« 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 tivo 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
* 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 7FOTATTETAI TOU Ilanços ó 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 και Idou
ενταύθα τουναντιον εστιν. . AUTOS (φησι πρωτον) ο κυριος ημων Ιησους Χριστος, ειτα, ο Θεος και πατηρ του κυριου ημων,
ayotinoas, X. 7. 5. (Vol. xi. p 532.) And, on the same verse, Theodoret (p. 389, vol. 3.) Και ταυτα δε την Αρειου και Ευνομιου βλασφημιαν ελεγχει, και διδασκει σαφως, ως ουδε ή ταξις των ονοματων διαφοραν αξιωματων δηλον, τον γαρ Táovertauba igoetaže Tou Ilargos, x. 7. Ę. See also Theophylact and Oecumenius on the same text. Again Oecumenius on Galat. i. 1. Arch Ingov Xessa του και Θεου πατρος. Σημείωσαι το, δια, επι πατρος και υπου κειμενον, και πρωτον τον giov ovoucoberta (vol.i. p.719.) And to mention po more, Theophylact
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 inean 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 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 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 Ιατρος, δια τους την ταξιν περιεργαζομενους. Thus far, as to the precedency in naming. The following may sufiice with respect to the community of operation. Athanasius de Cominuni Essentia, &c. sect 35. ‘OTI μια εξουσία και δυναμις και Βασιλεια και θεοτης του Πατρος και Υιου. Τheoloi et on Romans, Chap. 1. 7. Χαρις υμιν και ειρηνη απο Θεου Πατρος ημων, και κυειου Ιησου Χριστου. Δι ων ημας εδιδαξεν αντικρυς πατρος και υιου την ισοτητα. (Vol. ii. p. 13.) Theophylact on Galat. c.i. v. 1. ... Αλλα δια Ιησου χριστου, και Θεου Πατρας, του εγειραντος αυτον εκ νεκρων. Και μην αι Πραξεις υπο του Πνευματος δηλουσιν αυτον αφορισθήναι εις την αποστολης· δηλόν ουν, ότι μια εξουσια Υιου, και Πνευματος, και Πατρος (p. 439.). And Oecumenius on St. James, 1. 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' ουσιαν, 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 withai convey 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 (1, e. in the 10th verse) δοξαν: ειπε και ενταύθα ειπεν ότι αυτοι δοξαζονται, ώστε και καυχασθαι. ειπεν, και πολλω πλεον ην, ότι και τον Θεον δοξαζουσιν. είπε ότι απολήψονται την δοξαν εκεινην· αλλα και ενταυθα φνσι, του γαρ
δεσποτου δοξαζομενου, και οι δουλοι δοξαζονται, οι γαρ τον δεσποτην δοξαζοντες, πολλα μαλλον αυτοι δοξαζονται, και τουτο αυτό, και χωρις τουτου, δοξα γαρ εστιν η θλιψις και δια Χριστον, και πανταχου δοξαν το πραγμα καλει, και όσω» αν ατιμον τι παθωμεν, τοσουτο μαλλον γινομεθα λαμπροι. ειτα παλιν δεικνυς ότι και τουτο αυτο του Θεου εστι, φησι, κατα την χαριν του Θεου μων και κυριου Ιησου Χριστου: τουτέστι, ταυτην την χαριν νμιν αυτος εδωκεν ο Θεος, ίνα δοξαζηται εν υμιν, και δοξαζη γμας εν αυτω. πως δοξαζεται εν υμιν, ότι ουδεν αυτου προτιμία μεν' πως δοξαζομεθα εν αυτο και ότι δυναμιν ειληφαμεν