« AnteriorContinuar »
Tησου Χριστο, Κωνσταντινών και Ειρηνη Aυγουστοις, Αδρια, νος δουλος των δουλων του Θεου. Concil. Oecunnen. 6. vol. iv. p. 80. Anno Christi 787.
24. Η ουκ ισμεν ότι και αγαθος ημων θεος και κυριος, και μονος αναμαρτητος, και αιρων την αμαρτιαν του κοσμου, υπο πορνης τους αχραντους ποδας ηγεσχετο και χειραπτεισο θαι, και υπαλειφεσθαι δακρυσιν. Theodori Studita Epistol. p. 600.
25. Και τους λεγοντας την σαρκα του Θεου και κυριου και σωτηρος ημών Ιησου Χριστου εξ ουρανων κατεληλυθεναι. Evagrii Scholastici Hist. Eccles. 1. ii. c. 18. p. 312,
26. Τον μονον θεον και κυριον αρνουνται. “ρθεν δειξαν βουλομενος, ότι εις εστιν ο παλαιας και νέας διαθηκης Θεος και κυριος Ιησούς Χριστος, επήγαγεν, &c. Scholia in Epistolam D. Judæ, Vid. C.F. Matthæi Test. Græc. Cathol, Epist. p. 935.
These, Sir, are all the instances which I have noted. But, surely, these are not to be slighted, in determining the interpretation of the words, ενώπιον του Θεού και κυριου Ιησου Χριστου*.
* It is obvious to remark, that the weight of these passages, whatever it be, belongs equally to our preceding letter. They must be considered, therefore, as transcribed, in some degree, for its sake. Also, the evidence which came before us upon (2 Thess. i. 12.) the subject of that letter, which ever way it may have appeared to incline, is plainly to be taken into the account here.--Neither must we omit to connect with these letters, what will occur below on St. Jude, v. 4, and St. James, C. 1. Υ. 1.
Besides, we might go on to produce a number of examples, which should shew, that when the writer had to designate the two persons, he invariably quitted the ó Okog nam xuplos, to adopt (among others) the form Θεος, και ο κυριος,
Such are, for instance, Ignatius, Autos de ó 809 mar πατήρ, και ο κυριος Ιησους ο Χριστος (Epist. ad Romanos) Origen, Αλλα τον χωρισμού της ψυχης απο του Θεου, και του κυριου αυτου, και του αγιου πνευματος. (Commentar. in Joann. vol. ii. p. 216), Clemens Romanus (as quoted-by St. Basil de Spiritu Sancto c. 29, vol. iii. p. 61.) Ζη, φησιν, ο Θεος, και ο κυριος Ιησούς Χριστος, και το πνευμα το άγιον, and Eusebius, Επι του Θεου του παντοκρατορος, και του κυρίου ημών Ιησου Χριστου μαρτυρομεθα, δεικYUV21 EYOVTES, &c. (Apud Athanasium, vol. i. p. 239,)
It is now time that we should quit this text. Nor have I any thing else to say at parting, but to repeat, that I I know not how the difficulty is to be removed, otherwise than by supposing that xuprou did not come from the pen either of Chrysostom, Oecumenius, or Theophylact*.
* Though still there would remain something to explain, on account of its appearing in Mr. Matthæi's manuscripts, and others; for instance, Wetstein's Codex 27. For these probably were the work of Greek transcribers. Or, is it enough to hear what Mr. Matthæi has told us? “Ut enim alii scribæ textum conformabant scholiis, ita eum alii, contra scholia, conformabant ceteris minus corruptis codicibus. Igitur etiam in Chrysostomo accidit, ut haud raro lectio ab ejus interpretatione dissențiret.” Prefat. in omnes D. Pauli Epistolas.
I had indeed once thought, that the appellation κυριος might, perhaps, have become so appropriated to our Saviour, as to be considered as a proper name, just as “our Lord” is sometimes among us: in which case you RECU, και Κυριου Ιησου Χριστου might have been understood in the same meaning, and have fallen under the same rule with του Θεου, και Ιησου Χριστου. But I have found no other evidence for this notion *.
Your next example (2 Tim. iv. 1.) would now require our attention: And there might seem to be some reason to hope for assistance there with respect to our past difficulties. But the fact is, I have met with this verse no where, but only when it takes its turn in the Commentaries of Chrysostom, Theodoret, Damascenus, Oecumenius and Theophylact: And in all these places, except the last, which I have already transcribed, the reading is not του Θεού και κυριου, which alone could make them objects for our notice; but the common reading (till Griesbach, who has thrown the του κυριου into his margin) of our printed editions, viz. του Θεού και του κυριου.
* Οριζου δε και την ημετεραν ευσεβειαν, διδασκων, ένα
ειδεναι Θεον αγέννητον, τον Πατερα, ένα δε γεννητον Κυριον, τον Υιον, Θεον μεν, όταν καθ' εαυτον λεγητα, προσαγορευομενον, Κυριον δε, όταν μετα Πατος ονομαζηται. το μεν δια την φυσιν το δε δια την μοναρχιαν. Gregor. Nazianzen. Οrat. 23. vol. 1. p. 420.
Των γαρ ονοματων τα μεν εστι κοινα, τα δε ιδια. κοινα μεν ίνα το απαραλλακτoν δειξη της ουσίας, ιδια δε ένα την ιδιοτητα χαρακτηριξη των υποστασεων. Το μεν ουν Πατης και Υιος, ιδιον έκαστης υποστασεως. το δε Θεος και Κυριος, κοινον. επει ουν τεθεικε κοινον ονομα το, εις θεος, εδεηθη και του ιδιαζοντος, ένα γνωριση τινα φησιν. Chrysostom De Incomprehensibili Dei Natura, vol. i. p. 482. See also vol. ii. p. 708.
It is, therefore, needless to transcribe the passages. Indeed, I may just remark, that there runs through the whole (excepting Damascenus, who has nothing but the bare text) a great resemblance, derived, as usual, from Chrysostom: so that Theophylact may serve as a tolerable representation of them all. There is not one of them more particular and determinate than he is.
The Latin Fathers, almost without any exception, here as well as in i Tim. v. 21, entirely omit the Domini*.
I must not close this Letter, without apologizing for detaining you so long, to so little purpose.
SIR, "MANY modern writers understand this whole sentence” (says Dr. Samuel Clarke; speaking of Titus, c. ii. 13.) “ to belong to one and the same person, viz. Christ as if the words should have been rendered, The appear. ing of our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ. Which construction, the words will indeed grammatically bear; as do also those in 2 Pet. i. 1. But it is much more reasonable, and more agreeable to the whole tenor of Scripture, to understand the former part of the words to relate to the Father: the word God, with any high title or epithet annexed, always signifying the Father only: See above, ch. 1. sect. 3. and my Commentary on 40 select texts, in answer to Mr. Nelson, p. 85.” (Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity, chap. ii. sect. 1. No. 541. p. 89. Lond. 1732.)
Again; the following is the whole of Dr. Benson's note on that passage, in his Commentary on the Epistles.-" The literal translation is, And (or even) the appearing of the glory of the great God, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ. Our Saviour Jesus Christ will appear at the last day, clothed in his own glory, attended by his