« AnteriorContinuar »
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. It may be found fol. 62 B. of the Latin translation.
30. Let us now review, for a moment, the ground over which we have passed. We have referred to täenty-one Greek
in which the words εν τη βασιλεία του Χριστού και Θεου are quoted. Of these we consider treelve (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 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 seconlly, they would (as might easily be shewn *) have been equally glad to have availed
* Thus, for instance, the title of the 21st section of the Treatise, “ De Communi essentia Patris, Filii et Spiritus Sancti,” among the works of -Athanasius (vol. ii.) is ‘OTI FOTETT:TŲ. TOU Ilazgos o rios. Also Chrysostom on 2 Thessal. xi. 16. Που νυν εισιν οι τον Υιον ελαττουντες, επειδη μετα τον Πατεξα εν τη χαριτι του λουτρου ονομαζεται; Ιδου
ενταύθα τουναντιον εστιν. . AUTOS (φησι πρωτον) ο κυριος ημων Ιησους Χριστος, ειτα, ο Θεος και πατηρ του κυρίου ημων, 7 ayuningas, %. 7... (Vol. xi. p. 532.) And, on the same serse, Theodoret (p. 389, vol. 3.) Και ταυτα δε την Αρειου και Ευνομιου βλασφημιαν ελεγχει, και διδασκει σαφως, ώς ουδε ή ταξις των ονοματων διαφοραν αξιωματων δηλον, τον γας Tioy ertavba #geetaŽE TOIlargos, x. t. . See also Theophylact and Oecumenius on the same text. Again Oecumenius on Galat. i. 1. Alce Incov Xpose του και Θεου πατρος. Σημειωσαι το,
κείμενον, και πρωτον τον z for ovouaoberta (vol.i. p.719.) And to mention no more, Theophylact on an
δια, επι πατρος
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 ?
To 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 60 originaliy 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 curclude, 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.) Ορα δε πως του Πνευματος εμνησθη πρωτον, τελευταιον δε του Πατρος, δια τους την ταξιν περιεργαζομενους. Thus far, as to the precedency in naming. The following may suliice with respect to the community of operation. Athanasius de Cominuni Essentia, &c. sect 35. 'Ory μια εξουσία και διναμις και Βασιλεια και θεοτης του Πατρός και Υιου. Theodoret on Romans, Chap. 1. 7. Χαρις υμιν και ειρηνη απο Θεου Πατρος ημων, και κυειου Ιησου Χριστου. Δι ών ημας εδιδαξεν αντικρυς πατρος και υίου την ισοτητα. (Vol.iii. p. 13.) Theophylact on Galat. c. i. v 1. . '... Αλλα δια Ιησου χριστου, και Θεου Πατρος, του εγειραντος αυτον εκ νεκρων. Και μην αι Γραξεις υπο του Πνευματος δηλουσιν αυτον αφορισθήναι εις την αποστολης· δηλον ουν, ότι μια εξουσια Yίου, και Πνευματος, και Πατρος (p. 439.). And Oecumenius on St. James, i. 1. Θεου μεν Πατρος, Κυριου δε του Yίου, ώστε ει εξ ισου Πατρος και Yίου δουλος, ομοτιμος εστι το Πατρι και ο Υιος, και κατ' ουσίαν, και κατ' ενεργειαν.
your next example (2 Thess. i. 12.) my references
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. 'Ori yaz volt 7780@NTAI Θεον ομολογουσι τον Κυριον και ευαγγελισται, και μαθηται, και αποστολοι, ουδεις ούτω των θειων αμυητος, ως λογω δεισθαι περι τουτων μαθει».
which spake of Christ as God, and did not withal cons 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 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" ειπεν εκει (i. e. in the 10th verse) δοξαν ειπε και ενταύθα ειπεν ότι αυτοι δοξαζονται, ώστε και καυχασθαι. ειπεν, ο πολλω πλεον ην, ότι και τον Θεον δοξαζουσιν. ειπε οτι απολήψονται την δοξαν εκεινην· αλλα και ενταυθα φκσι, του γαρ δεσποτου δοξαζομενου, και οι δουλοι δοξαζονται, οι γαρ τον δεσποτην δοξαζοντες, πολλα μαλλον αυτοι δοξαζονται, και πουτι αυτό, και χωρις τουτου, δοξα γαρ εστιν η θλιψις και δια Χριστον, και πανταχου δοξαν το πραγμα καλει, και όσω» αν ατιμον τι παθωμεν, τοσουτω μαλλον γινομεθα λαμπροι, ειτα παλιν δεικνυς ότι και σουτο αυτο του Θεου εστι, φησι, κατα την χαριν του Θεού όμων και κυριου Ιησου Χριστου: τουτέστι, ταυτην την χαριν νμιν αυτος εδωκεν ο Θεος, να δοξαζνται εν υμιν, και δοξαζη μας εν αυτω. πως δοξαζεται εν υμίν, ότι ουδεν αυτου προτιμα μεν' πως δοξαζομεθα εν αυτο και ότι δυναμιν ειληφαμεν