Obrazy na stronie



heavens and earth, and of the Angels. Chrysostom developes still more plainly than Jerome, in his vindication of this Epistle, the congruity of the devine and human. He says,* if any one leads a spiritual life, his whole appearance, and gait, and speech, bear the impress of spirituality and edify observers.†

THEODORUS of MOPSUESTIA would enable us to understand still more fully the peculiarities of the Antiochian School in this respect, if more of the Commentaries of this liberally minded man had come down to us. While the advocates of the common Hermeneutics were disposed to find the


Hom. in Philem. t. xi. p. 773.—Όταν τις πνευματικῶς ζῇ καὶ σχήματα καὶ βαδίσματα καὶ ῥήματα καὶ πράγματα τοῦ τοιούτου καὶ πάντα ἁπλῶς τοὺς ἀκούοντας ὀφείλει.

+ Compare also the admirable vindication of the Epistle to Philemon by Theodorus of Mopsuestia, who regards it as a specimen of apostolic humility and wisdom.

This opinion of Neander's has been confirmed since the abovementioned Commentaries have been discovered. Their whole method is very instructive in reference to the standpoint of Theodorus. We extract from them the following general remarks. Respecting the settlement of the historical portions, and the designed idea of the biblical writers on allegorical interpretation, he remarks on Gal. iv. 24, p. 81 Qui studium multum habent intervertere sensus divinarum scripturarum, et omnia quæ illuc posita sunt intercipere fabulas vero quasdam ineptas ex se confingere, et allegoriæ nomen suæ ponere desipientiæ; hac voce apostoli abutentes, quasi hinc videntur sumsisse potestatem ut et omnes intellectus divinæ exterminent scripturæ, eo quod secundum apostolum per allegoriam dicere nituntur. Et ipsi non intelligentes, quantum differt, quod et ab illis et ab apostolo hoc in loco dictum sit. Apostolus enim non interimit historiam, neque evolvit res dudum factas, sed sic posuit illa, ut tunc fuerant facta, et historia illorum quæ fuerant facta, ad suum usus est intellectum. Isti vero omnia e contrario faciunt, omnem divinæ scripturæ historiam somniorum nocturnorum nihil differre volentes. Nec enim Adam Adam esse dicunt, quando maxime eos divina spiritaliter enarrare acciderit.

For his view of the inspiration of the New Testament writers, his remarks on Paul's style and feelings are deserving of attention. On Gal. v. 12, p. 88: Et ad plenum quis considerans illa, quæ in hac sunt epistola, tum quæ extra probationem sunt, sive ad Galatas dicta sive ad adversarios, inveniet densam eam esse et sensus varietate illustratam, nunc quidem ista, nunc vero illa dicentem, quod proprium est illorum qui irascuntur. Ita ut et multa contingant, et omnia frequenter et compendiose dicant, nullo in loco sensum dilatantes. In Philemon v. 16, p. 158: Est quidem obscurum quod dictum est ob nimium compendium, eo quod Apostolus sæpe cupiens aliqua compendiose explicare, obscuritate dicta sua involvit. [JACOBI.]

[ocr errors]

New Testament in the Old, which was easily effected by the allegorical exegesis, Theodorus laid particular stress on the difference between the Old Testament and the Christian standpoint. He developed ideas, which had been propagated by the Gnostics, but adopted a far more sound and scientific method. He opposed the arbitrary allegorical method of interpreting Scripture, and, while he adhered to the historical and grammatical method, endeavoured to satisfy the religious and the scientific necessities of the case. Thus he arrived at a remarkable idea of the inspiration of the Old Testament; he distinguished between what the Authors had expressed consciously under certain definite relations, and the higher meaning which might be discovered in it from the Christian standpoint. Many expressions were hyperbolical* in relation to the objects to which they were primarily applied; they find their verification in Christ. Hence, the notion that Theodorus formed of Inspiration was, that the Divine Spirit imparted to these writers ideas of which they were not clearly conscious, and which were susceptible of a higher application than they could make of them. He combated those who saw the doctrine of the Trinity clearly expressed in the Old Testament, and maintained on the contrary that neither that, nor the doctrine of the Messiah as the Son of God, were yet revealed in it. The Apostles, in the Interpretation of the Old Testament, were not always infallible according to the letter; they were guided by the Holy Spirit only in understanding the higher meaning. Hence, he did not place the Old Testament quotations on a level

* Comment. in Zachar. ix. v. 9, 10. Wegnern, p. 613.

+ In Joel ii. 28. Wegn. p. 154.—τοῦτο γὰρ λέγει τὸ ἐκχεῶ ἀπὸ τοῦ πνεύματός μου, τῶν ἐπὶ τῆς παλαιᾶς διαθήκης πνεῦμα μὲν ἅγιον μοναδικὸν ἐν ὑποστάσει κεχωρισμένως τῶν λοιπῶν θεοῦ τε ὄν καὶ ἐκ Θεοῦ οὐκ ἐπισταμένων, πνεῦμα δὲ Θεοῦ καὶ πνεῦμα ἅγιον καὶ πᾶν, ὅ, τι δήποτε τοιοῦτο τὴν χάριν αὐτοῦ καὶ τὴν κηδεμονίαν καὶ τὴν διάθεσιν καλούντων, κ.τ.λ. In Sachar. i. 7. Wegn. 539 :-δηλοῦ ὄντος, ὅτι τῶν πρὸ τῆς τοῦ δεσπότου Χριστοῦ παρουσίας οὐδεὶς ἠπίστατο πατέρα καὶ υἱὸν οὐ πατέρα θεὸν υἱοῦ θεοῦ πατέρα, οὐχ υἱὸν θεὸν υἱὸν πατρὸς θεοῦ τοῦτο ὄντα ὅπερ ἐστὶν ὁ πατὴρ, ἅτε καὶ ὄντα ἐξ αὐτοῦ· ἐπειδὴ πατρὸς μὲν ὀνομασία καὶ υἱοῦ ἐπὶ παλαιᾶς ἦν διαθήκης, πατρὸς μὲν κοινῶς κατὰ κηδεμονίαν τοῦ θεοῦ λεγομένου τῶν τῆς ἐκεῖθεν ἐπιμέλειας ἀξιουμένων ἀνθρώπων, υἱῶν δὲ τῶν ἐχόντων τι πλέον κατὰ οἰκείωσιν θεοῦ· πατέρα δὲ θεὸν, ὥσπερ οὖν ἔφην ἤδη, υἱοῦ θεοῦ καὶ υἱὸν θεὸν θεοῦ πατρὸς ἠπίστατο τῶν τότε καθάπαξ οὐδείς.



a with those from the New. Occupying this historical standpoint, he prosecuted an historical genetic development of Revelation, which was the first approximation to the idea of biblical Dogmatics. The method also was peculiarly his own in which he explained the ecstasies recorded in Holy Writ, as necessary* under certain circumstances. As we obtain the most accurate information when we direct our senses entirely to an object, so the gaze of the holy writers was given up to the contemplation of divine things, and the consciousness of the external World retired before that of the internal. With this was connected his opinion that the Visions in Holy Writ were not at all sensuous, but perceptions of an inner sense in which instruction was imparted by the Holy Spirit. In these views many important germs of later development were contained.



DURING this period the whole doctrine of God underwent a revolution, owing to the controversies respecting the Trinity; we shall, therefore, deviate from the order, we followed in the first period, and begin with the history of the doctrine of the Trinity.



THE Unity of the Christian consciousness of God was developed in conflict with the old Subordination system of the Trinity In the East the Subordination System as elaborated under the influence of Origen, maintained its ground; in the West, the doctrine prevailed of one divine essence in the Father and the Son ; una substantia, μία ουσία, ὁμοούσιον. We have seen the controversy break out between the Roman and Alexandrian Churches, and how it was settled by the moderation of

* In Nahum, c. i. Wegn. p. 397.—Ovтw тòv μakápiov Пétpov Xéyei ἐν ἐκστάσει γεγονότα τὴν σινδόνα ἰδεὶν ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καταφερομένην, ἐπειδὴ ἡ τοῦ πνεύματος χάρις πρότερον αὐτοῦ τὴν διάνοιαν ἀποσπάσασα τῶν παρόντων τότε προσανέχειν τῷ θεωρίᾳ παρεσκεύασε τῶν δεικνυμένων, ἵν ̓ ὥσπερ ἔξω τῆς παρούσης γινόμενοι καταστάσεως καθ ̓ ὑπνους τῶν αποκαλυπτομένων δεχώμεθα τὴν θεωρίαν, οὕτω πως τῇ μεταστάσει τῆς διανοίας ὑπὸ τῆς τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος καθιστάμενοι χάριτος τῶν δεικνυμένων ὑποδέχοιντο τὴν θεωρίαν.

Dionysius of Alexandria. Perhaps it would not now have come to an open rupture if an extreme party had not appeared which was at a still greater remove from the Western system of Unity than the prevalent view of the Eastern Church. We have remarked traces of it already during the preceding Period in the opposition against the Monarchians, which gave prominence to the distinction between the essence of the Father and that of the Son. It stamps special importance on the appearance of ARIUS, that he gave the watchword to the controversy by an unmodified expression of a similar view.

ARIUS, Presbyter of a church affiliated to the principal church in Alexandria, was certainly not the man who was disposed to establish a new dogma. He had not the talents requisite to give a new direction, and, doubtless, believed that he was only maintaining the ancient doctrine of the Church, and vindicating it against errors. He was animated by a sincere zeal for what he acknowledged as true, and withal a strong predilection for logical clearness and intelligibility, but with a certain contractedness of mind, a want of the speculative element; he possessed no depth of religious intuition or apprehension of Christian truths, and hence had not the disposition fitted for receiving several dogmas. His mental training had been influenced on the one hand, by the School of Origen, and on the other, by the Antiochian, at the head of which, in his day, stood the Presbyter, Lucian. But the tendency of Arius was too foreign to the system of Origen, to be more deeply affected by it than in some individual points; he received his peculiar exegetical direction from the Antiochian School; but the higher faculty of intuition was undeveloped, and the deeper understanding of biblical ideas was wanting, and thus he was obliged to confine himself to single expressions. This is shown in the scheme of his doctrine of Christ, in which the terms expressive of subordination in the New Testament, are considered and applied in an isolated, onesided manner; it is the same with his view of the constitution of Christ's person. Against the Sabellians he maintained a sharp conflict, in which he had the support of the Antiochian school, which was distinguished by its zealous opposition to the Monarchians. In the doctrine of the Homoousion, he saw nothing else; either the idea of Son of God must be understood in a gross anthropopathic sense, or Christ could only be conceived of as



a created being. The profound idea expressed by Origen, of an eternal, beginningless generation of the Son was inconceivable to his matter-of-fact understanding. The production by God could signify nothing else than creating a being out of nothing by his own will. Hence the Logos is placed in the class of created beings; he was created out of nothing; his existence had a beginning; there was a moment, in which he did not exist. If a beginningless existence were ascribed to him, then two original Beings must be admitted, two Gods equal to each other. Now he granted that the World and Time were correlative ideas, that the Son of God, though a creature, was far exalted above all others; God had made him his instrument for creating all other beings; † he was, therefore, begotten, created, established by God before the World and Time. In this way he thought that he agreed with Scripture. Notwithstanding these characteristics of a creature, Arius had no scruple to call him God, and found no contradiction in his being at once God and a created being; he applied the designation in a figurative sense, and appealed to passages in the Bible, where Elohim is so used. It did not escape his observation that the idea of a creature implies that of mutability, and he did not exempt the Son of God from this; for when he calls him the unchangeable God (ἀναλλοίωτος θεὸς) he refers this attribute not to his essence, but to the moral immutability of his Will. In the stress laid on Freewill, we may perceive the influence of Origen. This was the foundation of the divine dignity which was ascribed to him before all other created beings; for God, who, by virtue of his

* Arii Ep. ad Euseb. Nicom. in Theodor. H. E. 1. 5.—διδάσκομεν, ὅτι ὁ υἱός οὐκ ἔστιν ἀγέννητος, οὐδὲ μέρος ἀγεννήτου κατ ̓ οὐδένα τρόπον, οὐδε ἐξ ὑποκειμένου τινὸς· ἀλλ ̓ ὅτι θελήματι καὶ βουλῇ ὑπέστη πρὸ χρόνων καὶ πρὸ αἰώνων πλήρης θεὸς, μονογενὴς, ἀναλλοίωτος, καὶ πρὶν γεννηθῇ, ἤτοι κτισθῇ, ἢ ὁρισθῇ, ἢ θεμελιωθῇ, οὐκ ἦν· ἀγέννητος γὰρ οὐκ ἦν· διωκόμεθα ὅτι εἴπαμεν, ἀρχὴν ἔχει ὁ υἱὸς, ὁ δὲ θεὸς ἄναρχός καὶ ὅτι εἴπαμεν, ὅτι ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων ἐστὶν οὕτω δὲ εἴπαμεν καθότι οὐδὲ μέρος θεοῦ οὐδὲ ἐξ ὑποκειμένου τινός.—θαλεία in Athan. c. Ar. Or. i 9.--οὐκ ἀεὶ ὁ θεὸς πατὴρ ἦν ἀλλ ̓ ὕστερον γέγονεν· οὐκ ἀεὶ ἦν ὁ υἱὸς, οὐ γὰρ ἦν πρὶν γεννηθῇ οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς, ἀλλ ̓ ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων ὑπέστη καὶ αὐτὸς οὐκ ἔστιν ἴδιος τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς οὐσίας.


+ Exordium Thaliæ in Athan. c. Arian. i. 5.-ἦν γὰρ φησι, μόνος ὁ θεὸς καὶ οὔπω ἦν ὁ λόγος καὶ ἡ σοφία· εἶτα θελήσας ἡμᾶς δημιουργῆσαι, τότε δὴ πεποίηκεν ἕνα τινὰ, καὶ ὠνόμασεν αὐτὸν λόγον καὶ σοφίαν καὶ υἱὸν, ἵνα ἡμᾶς δι ̓ αὐτοῦ, δημιουργήση.

« PoprzedniaDalej »