Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

29. The last Greek authority, which I have met with, is that of Euthymius Zigabenus; who has transcribed into his Panoplia Dogmatica, the passage which we have given above (No. 15) from Cyrillus Alexandrinus. may be found fol. 62 B. of the Latin translation.

It

30. Let us now review, for a moment, the ground over which we have passed. We have referred to twenty-one Greek passages in which the words εν τη βασιλεία του Χριστού και Θεου are quoted. Of these we consider twelve (viz. the passages in Nos. 1, 12, 13, 14, 18, 19, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28) as determining nothing either way with respect to the meaning of those particular words: But then we observe, that it is not for the sake of those words that their quotations are made. The remaining nine (viz. Nos. 2, 11, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 24, 29) are with one voice, clear testimonies for your interpretation. That is, in fact, all the Greek authorities that do speak at all are on your side.

Of the Latin writers we refer to something more than thirty passages, sixteen of which we consider as significant testimonies (viz. Nos. 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, three in No. 7, No. 10, and in the Appendix, Nos. 6, 7, 16, 17, 21, 24, 25.) And of these sixteen we may perhaps claim three (viz. Nos. 8, 9, 10) to your side; the rest are plainly against you.

It is to be remarked, however, that such is the nature of those three, that were we to determine the true sense

of

of the Greek merely from Latin interpreters, they ought, perhaps, to be accounted of as much value as all the rest put together.

The Latins, if they confined themselves solely to their own text (and it is a known fact, that few of them could pass beyond it) must, from the natural order of the words almost necessarily have been led to that interpretation which we find they have adopted. And, to account for the frequency of their quoting this verse, we have seen, that their interpretation was valuable to them in controversy. Now, the Greeks also (if we for a moment exclude your rule, and suppose the passage to be as ambiguous to them, as it is undoubtedly in the Latin) were actuated by the same two inducements to have abounded in the same interpretation. For, first, the order of the words is the same. And secondly, they would (as might easily be shewn *) have been equally glad to have availed

themselves

"De

* Thus, for instance, the title of the 21st section of the Treatise, Communi essentia Patris, Filii et Spiritus Sancti," among the works of Athanasius (vol. ii.) is Ότι προταττεται του Πατξος ὁ Υἱος. Also Chrysostom on 2 Thessal. xi. 16. Που νυν εισιν οἱ τον Υίον ελαττούντες, επειδη μετα τον Πατεξα εν τη χαριτι του λουτρου ονομάζεται; Ιδού γαρ ενταυθα τουναντιον εστιν. Αυτός (φησι πρωτον) ὁ κύριος ήμων Ιησους Χριστος, είτα, ὁ Θεός και πατής του κυρίου ήμων, ↑ ayaπnoaç, n. T. §. (Vol. xi. p 532.) And, on the same verse, Theodoret (p. 389, vol. 3.) Και ταυτα δε την Αρείου και Ευνομίου βλασφημίαν ελέγχει, και διδάσκει σαφως, ὡς οὐδὲ ἡ τάξις των ονοματων διαφοραν αξιωματων δηλον, τον γας Υἷον ενταυθα προεταξε του Πατρός, κ. τ. έξ. See also Theophylact and Oecumenius on the same text. Again Oecumenius on Galat. i. 1. Az Incov Xgisτου και Θεου πατρος. Σημείωσαι το, δια, επι πατρὸς καὶ υἱου κείμενον, και πρωτον τον giov ovoμaoberta (vol. i. p. 719.) And to mention no more, Theophylact on another

themselves of a verse which should have supplied them with those doctrinal topics which were, by the Latin church, derived from the clause in question. How then, we mean to ask, did it happen, that no Greek ever adopted that interpretation?

Το us, therefore, the question becomes this: Shall we take the explanation of a Greek passage from Greeks, or prefer, from Latin writers, not the explanation of the Greek, but of a translation of it into their language; which translation, though capable of both meanings, and so originally not a false translation, would much more naturally lead men to that sense which is contradictory of the common Grecian idiom, and the uniform voice of Grecian interpreters?

I fancy, Sir, in fine, we may safely conclude, that our English translation of this verse, we have inherited, solely from the Latin text, and from the Latin interpreters.

I am, Sir, &c,

other passage (1 Cor. xii. 6.) Όρα δε πως του Πνεύματος εμνήσθη πρωτον, τα λευταίον δε του Πατρος, δια τους την ταξιν περιεργαζομένους. Thus far, as to the precedency in naming. The following may suffice with respect to the community of operation. Athanasius de Communi Essentia, &c. sect 35. Ότι μια εξουσία και δυναμις και Βασιλεια και θεοτης του Πατρός και Υιου, Theodoret on Romans, Chap. i. 7. Χαρις ὑμῖν και ειρήνη από Θεοῦ Πατρὸς ἡμῳν, και κυ βίου Ιησου Χρίστου. Δι ὧν ἡμας εδίδαξεν αντικρυς πατρις και υίου την ισότητα. (Vol. iii. p. 13.) Theophylact on Galat. c. i. v 1. χριστου, και Θεου Πατρός, του εγείραντος αυτόν εκ νεκρών. ύπο του Πνεύματος δηλούσιν αυτον αφορισθήναι εις την εξουσια Υίου, και Πνεύματος, και Πατρος (p. 439.), James, i. 1. Θεου μεν Πατρος, Κυρίου δε του Υίου, Υίου δουλος, ὁμοτιμος εστι τῷ Πατρι και ὁ Υἱος, και κατ' ουσίαν, και κατ'

[ocr errors]

Αλλα δια Ιησου Και μην αἱ Πράξεις

αποστολήν δηλον

ουν, ότι And Oecumenius on St. ώστε ει εξ ίσου Πατρος και

ενεργειαν.

LETTER III.

SIR,

ON your next example (2 Thess. i. 12.) my references

are few; so few, that at the most, I have not more than one quotation, exclusive of those which are derived from the regular commentators and so indeterminate, that in all which I can produce, there is not one of the passages which is decisive, either way, with respect to the required interpretation.

We must beware, however, of laying too much stress on this lack of evidence, and by no means immediately regard it as a strong presumption, that the verse cannot be a testimony to the Divinity of our Saviour, merely because we do not find, that it has been ordinarily cited as such by the ancient Fathers.

The nature of those heresies which produced almost all the polemical writings of the ancient Church which are now extant, is sufficient to teach us not to look there particularly, for arguments in behalf of Christ's mere Divinity*. In the controversies of those days it would have been of little use to produce passages of Scripture

* Gregor. Nyssen. contra Eunom. vol. ii. p. 265. Ότι γας και προφηται Θεον ὁμολογοῦσι τον Κυριον και ευαγγελισταί, και μαθηται, και αποστολοι, ουδείς οὕτω των θείων αμύητος, ὡς λόγῳ δεῖσθαι περί τούτων μαθειν.

which

which spake of Christ as God, and did not withal con vey something respecting the proper nature and dignity of his person. It is those places where it is written "In the beginning was the Word"; where he is called the “God

[ocr errors]

over all, blessed for ever," (Rom. ix. 5.) the great God and our Saviour," (Tit. ii. 13.) " the true God, and eternal life," (1 John v. 20.) which were then of especial importance, and are accordingly perpetually insisted upon.

1. I do not find our present verse in any writer earlier than St. Chrysostom.

In the Homilies on this Epistle, the following is the whole of what he writes on the 12th verse.

Ορα είπεν εκεί (i. e in the 10th verse) δοξαν ειπε και ενταυθα ειπεν ότι αυτοι δοξάζονται, ώστε και καυχασ θαι. είπεν, ὁ πολλῳ πλεον ην, ὅτι και τον Θεον δοξάζουσιν. 8 είπεν ότι απολήψονται την δόξαν εκείνην άλλα και ενταυ θα φησι. του γαρ δεσποτου δοξαζομενου, και οἱ δουλοι δοξα ζονται, οἱ γαρ τον δεσποτην δοξάζοντες, πολλῳ μαλλον αυτοί δοξάζονται, και πουτῳ αὐτῷ, και χωρίς τούτου, δοξα γαρ εστιν ἡ θλίψις ή δια Χριστον, και πανταχου δόξαν το πραγμα καλεί, και ὅσῳ αν άτιμον τι παθώμεν, τοσουτῷ μαλλον γινόμεθα λαμπροι, ειτα παλιν δεικνύς ότι και τρυτο αυτο του Θεου εστι, φησι, κατά την χάριν του Θεού Έμων και κυρίου Ιησου Χριστου· τουτέστι, ταυτην την χαριν μιν αυτος εδωκεν ὁ Θεός, ἵνα δοξάζηται εν ήμιν, και δοξαζή μας εν αυτῷ, πως δοξάζεται εν ημιν; ὅτι ουδεν αυτου προς τιμωμεν· πως δοξαζόμεθα εν αυτῷ; ότι δύναμιν ειληφαμεν

παρω

« AnteriorContinuar »