Obrazy na stronie
PDF
ePub

The construction of the first of these two passages, in which his words and his sufferings can only be referred to the antecedent God, exhibits Clement, as applying the title of God to him who suffered upon the cross: and, in exact correspondence with it, the second of the two passages declares his glorious existence, as the sceptre of God's majesty, anterior to his stooping with great humility to assume our nature; intimating, at the same time, that he might, had it so pleased him, have come into this our nether world under a very different appearance.

In the last-cited passage, Clement obviously refers to the well known text in his fellow-labourer's Epistle to the Philippians: and his language perfectly agrees with that of Irenèus, who, through the medium of Polycarp, derived his theology from St. John.

On this account, our Lord, in the last times, recapitulating all things in himself, came to us, not as he might have done, but as we were able to behold him. For he might have come to us in his own proper ineffable glory: but, of his own

οὐδὲ ὑπερηφανίας, καίπερ δυνάμενος· ἀλλὰ ταπεινοφρονῶν, καθὼς τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ̔́Αγιον περὶ αὐτοῦ ἐλάλησεν.—Ορᾶτε, ἄνδρες αγαπητοὶ, τίς ὁ ὑπογραμμὸς ὁ δεδόμενος ἡμῖν· εἰ γὰρ ὁ Κύριος οὕτως ἐταπεινοφρόνησε, τί ποιήσομεν ἡμεῖς οἱ ὑπὸ τὸν ζυγὸν τῆς χάριτος avтoũ ¿λóvтeç; Clem. Rom. Epist. i. ad Corinth. § xvi. Patr. Apost. Cotel. vol. i. p. 156, 157.

[blocks in formation]

proper glory, we were not able to endure the magnitude1.

Similar phraseology occurs in the very ancient Epistle, which is ascribed to the Apostle Barnabas, but which really seems to have been written by a Hebrew Christian of that name about the year 137.

When he chose his Apostles who were about to preach his Gospel,-then he manifested himself to be the Son of God. For, unless he had come in the flesh, how could we men, when looking upon him, have been saved? For they, who look even upon the perishable sun, which is the work of his hands, are unable to gaze upon its beams. Wherefore, the Son of God came in the flesh, that he might sum up the full measure of iniquity to those who have persecuted his prophets to death2.

1

Propter hoc, Dominus noster, in novissimis temporibus. recapitulans in seipso omnia, venit ad nos, non quomodo ipse poterat, sed quomodo illum nos videre poteramus. Ipse enim, in sua enarrabili gloria, ad nos venire poterat : sed nos magnitudinem gloriæ suæ portare non poteramus. Iren. adv. hær. lib. iv. c. 74. p. 309.

2 “Οτε δὲ τοὺς ἰδίους αποστόλους, τοὺς μέλλοντας κηρύσσειν τὸ εὐαγγέλιον αὐτοῦ, ἐξελέξατο,- τότε ἐφανέρωσεν ἑαυτὸν Υἱὸν Θεοῦ εἶναι. Εἰ γὰρ μὴ ἦλθεν ἐν σαρκὶ, πῶς ἂν ἐσώθημεν ἄνθρωποι, βλέποντες αὐτόν; "Οτι τὸν μέλλοντα μὴ εἶναι ἥλιον, ἔργον χειρῶν αὐτοῦ ὑπάρχοντα, βλέποντες, οὐκ ἰσχύουσιν εἰς ἀκτῖνας αὐτοῦ ἀντοφθαλμῆσαι. Οὐκοῦν ὁ Υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐς τοῦτο ἦλθε ἐν σαρκὶ, ἵνα τὸ τέλειον τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν κεφαλαιώσῃ τοῖς διώξασιν ἐν Daváty τoùs πρopýras avroũ. Barnab. Epist. Cathol. § v. Patr. Apost. Cotel. vol. i. p. 15, 16.

For the ascription of this Epistle to a Hebrew Christian of

2. The second Epistle of Clement opens with what is equivalent to a direct assertion of Christ's godhead.

Brethren, we ought thus to think concerning Jesus Christ, as concerning God, as concerning the judge of both the quick and the dead. And we ought not to think small things concerning our salvation: for, in thinking small things concerning him, we are hoping to receive only small things1.

the Church of Jerusalem about the year 137, see below, append. i. numb. 2. sect. 2. § v. It is cited or referred to by Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian and Origen and Eusebius. See Clem. Alex. Strom. lib. ii. v. Oper. p. 373, 375, 389, 396, 410, 571, 572, 577. Colon. 1688. Tertull. de Pudic. Oper. p. 766. Orig. cont. Cels. lib. i. p. 49. Euseb. Hist. Eccles. lib. iii. c. 25. Hence, whether my particular ascription be right or wrong, it at least exhibits the doctrine of the Church anterior to the time of Clement of Alexandria.

1

̓Αδελφοὶ, οὕτως δεῖ ἡμᾶς φρονεῖν περὶ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὡς περὶ Θεοῦ, ὡς περὶ κριτοῦ ζώντων καὶ νεκρῶν. Καὶ οὐ δεῖ ἡμᾶς μικρὰ φρονεῖν περὶ τῆς σωτηρίας ἡμῶν· ἐν τῷ γὰρ φρονεῖν ἡμᾶς μικρὰ περὶ αὐτοῦ, μικρὰ καὶ ἐλπίζομεν λαβεῖν. Clem. Rom. Epist. ii. ad Corinth. § i. p. 185.

On the alleged authority of Eusebius, some have pronounced this second Epistle to be spurious. Eusebius himself, however, does not say so he merely intimates, that it was not so well known as the first Epistle, and that (so far as he was acquainted) the ancients did not use it.

Ἰστέον δ ̓ ὡς καὶ δευτέρα τις εἶναι λέγεται τοῦ Κλήμεντος ἐπιστολή· οὐ μὴν ἐθ' ὁμοίως τῇ προτέρᾳ καὶ ταύτην γνώριμον ἐπιστάμεθα, ὅτι μηδὲ τοὺς ἀρχαίους αὐτῇ κεχρημένους ἴσμεν. Euseb. Hist. Eccles. lib. iii. c. 38.

The

Clement is evidently censuring those early judaising heretics of the Ebionitic School, whose object, in defiance of the apostolic doctrine of the entire Church Catholic, was to degrade the Saviour to the rank of a mere creature.

The reason why the second Epistle was not so well known as the first, and the import of his saying that the ancients did not use it so far as he was acquainted, seem to be explained in the subsequent statement of Eusebius: that, according to old custom, the first Epistle was publicly read in the churches on the Lord's day. For the antiquity of this practice, he cites Dionysius of Corinth. Euseb. Hist. Eccles. lib. iv. c. 23. Now the second Epistle was not thus used by the ancients. Hence, of course, it was not so well known as the first. But I see not, how this circumstance establishes its spuriousness: and, therefore, I have not scrupled to cite it. At all events, whether it be the production of Clement or not, it is considerably older than the time of the first Nicene Council. Under this aspect, even taken at the lowest, it must certainly be reckoned among antenicene testimonies to the divinity of Christ.

CHAPTER VI.

RESPECTING THE TESTIMONY AFFORDED TO THE FACT OF THE POSITIVE ANTIQUITY OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY AND THE GODHEAD OF CHRIST, BY THE CREEDS OR SYMBOLS OF THE EARLY

ANCIENT
CHURCH.

IF the received doctrine of the first Christians may be historically ascertained from accredited Apologies and Epistles, even still more positively may it be gathered from certain public instruments of yet another description.

From the very beginning, the Catholic Church has found it convenient to arrange, in the form of Creeds or Symbols, those doctrines, which were taught to the Catechumens, and which were believed by the whole body of the faithful in communion with her. These Creeds or Symbols, though not originally recited in the ordinary ecclesiastical service, but only at the two great baptismal seasons of Easter and Whitsuntide, were yet most familiarly known and received, as indeed their very name imports, by the whole assembly

« PoprzedniaDalej »