Obrazy na stronie
PDF
ePub

ing the Logos wholly in the man, as if he did not exist apart from him; De Princ. iv. c. 30: . . . . Non ita sentiendum est, quod omnis divinitatis ejus majestas intra brevissimi corporis claustra conclusa est, ita ut omne verbum Dei et sapientia ejus ac substantialis veritas ac vita vel a patre divulsa sit, vel intra corporis ejus coercita et conscripta brevitatem, nec usquam præterea putetur operata: sed inter utrumque cauta pietatis esse debet confessio, ut neque aliquid divinitatis in Christo defuisse credatur, et nulla penitus a paterna substantia, quæ ubique est, facta putetur esse divisio . . . . Cap. 31: Ne quis tamen nos existimet per hæc illud affirmare, quod pars alibi vel ubique: quod illi sentire possunt, qui naturam substantiæ incorporeæ atque invisibilis ignorant. Comp. also Contra Cels. iv. 5: Käv ó leds twv öλwv ty ἑαυτοῦ δυνάμει συγκαταβαίνῃ τῷ Ἰησοῦ εἰσ τὸν τῶν ἀνθρώπων βίον, κἂν ὁ ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸσ τὸν θεὸν λόγος, θεὸς καὶ αὐτὸς ὤν, ἔρχηται πρὸς ἡμᾶς, οὐκ ἔξεδρος γίνεται, οὐδὲ καταλείπει τὴν ἑαυτοῦ ἕδραν· ὥσ τινα μὲν τόπον κενὸν αὐτοῦ εἶναι, ἕτερον δὲ πλήρη, οὐ πρότερον αὐτὸν ἔχοντα. The Logos in his incarnate state is like the sun, whose beams remain pure wherever they may shine (Contra Cels. vi. 73). Nevertheless, Origen asserts that he laid aside his glory; in Jerem. Hom. x. 7 (Opp. iii. p. 186). The Father is the light as such, the Son is the light which shines in darkness; comp. Comm. in Joh. ii. 18 (Opp. iv. p. 76), and De Princ. i. 28. The humanity of Christ ceased to exist after his exaltation; comp. Hom. in Jerem. xv. (Opp. iii. p. 226): Ei kai ἦν ἄνθρωπος (ὁ σωτὴρ), ἀλλὰ νῦν οὐδαμῶς ἐστιν ἄνθρωπος. Comp. Hom. in Luc. xxix. (Opp. iii. p. 967): Tunc homo fuit, nunc autem homo esse cessavit. See Dorner, 1. c. p. 671, ss. Thomasius, p. 202, ss. Redepenning, ii. 313. 10 See Dorner, 1. c. p. 679, note 40. The phrase in question occurs (so far as we know) only in the Latin translation of the Homil. in Ezech. iii. 3 (Deus homo); but it is implied in other passages, e. g., Contra Cels. iii. 29; vii. 17. Comp. Thomasius, p. 203, note c. The Greek term was first explained by Chrysostom, see Suicer, Thesaurus, sub voce.

A special question arose concerning the risen body of Christ, in its relation to the body which he possessed prior to the resurrection. According to Ignatius, Justin, Irenæus, Tertullian, Cyprian, and Novatian, Jesus had the same body after the resurrection which he had before it. Comp. the passages in the work of C. L. Müller, De Resurrectione Jesu Christi, vitam æt. excipiente et ascensu in cœlum. Sententiæ, quæ in ecclesia Christiana ad finem usque sæculi sexti viguerunt. Havniæ, 1836, 8, p. 77; some merely modifying statements of Irenæus and Tertullian, p. 78. But Origen taught, on the other hand, in more definite terms, c. Cels. ii. c. 62 (Opp. i. p. 434), that the body of Jesus had undergone a change, and, in support of his opinion, appealed to his miraculous appearance, when the doors were shut: Kal ǹv ye μetà tǹV ἀνάστασιν αὐτοῦ ὡσπερεὶ ἐν μεθορίῳ τινὶ τῆς παχύτητος τοῦ πρὸ τοῦ πάθους σώματος καὶ τοῦ γυμνὴν τοιούτου σώματος φαίνεσθαι ψυχήν. Comp. c. 64, 65, p. 436: Τὸν μηκέτι ἔχοντά τι χωρητὸν ὁραθῆναι τοῖς πολλοῖς, οὐχ οἷοι τε ἦσαν αὐτὸν βλέπειν οἱ πρότερον αὐτὸν ἰδόντες πάντες Λαμπροτέρα γὰρ τὴν οἰκονομίαν τελέσαντος ἡ θειότης jv avrou. Müller, p. 83. Origen does not seem to have believed that the ascension of Christ effected a further change; for he probably means by the ethereal body, which he ascribes to him in his state of exaltation (c. Cels. iii. 41, 42, Opp. i. p. 474), the same which he had when he rose from the grave. Comp. Müller, p. 82, and p. 131. 12

§ 67.

THE SINLESSNESS OF CHRIST.

Ullmann, über die Sündlosigkeit Jesu, 5th edit. Hamb. 1846. [Ullmann, on the Sinless Character of Jesus, in Clark's Student's Cabinet Library of Useful Tracts.] Fritzsche, de dvaμaprnoía Jesu Christi, Comment. IV. comp. § 17.

The intimate union between the divine and human in Christ, as held by the primitive Church, excluded every possible idea of the existence of sin in him, who was the spotless image of Deity. Hence Irenæus, Tertullian, Clement, and Origen assert the sinlessness (ȧvaμaptηoía) of Jesus in the strongest terms,' and even those of the fathers who do not expressly mention it, at least take it for granted. In the scheme of the Ebionites and Artemonites, this sinlessness was not necessarily affirmed, although there are not any definite declarations to the contrary. On the other hand, Basilides found it difficult to reconcile the sinlessness of Christ with his Gnostic system, according to which every sufferer bears the punishments of his own sins; though he used every possible means to conceal this defect in his scheme."

[ocr errors]

1 Justin M. Dial. c. Tr. § 11, 17, 110, et al., Iren. in the next§. Tert. De Anima, cap. 41: Solus enim Deus sine peccato, et solus homo sine peccato Christus, quia et Deus Christus. Arnobius, Adv. Gentes, i. 53: Nihil, ut remini, magicum, nibil humanum, præstigiosum, aut subdolum, nihil fraudis delituit in Christo. Clem. Al. derives (Pæd. i. 2, p. 99) the prerogative of Christ as the judge of all men, from his sinlessness. In Pæd. iii. 12, p. 307, he speaks indeed of the Logos as alone ȧvaμáρτητоs, but as he makes no distinction between the Logos and the human nature of Christ (comp. the preceding §), it would follow that he regarded Jesus as sinless, which is confirmed by what he says, Strom. vii. 12, p. 875. (Sylb. 742): Εἰς μὲν οὖν μόνος ὁ ἀνεπιθύμητος (which implies still more than ἀναμάρτη τος) ἐξ ἀρχῆς ὁ κύριος, ὁ φιλάνθρωπος, ὁ καὶ δι' ἡμᾶς ἄνθρωπος. Concerning Origen, comp. § 63, note 5; Hom. xii. in Lev. (Opp. ii. p. 251) . . Solus Jesus dominus meus in hanc generationem mundus ingressus est, etc. In De Princ. ii. c. 6, § 5, 6 (Opp. i. p. 91), he endeavors to remove the difficulty which arises when we assume the absolute sinlessness of our Lord, in contrast with the other assumption of his free spiritual development: Verum quoniam boni malique eligendi facultas omnibus præsto est, hæc anima, quæ Christi est, ita elegit diligere justitiam, ut pro immensitate dilectionis inconvertibiliter ei atque inseparabiliter inhæreret, ita ut propositi firmitas et affectus immensitas et dilectionis inextinguibilis calor omnem sensum conversionis atque immutationis abscinderet, et quod in arbitrio erat positum, longi usus affectu jam, versum sit in naturam: ita et fuisse quidem in Christo humana et rationabilis

anima credenda est, et nullum sensum vel possibilitatem eam putandum est habuisse peccati (comparison with iron always in the fire). Christ possesses sinlessness as something peculiar to himself: Sicut vas ipsum, quod substantiam continet unguenti, nullo genere potest aliquid recipere fœtoris, hi vero qui ex odore ejus participant, si se paulo longius a fragrantia ejus removerint, possibile est, ut incidentem recipiant fœtorem: ita Christus velut vas ipsum, in quo erat unguenti substantia, impossibile fuit, ut contrarium reciperet odorem. Participes vero ejus quam proximi fuerint vasculo, tam odoris erunt participes et capaces. Comp. Contra Cels. i. 69, Opp. i. p. 383: Aid прòç τoĩs äλλ015 καὶ μέγαν ἀγωνιστὴν αὐτόν φαμεν γεγονέναι, διὰ τὸ ἀνθρώπινον σῶμα, πεπειρασμένον μὲν ὁμοίως πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις κατὰ τάντα, οὐκέτι δὲ ὡς ἄνθρωποι μετὰ ἁμαρτίας, ἀλλὰ πάντη χωρὶς ἁμαρτίας. (Hebr. iv. 15, where 1 Pet. ii. 22, and 2 Cor. v. 21, are also quoted). The term dvaμáprηroç first occurs in the writings of Hippolytus (Gallandii Bibl. ii. p. 466).

Comp. Clem. Strom. iv. p. 600 (Sylb. 506); and the comment of Jacobi in Neander's Hist. Dog. (Ryland), p. 207, in connection with the statement of Hippolytus. Comp. also Neander, Gnost. Syst. p. 49, ss. Baur, Versöhnungslehre, p. 24.

§ 68.

REDEMPTION AND ATONEMENT.

(The Death of Christ.)

Dissertatio Historiam Doctrinæ de Redemtione Ecclesiæ, Sanguine Jesu Christi facta, exhibens, in Cotta's edition of Gerhard's Loci Theologici, T. iv. p. 105-132. W. C. L. Ziegler, Historia Dogmatis de Redemptione, etc., inde ab ecclesiæ primordiis usque ad Lutheri tempora, Gött. 1791 (in Comment. Theol. ed. A. Velthusen, T. v. p. 227, seq.) * Bühr, K. die Lehre der Kirche vom Tode Jesu in den ersten 3 Jahrhunderten, Sulzb. 1832, reviewed in the Neue Kirchenzeitung, 1833, No. 36. Baur, F. Ch. die christliche Lehre von der Versöhnung in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwickelung von der ältesten Zeit bis auf die neueste. Tübingen, 1838 (p. 1-67). [Thomasius, Christi Person und Work, iii. p. 158.sq. 1859. William Thomson (Fellow of Queen's College), The Atoning Work of Christ; Bampton Lectures, Oxford, 1853, Lect. VI., Theories in the Early Church.]

The incarnation of the God-Man, in and of itself, had a redeeming and reconciling efficacy, by breaking the power of evil, and restoring the harmony of human nature, through the life-awakening and life-imparting influences which proceeded from this manifestation of deity. But from the very beginning, on the basis of apostolic Christianity, the redeeming element was put chiefly in the sufferings and death of Christ. The first teachers of the church regarded this death as a sacrifice and ransom (λúτpov), and therefore ascribed to the blood of Jesus the power of cleansing from sin and guilt,' and attached a high importance, sometimes even a magical efficacy, to

3

the sign of the cross. They did not, however, rest satisfied with such vague ideas, but, in connection with the prevailing views of the age, they further developed the above doctrine, and saw in the death of Christ the actual victory over the devil, the restoration of the divine image, and the source and condition of all happiness. But, however decidedly and victoriously this enthusiastic faith in the power of the Redeemer's death manifested itself in the writings and lives of the Christian fathers, as well as in the death of martyrs; yet this faith had not yet been developed into the form of a strict theory of satisfaction, in the sense that the sufferings of Christ were a punishment, necessarily inflicted by divine justice, and assumed in the place of the sinner, whereby the justice of God was strictly satisfied. At least several intermediate links were wanting, ere the doctrine could assume this shape. The term "satisfactio" occurs, indeed, first in the writings of Tertullian, but in a sense essentially different from, and even opposed to, the idea of a vicarious satisfaction. Nor was the death of Christ, as a reconciling power, considered as an isolated truth, dissevered from other aspects of it. The same Origen, who, on the one hand, along with the notion that the devil had been outwitted in this matter, likewise developed the idea of sacrifice as applicable to it on the basis of the Old Testament typology," on the other hand, spoke just as definitely in favor of the moral interpretation of Christ's death, which he did not hesitate to compare with the heroic death of other great men of primitive times. He also ascribed a purifying power to the blood of martyrs, as Clement had done before him. And besides, he understood the death of Jesus in a mystic and idealistic sense, as an event not limited to this world, nor to one single moment of time, but which occurred in heaven as well as on earth, embraces all ages, and is in its consequences of infinite importance even for the other worlds.

1" Christianity is not only the religion of redemption, inasmuch as it realizes the idea of the union of the divine and the human in the person of the God-Man, but also the religion of complete and absolute reconciliation." Baur, 1. c. p. 5. Concerning the relation in which redemption stands to reconciliation, ibid. [Baur here says: The two ideas of redemption and atonement (reconciliation) are usually distinguished, by referring the former to the idea of sin, and the latter to the idea of guilt.... Even if one should be transferred from a state of sin to one of sinlessness, it would not follow that the guilt of his sin had been removed.... The removal of this guilt can be conceived only as a divine act, and the ground of its possibility can be found only in the idea of God.] On negative and positive redemption, see Neander (Church History, Torrey's transl. i. p. 640). According to Justin M., the renovation and restoration of mankind is brought about by the doctrine of Christ, Apol. i. 23 : Γενόμενος ἄνθρωπος ταῦτα ἡμᾶς ἐδίδαξεν ἐπ' ἀλλαγῇ καὶ ἐπαναγωγῇ τοῦ ἀνθρωπείου γένους. Comp. Apol. ii. 6

(see note 4, below); Coh. ad Græc. 38, Dial. c. Tryph. § 121; § 83: Ισχυρὸς ὁ λόγος αὐτοῦ πέπειθε πολλοὺς καταλιπείν δαιμόνια, οἷς ἐδούλε νον, καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν παντοκράτορα Θεὸν δι' αὐτοῦ πιστεύειν. Also § 30: Απὸ γὰρ τῶν δαιμονίων, ἅ ἐστιν ἀλλότρια τῆς θεοσεβείας τοῦ Θεοῦ, οἷς πάλαι προσεκυνοῦμεν, τὸν Θεὸν ἀεὶ διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ συντηρηθῆναι παρακαλοῦμεν, ἵνα μετὰ τὸ ἐπιστρέψαι πρὸς Θεὸν δι' αὐτοῦ ἅμωμοι ὦμεν. Βοηθὸν γὰρ ἐκεῖνον καὶ λυτρωτὴν καλοῦμὲν· οὐ καὶ τὴν τοῦ ὀνόματος ἰσχὺν καὶ τὰ δαιμόνια τρέμει κ. τ. λ. If Justin emphasizes the negative, Irenaus speaks rather of the positive aspect, iii. 18 (20) [quando filius Dei incarnatus est et homo factus, longam hominum expositionem in semet ipso recapitulavit]; 20 (22), p. 214..... Filius hominis factus est, ut assuesceret hominem percipere Deum et assuesceret Deum habitare in homine, sec. placitum Patris. The work of redemption was carried on through all the ages and stages of life, which Christ represented in himself, so that death appears as the crown of the entire redemptive work, ii. 22, 4, p. 147: Omnes enim venit per semetipsum salvare: omnes, inquam, qui per eum renascuntur in Deum, infantes et parvulos et pueros et juvenes et seniores. Ideo per omnem venit aetatem, et infantibus infans factus, sanctificans infantes; in parvulis parvulus, sanctificans hanc ipsam habentes ætatem, simul et exemplum illis pietatis effectus et justitiæ et subjectionis: in juvenibus juvenis, exemplum juvenibus fiens, eosque sanctificans Domino; sic et senior in senioribus, ut sit perfectus magister in omnibus, non solum secundum expositionem veritatis, sed et secundum ætatem, sanctificans simul et seniores, exemplum ipsis quoque fiens; deinde et usque ad mortem pervenit, ut sit primogenitus ex mortuis, ipse primatum tenens in omnibus, princeps vitæ, prior omnium et præcedens omnes [v. 23, 2: Recapitulans autem universum hominem in se ab initio usque ad finem, recapitulavit et mortem ejus]. Comp. v. 16. [Comp. also Irenaeus Contra Hæres. v. 16 : Ἐν τοῖς πρόσθεν χρόνοις ἐλέγετο μὲν κατ' εἰκόνα Θεοῦ γεγονέναι τὸν ἄνθρωπον, οὐκ ἐδείκνυτο δὲ. ἔτι γὰρ ἀόρατος ἦν ὁ λόγος, οὗ κατ' εἰκόνα ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἐγεγόνει διὰ τοῦτο δὴ καὶ τὴν ὁμοίωσιν ῥαδίως ἀπέβαλεν, ὁπότε δὲ σὰρξ ἐγένετο ὁ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ, τὰ ἀμφότερα ἐπεκύρωσε· καὶ γὰρ τὴν εἰκόνα ἔδειξεν ἀληθῶς, αὐτὸς τοῦτο γενόμενος, ὅπερ ἂν ἡ εἰκών αὐτοῦ, καὶ τὴν ὁμοίωσιν βεβαίως κατέστησε, συνεξομοιώσας τὸν ἄνθρωπον τῷ ἀοράτῳ Πατρί.]-Comp. Tert. Adv. Marc. 12. Clem. Coh. p. 6, p. 23 : Ἡμεῖς δὲ οὐκ ὀργῆς θρέμματα ἔτι, οἱ τῆς πλάνῃς ἀπεσπασμένοι, ἀΐσσοντες δὲ ἐπὶ τὴν ἀλήθειαν. Ταύτη τοι ἡμεῖς, οἱ τῆς ἀνομίας υἱοί ποτε, διὰ τὴν φιλανθρωπίαν τοῦ λόγου νῦν υἱοὶ γεγόναμεν τοῦ Θεοῦ. Paed. i. 2, p. 100: Ἔστιν οὖν ὁ παιδαγωγὸς ἡμῶν λόγος διὰ παραινέσεων θεραπευτικὸς τῶν παρὰ φύσιν τῆς ψυχῆς παθῶν. . . . Δόγος δὲ ὁ πατρικὸς μόνος ἐστὶν ἀνθρωπίνων ἰατρὸς ἀῤῥωστημάτων παιώνιος καὶ ἐπῳδὸς ἅγιος νοσούσης ψυχῆς. Comp. i. 9, p. 147; i. 12. p. 158; Quis Div. salv. p. 951, 52. (Comparison with the merciful Samaritan). Origen also (Contra Cels. iii. 28, Opp. i. p. 465), sees in the union of the divine and the human in Christ the beginning of an intimate connection between the one and the other, which is to be progressively developed in mankind : Ὅτι ἀπ' ἐκείνου ἤρξατο θεία καὶ ἀνθρωπίνη συνυφαίνεσθαι φύσις· ἵν ̓ ἡ ἀνθρω πίνη τῇ πρὸς τὸ θειότερον κοινωνίᾳ γένηται θεία οὐκ ἐν μόνῳ τῷ

« PoprzedniaDalej »