Obrazy na stronie

also says, that “ Marcellus, Photinus, and

Sophronius, say that the logos is an

energy, and that this energy inhabits « him who was the fon of David, but is “not a sublisting person *.” Theophilact repeats this in almost the same words, say, ing, “ Marcellus of Galatia, Photinus, and

Sophronius, said that the logoś was the energy

of God, and not a personal sub“ fistence, and that it inhabited a descen« dant of David ή.” Epiphanius says, that • Photinus asserted that the logos of God “ was from the beginning, but that it was το not the Son of God :.”

I shall add a few other testimonies from later writers. Cyril of Alexandria, writing


φασι, την δε

τε θεα γεγονεναι σόλε φαναι τον εν αυτω λογον, και σαλιν ευλος ανία μεία τον καιρου της κρίσεως· ν είως ην εν τω Θεω ενωθεις αυλω, ωσπερ και πρόθερον ην.

Ec. Theol. lib. Ι. cap. 8, p. 113Μαρκελλος και Φώλεινος, και Σωφρονιος, τον λογον εγερθειαν ειναι ενεργειαν,

ταυλην ενοικήσαι τω εκ σπερμαίος Δαβίδ, εσιαν ενυποςαίον. In Phil. 2. Opera, vol. 10. p. 1239* + Μαρκελλος ο Γαλαξης, και Φωτεινος, και Σωφρονιος, ελεγον τον λογον τα θεα ενεργειαν ειναι, εκ ασιαν ενυπoσαλονταυτην δε ενοικησαι του εκ σπερμαίος Δαβίδ In Phil. 2. Opera, vol. 2. p. 591.

? Και αυτος φημι ειναι τον λογον απ αρχης, αλλ' εχ υπον θεα γεγενσημειον. Ηer. 1. p. 831.


against Theodorus, who is said to have been the proper father of Neftorianism (which differed very little from the unitarian doc. trine) evidently supposes that this was the received doctrine of the unitarians, when he says, “ It is false to say that the word " of God has no substance. It is the “ eructation of a foolish heart; For he 6 himself said to Mofes, I am that I am, “ and therefore they who think so we deem “ most stupid *.” Again, replying to those who said that the logos is verbum infitum,

proper internal reason of the Father, Why did not our Saviour say, I and the “ word of my Father are one, and he that “ sees me, fees the word of the Father.' He adds, that “ the logos, in the introduc“ tion to the gospel of John has the article

prefixed to it, which shews thạt it didh

or the

* Minime enim mentietur fallilimum esse fermonem, quod verbum quod ex deo apparuit, dicatur non habuisse fubftantiam : eft enim ftultiflimi cordis eructatio. Nam ipse dicebat Mofi ego sum qui fum : quomodo autem unquam hoc quod vere eft, in fubftantia per se non servari intelligitur ? et propterea eos qui fic fentiunt, merito rudiffimos effe definimus. Opera, vol. 2. p. 687,

66 not

[ocr errors]

“ not mean reason in general, but a parti-
“ cular specific logos *." I do not think
it at all necessary to reply to the reasoning
of Cyril in this place, I only quote him in
order to ascertain what it was that the uni-
tarians, his adversaries, thought on the

emperor Julian gives his testimony to the unitarians having supposed that by logos was intended the power of God, “Some " of the impious,” meaning the christians, he says, “ say that Jesus Christ is one person, ( and he that is called the logos by John « another it.” He likewise says that " John “ does not inention the name of Jesus, or

[ocr errors]

* Præterea fi unigenitus dei filius idcirco verbum eft et vocatur, quoniam (ut ipfi dicunt) infitum patris verbum suscipiens, ad illud formatur: cur non dixit ad discipulos, ego et verbum patris unum sumus : et, qui ne videt, is etiam verbum patris videt? Ideo videmus filium hominis, articulo ad utrumque nomen præposito, falvatore nostro proferri, quando se folum ab infinita hominum multitudine velit fignificare. In John, cap. 4. Opera, vol. 1. p. 610.

+ Και τοι δοκει τισι των δυσσεβων αλλον μεν Ιησεν ειναι χρισον, αλλον δε τον υπο Ιωαννε κηρυττομενον λογον. Cyril. Contra Jul. lib. 10. Opera, vol. 2. p. 333.


" of Christ, when he calls him God and

[ocr errors]

logos *.

This use of the term logos or word, is common in the Old Testament, as when the Psalmist says, By the word of the Lord were the heavens made, &c. and Macarius, having no view to this controversy, says, 6. The word of God is God; and the “ word of the world is the world,” and then speaks of the difference between the word of God and the word of the world, and between the children of God, and the children of the world t.

In this sense, according to Eufebius, the Jews always understood the term logos. “ If

any one,” says he, suppose that the “ Son is a mere word—that it is quiescent “ in the Father, when he is quiescent, but “ was active when he made the world, re

Ουδαμε δε αυλον ειε Ιησεν, είε χρισον, αχρις και θεον και λογον anoxaner. Cyril. Contra Jul. lib. 10. Opera, vol. 2. p. 327. * Ο τε θες λογG-, θεος εςι. και ο λογα τα κόσμε κοσμG

πολλη δε διαφορα και μεσολης τυχανει, τε τε λογα τε θεε, και το λογα τα κοσμε, και των τεκνων το θες, και των τεκνων τα κοσμα εκατον γαρ γεννημα τους ιδιους ερικε γονευσιν. Opera, p. 223.



“ sembling the logos of man, which is

quiescent when we are filent, but active “ when we speak; it is evident that he “ interprets as the Jews do, and according to human reason, and that he denies the “ true Son of God *.” He then adds what was quoted in this volume, p. 13. concerning the Jews acknowledging that God has a logos, but no Son,

* ο δε ψιλον λογον ειναι τον υιον απολαμβανων, και μονον λογον ειναι μαργυρομενος, και πολλακις τετ' αυίο λεγων ως εδεν ειερον ην ο λογο, ενδον μενων εν τω ησυχαζοντε τω ταίρι, ενεργων τε εν τω ημέλερω την κλισιν δημιεργειν· ομοιως τω ημέτερω, εν σιoπωσι μεν ησυ. χαζονλι, εν δε φθεγγομενοις ενεργείλι, δηλον αι ειη Ιεδαικω τινι και ανθρωπινω συνδρεχων φρονημάδι, τον δε αληθως υιον τα θεα αρνεμενG. Contra Marcellum, lib. I. p.4.



« PoprzedniaDalej »