendix, No. 6.



ribus vobis blasphemis fuerit nefas convenire, &c.” (P. 222. De non conveniendo cum Hereticis.)

[ocr errors]

Now that I have produced my collections upon St. Jude, you are, perhaps, surprized to find, that there is still something more to come.

[ocr errors]

But, while I was examining my Greek Testament, with your Remarks in view, I could not help asking myself, whether St. James might not mean, in his first verse (Ιακωβος Θεου και Κυριου Ιησου Χριστου δουλος, &c.) to call Jesus Christ, God and Lord.

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

I saw, indeed, that this passage was produced as the first example of your 5th rule, which tells us, that when no article is prefixed to the former of two nouns connected by the copulative not, these nouns denote different persons.

[ocr errors]

Yet it seemed to me, that the several forms and meanings respecting the nature of the article, might be arranged in the following manner, and rules adapted to them accordingly *, thus:

* The reader may not be displeased to see some part of these forms verified by extracts from Greek writers. First (1st and 2d) Kas Tachov wg Deguos ó Telgos προπηδα, , και ομολογει αληθως αυτον ειναι τον υιον του Θεου. Ου γαρ ειπε, Συ ει ο Χριστος υιος του Θεου, χωρις του “Ο αρθρου, αλλα μετα του αρθρου, “Ο υιος, τουτέστιν, αυτος εκείνος και εις και μονος. ου χαριτι υιος, αλλ' ο εξ αυτης της ουσιας τον Πατρος γεννηθεις. Επει και Χριστοι πολλοι ησαν, οι ιερεις παντες και οι βασιλεις.


1. Κυριος. 2. ο Κυριος.
3. ο Κυριος και ο Σωτηρ.
4. Ο Κυριος και σωτηρ.
5. Κυριος και σωτηρ.

In English.
1. A Lord, or Lord. 2. The Lord.
3. The Lord and the Saviour.

. 4. The Lord and Saviour. 5. A Lord and a Saviour, or, a Lord and Saviour.

The third and the last forms may be used indifferently of one, or two persons: just as in English we may apply the corresponding expressions, « The Lord and the Saviour,” and “ A Lord and a Saviour,either to one, or two persons; while (according to your first rule) the fourth form (like our English, , The Lord and Saviour”) is invariably spoken of one only.

αλλ' ο Χριστος μετα του αρθρου εις εστιν. (Theophylact. in Matt. c. xvi. v. 16. p. 93.) See also Euseb. contra Marcell. De Eccles. Theol. lib. 2. p. 133. Again, (3d.) “Ορα δε τον πρωην απιστον (speaking of St. Thomas) πως απο του έψασθαι της πλευρας θεολογος αριστος ανεδειχθη. Τας γαρ δυο φυσεις, και την μιαν υποστασιν του ενος Χριστου εδιδαξεν εν μεν τω εισειν Κυριον, την ανθρωπινης φυσιν (και γαρ επ' ανθρωπων το Κυριος λεγεται, ώς το, Κυριε, ει συ εβαστασας αυτον, Joann. C. ΧΧ. 15.) δια δε το ειπειν Θεος μου, την θειαν ουσιαν, ένα μεντοι και τον αυτον ειναι Κυριον και Θεόν. Δεικνυων δε, &c. (Theophylact. in Joann, C. Xx. 28.) Also, (Nicet. Paphlagon. ap. Combefis Auctar. Biblioth. Pat. 1672.) 'O rugsos μου, και ο θεος μου. Ουκ αλλος ο κυριος, και αλλος ο θεος ουκ αλλος ο ψηλαφωμενος, και αλλος ο αναφης, αλλ' και των προσλημματι ληπτος κυριος, αυτος ούτος μου θεο; ακρατητος τη θεοτητα και αληπτος. With respect to the 4th form, we may refer back to Letter

5. No. 31. p. 80–81. Lastly (5th) in the following passage, two personal nouns are predicated of one subject :-Eπει και ο Χριστος δυο φυσεις εχει, Θεος και Ανθρωπος ων, Theophylact. in Μatt. c. xvii. 27. p. 102.

[ocr errors][merged small]
« AnteriorContinuar »