TESTIMONIES

OF THE

ANTE-NICENE FATHERS

THE DIVINITY OF

THE

REV.

CHRIST.

EDWARD BURTON,

D.D.

$ t

REGIUS PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY AND CANON OF CHRIST CHURCH.

SECOND EDITION WITH CONSIDERABLE ADDITIONS.

T&ot>, r,(Auq

e/c

a'TK&tiKvvQptv .

narepuv

nccTepaq

ha^e^Kemi

ryv

roiacvTrjv liavQiav

Athanas. de Decret. Syn. Nic, .27. Vol.

OXFORD,

AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.

MDCCCXXIX.

I. p.

233.

INTRODUCTION.

1HE

work

object of the present

is

to lay before

the reader a series of passages extracted from the

writings of those

Fathers,

who

lived

before the

Council of Nice, and which appear to support the

doctrine of the divinity of Jesus Christ.

seem hardly necessary

much

to prove at

might

It

lengthy that

the belief of those early Christians was most likely

to be genuine

are of gradual

and

That

apostolical.

is

which was not

promulgation,

we

and that any doc-

most likely to have been pure and genuine

at a period

that

corruptions

and successive growth, may be said

to be a self-evident proposition

trine

all

is

far

removed from

its first

surely as plain and undeniable, as

are likely to find a stream

uncorrupt, the nearer

we approach

more

its

clear

and

source.

Let us compare Clement and Ignatius, who were

contemporaries of the apostles, with ourselves.

We

can only learn the sentiments of the apostles from

their writings.

These have come down

to us with

the errors and corruptions which the lapse of eight-

een centuries must unavoidably have introduced

we

read them with a previous knowledge of different

and opposite senses being deduced from the same

a 2

INTRODUCTION.

iv

passage

and the notions in which we have been

brought up,

if

are likely to

not a spirit of party and of prejudice,

warp our judgments and influence our

But Clement and

interpretations.

found things hard

to

Ignatius, if they

be understood in the writings

of the apostles, could refer for a solution of the

diffi-

culty either to the writers themselves, or to other

apostles

who had known them

familiarly,

There are some

had laboured together with them.

points of doctrine, of which

and who

seems impossible to

it

conceive, that Clement and Ignatius could be ignorant.

To

suppose that they did not

know whether

Peter or Paul or John believed Jesus Christ to be

essentially

God, or a mere mortal man, seems as im-

probable, nay, I

would

say, as impossible, as to sup-

pose that they did not know, whether these apostles

believed Jesus Christ to have been actually nailed to

the cross.

was the
or

If Clement and Ignatius did

know what

belief of the apostles concerning the divinity

humanity of Jesus,

it

necessarily follows that they

held the same belief themselves; and though the

writings which they have left are extremely few,
is

it

highly probable that some traces of their belief

upon

this subject

at all events

it

would appear

in their

own works

becomes very important that their

writings should be examined, that

we may

see

whe-

ther such traces exist or no.

If

we

carry the same train of reasoning into the

second century,

we

shall find a similar improbability,

that J ustin or Ireneeus,

who had

seen and heard the

INTRODUCTION.

contemporaries of the apostles, should not

what was the

certain

is

may

It

we advance from

chance there

be said, that the far-

the original source, the greater

of our meeting with accidental errors

and intentional corruptions. But

often made, requires

some

this

remark, though

restriction

and

followers of an error

which had already existed, and

that heresies themselves should increase,

happen

as the

and more

difficult

corrupting their

was

likely

knowledge of Christianity extended:

but the very increase of Christianity

stles

qualifica-

That a greater number of persons should be

tion.

to

for

apostolical doctrine concerning

the nature of Christ.

ther

know

that

all

common

made

it

more

Christians should unite in

faith.

As

soon as the Epi-

and Gospels were translated into any one lan-

guage, an obstacle was presented to any general and

uniform departure from the doctrine of the apostles

and every new nation converted

faith

to the Christian

would afford an additional security

tegrity

and unity of that

faith.

If

to the in-

we suppose

that

the great body of believers at any particular period,

at the time of the Council of

Nice for instance, held

opinions concerning the divine and

human

natures

of Christ, which were totally different from those of

the apostles,

we must

different countries

other,

suppose that the Christians of

had either kept pace with each

and by mutual agreement made the same suc-

cessive alterations in their creeds, or that at one

particular time they all agreed

by one sudden and

simultaneous act to alter the primitive

a 3

belief.

The

INTRODUCTION.

vi

latter supposition is manifestly absurd.

observed above, must be gradual and pro-

tions, as

gressive

All corrup-

and

the apostles preached, and the early

if

Christians believed, as the Unitarians

tell us,

that

Jesus Christ was a mere man, the notion of his divinity could not have been introduced

and

finally

established in the church without long controversy

and continued
have been

Historians

opposition.

silent as to the

would not

progress of so great a

change, such a total revolution in the religious belief of Christians.

Volumes must have been written

in support of either doctrine

would be found

them

to differ

the writers of one age

from those who preceded

and since we have works remaining of

the three

first

we

centuries,

should find traces of

all
all

those successive changes which must have existed

between the creed of the apostolical times and that

of the Council of Nice.

There

is

indeed another hypothesis, which might

have been rejected as absurd,

been found
said,,

who

if

advocates had not

actually advanced

it.

It has

that the doctrine of the Council of Nice

entirely a

new

doctrine,

been

was

which had never been main-

tained before, but which was fabricated and pro-

mulgated by the unanimous collusion of the Fathers

assembled there.

The

existence of such a notion,

improbable and irrational as

it

desirable that

similar to that,

work.

Since

it

may

appear,

makes

an inquiry should be instituted

which

we have

is

the object of the present

writings of the three cen-

INTRODUCTION.
turies

tion

vii

which preceded the council of Nice, the ques-

whether an entirely new doctrine was invented

becomes a question of

at that council
difficulty

new
world may be

of forcing

whole Christian

this

fact

doctrine

and the

upon the

by the

illustrated

supposition of an imaginary case in our

The

own

times.

period which had elapsed from the death of

our Saviour, to the assembling of the Council of Nice,

was about the same

as that

between the congress of

Vienna and the reign of Henry the Seventh

land.

Now

let

Eng-

in

us suppose the ministers assembled at

Vienna to have published a new history of Europe,

in

which

it

was

Henry the Seventh

asserted, that

obtained the throne of England, not by his victory

over Richard the Third, or by a kind of hereditary

claim, but by a divine right

recognised

There
fable

is

which was universally

and never disputed

surely

and the

accession, than

in

own

his

no greater difference between such a

real

history of

Henry

the Seventh's

between the notion of Jesus being

very and eternal God, or a mere mortal

if

it

days.

would be impossible

England receive the one

to

make

as true,

man

and

the people of
it

would have

been equally impossible, in the other case, for the

whole Christian world

to be

induced to alter their

belief.

On

every account therefore

it is

important to as-

certain the sentiments of the early Fathers.

doctrine of the real nature of Christ

If the

was corrupted

in the three first centuries, the writings of that pe-

a 4

INTRODUCTION.

Vlll

riod

must shew the progress of the corruption.

no variation appears

If

in the opinions of Christians

during that period, but the Fathers of the three

centuries

same

deliver the

all

first

we must

doctrine,

know what that doctrine

we have lately been told, "

surely be anxious to

was.

For

that

ce

if it

be true, as

the Fathers of the

three centuries were ge-

first

" nerally Unitarians, and believers in the simple hu-

" manity of Jesus Christ %"

we must

allow, that the

foundations of that faith which believes Jesus Christ

On

to be God, are shaken even to the ground.

other hand,

if it

should appear that

all

the

the Ante-

Nicene Fathers with one consent speak of Christ as

having existed from
that he took our
divine,

we have

human

and

eternity as very God,

all

nature into union with the

surely good grounds for saying, that

there never was a time

when this was not the

of the church, and that

it

doctrine

was the true and genuine

doctrine which the apostles themselves preached.

Not only should we be

led by reason and experi-

ence to appeal to the Fathers as the oldest

mony, and therefore the most

was

we are
opponents. They

valuable, but

invited to the investigation by our

assert, as

testi-

said above, that all the early Fathers

were Unitarians

so that

we need not be'afraidof their

denying the fairness of our appeal, when they themselves quote the

same authority, and uphold

favourable to their
a

own

Lindsey's Apology, p.

P-255-

it

as

cause.

23,

24.

Belsham's Calm

Inquiry,

INTRODUCTION.

ix

In making this appeal, the Arians and the Socinians

have not acted with the same constancy

The Arians have

and uniformity.

serted, that the writings of the

were upon

by them

Ante-Nicene Fathers

This was the language held

their side.

at the council of

and Dr. Waterland,

invariably as-

Nice

and bishop Bull

and eight-

in the seventeenth

eenth centuries, had to refute the same assertion,

when advanced by

But the

their Arian opponents.

Socinians have not always been equally confident,

nor indeed consistent with themselves, in referring

It is impossible to

to the early Fathers.

read the

writings of the Socinians, from their great leader

down
have

to our

felt

own

times, without perceiving that they

the difficulty of reconciling the Ante-Nicene

doctrines with their own.

Gilbert Clerke mentions

it

rather as a fact deserving of praise, that the Socinians

were the only persons who candidly acknowledged

that the early writers did not agree with themselves.

Socinus rather insinuates, than openly asserts, that

his

own

party did

not profess an

agreement in

doctrine with the Ante-Nicene Fathers

and he

al-

lows that these early writers spoke of Jesus as the

Son of God, existing before the worlds, of the substance of the Father
that

many

of his

b
,

own

&c.

It

is

party did

notorious however,

make

this appeal.

Socinus himself wished to evade the difficulty by

acknowledging no authority but that of scripture,

Respons. ad Vujeki.

II. p.

61

7.

INTRODUCTION.

and by attempting

use which his

to identify the

opponents made of the Fathers with the Romish

Socinus however must have

doctrine of tradition.

known

that his opponents never appealed to the

Fathers as to an authority which was to be added

to that of scripture

they appealed to them, as the

which was preached

best interpreters of a doctrine

not long before their

own

days, and the true

mean-

ing of which they were most likely to understand

c
.

Later Socinian writers have been more bold than

their leader in claiming the

Fathers.

When

the controversy was so rife in the

seventeenth century,

up

support of the early

it

was confidently asserted that

Nice the Father

to the time of the council of

alone was believed to be

advanced

God

and even those who

so far as to preach the simple

humanity

of Christ, maintained that this was the belief of the

Christian world before the doctrines were corrupted

by the Fathers assembled at Nice.

that

what

is

called the simple

has been carried

much

farther

We may quote

the authority
:

" It will be an unanswerable

" argument, apriori, against any
" particular doctrine being con-

known,

humanity of Christ

by the

than by those who preceded them

of Dr. Priestley upon this point

It is well

later Socinians

but

it

is

singu-

" were written, and who must

" have been much better quali" tied to understand them, in
" that respect at

least,

than

we

" tained in the scriptures, that

" can pretend to be at this

" day." Hist, of early Opin-

"

ions

it was never understood to be

" so by those persons for whose

" immediate use the

scriptures

p. xv.

concerning Jesus Christ

INTRODUCTION.
lar,

XI

that the confidence with which this party appeal

to the Fathers has also increased

work

of this

own

our

and

from writings of

shall give extracts

days, in which

it

is

plainly

said, that all the early Christians

It is the object of the present

in the course

and expressly

were Unitarians.

work

to inquire into

the ground of this assertion.

In the following pages no evidence

is

adduced

from any author who wrote after the time of the

Council of Nice.

325

and

faith

it

This council was held in the year

well

is

known, that the confession of

which was then drawn up,

cally that Jesus Christ

was from

asserts unequivo-

all

eternity

God

God, of one substance with God the Father.

doubt was ever
doctrine,

of

No

entertained as to this being the

which was held by a large majority of the

Fathers assembled at that council

neither can there

be any doubt, but that this has been the professed

doctrine of the catholic church ever since that time.

There

is

therefore no necessity for our consulting

any Post-Nicene authorities, when we wish to ascertain

what were the sentiments of the primitive

church.

What we

Fathers,

who

have to inquire

is,

whether the

lived nearest to the apostolic times,

and whose works remain, believed that Jesus Christ

was God, or that he was merely a man.

For every

candid person will surely allow, that notwithstanding

the positive and plain declarations of the Fathers as-

sembled at Nice, yet

them held a

if

the writers

different doctrine,

who preceded

and did net believe

INTRODUCTION.

xii

in the consubstantiality of the

Father and the Son,

there would be great reason to suspect the soundness of the articles subscribed at Nice.

With

respect to the present work,

it is

not from

ostentation, but in justice to myself, that I

state,

that I have carefully and attentively read through

the works of
turies

all

the Fathers of the three

more

or to speak

correctly,

first

of those

cen-

who

wrote before the assembling of the Council of Nice

some of the

for

testimonies,

which

adduce, are

taken from works written at the beginning of the

fourth century.
all

do not pretend to have quoted

the passages which bear upon the particular doc-

trine that I

who

am

endeavouring to maintain.

Those

believe in the divinity of Christ will naturally

think, that any mention of Christ being born of a

Virgin, of his becoming man, of his creating

all

things, of his having appeared to the patriarchs, &c.

&c.

a satisfactory proof that the writers,

is

who

used such expressions, believed that Jesus Christ

was God, or

at least that they could not agree with

modern Unitarians, who deny that any one of these

expressions can properly be applied to Christ.

The

writings of the early Fathers are full of assertions

such as these

but

have omitted hundreds, per-

haps thousands of such instances, and have only

selected those passages,

where the meaning of the

writer was conveyed in the strongest and plainest

terms.
It

is

perhaps useless to

make

protestations

of

INTRODUCTION.

Xlll

candor and sincerity, or to say, that

But

been guided by a love of truth.

stance a passage

have only

if in

any

in-

translated unfairly, or an infer-

is

ence deduced from

reader

it

which

it

will not bear, the

furnished with the means of detecting and

is

The

exposing the error.

quotations are

all

given

in English, as literally as the idiom of our language

more

will permit, perhaps

sons would have wished

page the passage

guage.
I

literally

and

bottom of the

at the

found in

will be

than some per-

original lan-

its

In laying the quotations before the reader,

have had two things principally in view

should be in possession of so

make

as will

much

of the context

the passage intelligible

and that he

whether the words which

should be able

to

bear upon

controverted

the

that he

see,

point

are

translated

often be found, that the

fairly.

It will therefore

passage

is

given more at length in the translation,

than

is

in the original

it

sometimes only a few

words are of importance

for deciding the doctrine,

when

are

several

sentences

standing the context.

cribed only so

much

necessary for under-

In those cases

have trans-

of the original passage as seems

to support the doctrine of Christ's divinity.

Some remarks
to

make

are necessarily interspersed, both

the passage intelligible to the reader,

when

he has not the original work to consult, and to point

out the conclusion, which appears to follow naturally

and legitimately from the quotation

state expressly, that I

but I

do not profess to notice

all

INTRODUCTION.

xiv

the different interpretations, which have been given

to

any passage, nor to answer the objections which

have been founded upon other expressions of the

There

same author.
to

know

and

we may

that

New

in the

as having a

ledge and

not

much

reading necessary

find passages in the Fathers

Testament, which speak of Christ

human

But

Father.

is

nature, and being inferior to his

that person

must have

know-

little

judgment, who produces such pas-

little

sages as these in proof of the Unitarian doctrines.

The

catholic church has always held that Christ

human

a real

nature, and that as a Son, begotten by

God, he was so

far inferior to the

church which believes

Christ

is

had

God,

it is

Father

but

this, believes also that

if

the

Jesus

surely most unfair to argue, that

those passages which prove the humanity of Christ,

overturn the doctrines of the catholic church. Those

doctrines can only be overturned,

when

it is

proved,

that the Fathers held notions concerning the

human

nature of Christ, which are incompatible with what

the church believes of his divine nature.
therefore

my

intention to examine those passages

which Unitarian writers have advanced,

taining their
false

It is not

own

as

main-

hypothesis, nor to point out the

and unfair conclusions which they have drawn

from others.

If

it

be proved satisfactorily, that the

Fathers believed in the eternity and consubstantial

divinity of the Son, the Unitarian notion of his

humanity

is

necessarily overthrown.

this great difference

mere

For there

is

between the creed of the Unita-

INTRODUCTION.
rians

and that of the

xv

catholic church, so far as they

are affected by the testimonies of the Fathers

The

divinity of Christ, according to the catholic sense of

the doctrine,

not disproved by passages which

is

support his

human

of Christ

altogether overthrown by passages which

is

nature

but the simple humanity

assert his divinity.

The judgment

of the Ante-Nicene Fathers has

often been appealed to,

and testimonies from

their

writings have often been alleged, in support of the

The Defence

divinity of Christ.

by Bishop Bull
preeminent in
ing,

is

this

a work,

of the Nicene Faith

which must ever stand

department of theological learn-

and which would almost discourage any other

person from presuming to combat in the same

field.

man seems to have had too vast a

mind, and too much overflowing with polemical
learning, to make his book a favourite study with
the general reader. The quotations, which he brings

But

that great

from the Ante-Nicene Fathers in

this

and

his other

works, will most of them be found in the following

pages.

The

great

work of Le Nourry

storehouse of critical

information

beside being a

concerning the

works of the Fathers, contains many quotations

from them

in proof of the divinity of Christ.

Dr. Waterland has made great use of the early

Fathers in
d

many

of his writings, and the unfounded

Apparatus ad Bibliothecam

Paris. 1703.

Maximam Veterum Patrum,

&c.

INTRODUCTION.

XVI

assertions of Arians

and Socinians are exposed by

copious references to the original works

is

no one

treatise of Dr.

W.

in

but there

which the testimonies

of the Fathers are advanced in any systematic or

In the course of the following pages,

regular order.
I

how

have occasion frequently to notice

am

indebted to

him

for his references

largely I

and quota-

tions.

The work most

nearly resembling the present

that written by Burgh, and entitled,

into the

ther > Son,

and Holy Ghost.

Godhead of the FaIt

gentleman to present a

was the object of

series

of testimonies

from the Ante-Nicene Fathers, arranged

logical order

and,

when we

that line of reading,

we must

which was bestowed upon

But he has

in chrono-

consider that he was a

layman who had not long directed

merited.

Inquiry

Belief of the Christians of the first three

Centuries respecting the one

this

An

is

his

studies to

agree that the praise,

was not un-

his book,

certainly not noticed all the

passages which might be adduced, and from not

having used the best editions, he has sometimes

made

assertions,

which are not borne out by the

original passage.

After having studied the Fathers themselves, I

consulted the above and other works, that I might
correct the errors

The

and omissions which

had made.

quotations are brought forward in chronological

order, that the reader

may

be able to judge whether

the later Fathers had departed in any

way from

the

INTRODUCTION.
opinions of those

times.
life

who

xvii

lived nearer to the apostolical

short account

prefixed concerning the

is

of each of the Fathers

for

which

am

chiefly

indebted to the elaborate work of Dr. Lardner

where chronologists

differ, I

and

have generally followed

that writer.

At

the

end of

found a

list

and

each

in

Introduction there will be

this

of the editions, which are referred to

case

it

was intended

to

select

the

best.

This second edition will not be found to

any material points from the

received

some corrections

first,

of other writers has enabled

except that

and several

which a continued perusal of the

me

prefixed to

same, that references

it

to

has

additions,

later Fathers

rangement has in no instance been

Numbers

differ in

and

make.

The

altered,

and the

ar-

each quotation remain the

may

be made without any

The new matter

ference to either edition.

is

dif-

inter-

spersed in various places throughout the work, and

occupies on the whole about forty pages.

LIST OF EDITIONS
REFERRED TO IN THIS WORK.

A.D.

Barnabas

72.

ClemensRom.

96.
100.

Hermas
Ignatius

Tatianus
Athenagoras

107.
150.
165.
170.

Melito

i75-

Ireneeus

185.

Clemens Alex.

Justin Martyr

;}

Patres Apostolici Cotelerii. Amstelaedami. 2 vol. fol. 1724.

Tertullianus

Minucius Felix
Hippolytus

210.
220.

Origenes

240.

Cyprianus
Novatianus

250.

Dionysius Alex.

260.

257-

Apud Routh

Rel. Sacr. I. p. 105,")

&c. 4 vol. 8. Oxonii. 1814-1818. J
a
r Editio Benedictina , Massuet. Paris. ")

1
t

fol. 17 10.
Potter. Oxonii.

260.

Concil. Antioch.
Archelaus

269.

Theonas
Lucianns

278.
290.
300.

Methodius

35306.
306.
310.

Fabricii.

Athanas.

Biblioth.

c.

et

Routh. Rel.

Graec.

Patr.

III. p.

307

Combefisii

Paris. 1672.

0
.

Lugd. Bat. 1651.

Apud Routh

Rel. Sacr. III. p.

2 vol. 4. Paris.

But

1.

Apud Routh Rel. Sacr.

Apud Socratem II. 10.

Pfaffius,

in 1715.

1672.
1716, 18.

Sacr. III. p. 176.

Apud Routh Rel. Sacr. II. p. 463.
Apud Routh Rel. Sacr. IV. p. 119

vered

by him

8.

2 vol. fol.

1796^

{Apud

was reprinted at Y esome fragments disco-

Turin by

Hamb.

rEd. Benedict. Delarue. 4 vol. fol. \

Paris. I733-I759J
I
Ed. Benedict, fol. Paris. 1726.
Ad finem operum Tertull. v. supra
f Simonis de Magistris. fol. Romse

a This
edition
nice in 1734 with
at.

1675.

Variorum. Lugduni Bat.

Arnobius
Petrus Alex.
Lactantius

17 15.

fol.

Priorii. Paris, fol.

Rom.

Dionysius

1742.

fol.

194.
200.

Comitum

Editio Benedictina. Hagse

and published

the genuineness of

them
b

319

1748.

is

The

extremely doubtful,
date in the title-page of this edi-

tion is printed

by mistake CI3I03XCVI.

TESTIMONIES
OF

THE ANTE-NICENE FATHERS

TO

THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST.

Barnabas, A.D.

72.

learn from the Acts of the Apostles,

iv.

36.

was a Levite of the country of Cyprus, and that he travelled often in company with
St. Paul, and afterwards by himself.
There is
nothing certain known as to the time or manner of
his death.
Whether the Epistle, which bears his
name, was really written by him, has been disputed
that Barnabas

among

Pearson, Cave,

the learned.

mond, Vossius,

Bull,

clined to think

it

Jortin
it

spurious.

Pin,

Ham-

Wake, and Lardner, were

genuine

doubted about

Du

it

in-

and
and Basnage pronounced
Coteler, Tillemont,

Horsley gives

it

as his

own

opinion,

that " an inspired apostle could not be the writer of

" such a book." But though we may reject the
Epistle, as not being the

work

impossible to deny that

it

period.

It is

of Alexandria,

of Barnabas,

was written

it

seems

at an early

quoted in several places by Clement

who

second century.

himself wrote at the end of the

expressly ascribes it to " the

He

" apostle Barnabas," and his quotations from

it

are

BARNABAS,
all to

to us.

A. D.

be found in the work which has come down

It must therefore have been written before

the end of the second century.

self

72.

quoted

among

it

Dr. Priestley him-

the writings of the apostolic

and though I place it as the earliest work,

which
this series of testimonies is taken, I do
from
not venture to decide the question, whether BarnaIf he was not, the
bas was the real author or no.
Epistle should probably be ranked after those of
Clement and Ignatius
and the evidence adduced
from it belongs to the second century, not to the
fathers

who

Lardner,

first.

believed

it

to be genuine, thought

The
it was written about the year 71 or 72.
whole of the Epistle has not come down to us in

that

Greek, the four

being

lost

chapters and part of the

first

but there

is

fifth

an old Latin translation,

which has preserved the whole of it.

1.
Bar nab m Epistola, c. 5.

p. 60.

and what is more, the Lord endured to

" suffer for our souls, though he is the Lord of the
" world to whom God said before the constitution
iS

" of the world,

It appears

Let us make man a ."

therefore, that the notion

whom God

of Christ

Let us
the time in which this
Epistle was written and in c. 6. p. 19. the words
of Genesis are quoted as spoken by the Father to
being one of the persons to

make man,

is

as

said,

old as
:

the

Son.

The

passage also asserts expressly the

preexistence of Christ, and the atonement

a

Et ad hoc Dominus

nuit pati pro

anima

susti-

nostra,

cum

terrarum Dominus cui

ante constitutionem seeculi, Faciamus, &c.
Instead of
die ante constitutionem sceculi,
sit orbis

dixit die

bishop Buli

Deus

made by

proposed reading
which seems a

ante, &c.

good conjecture. The sense is

the same in either reading, and

Deus is not in the

must be supplied.

if

text,

it

BARNABAS,
his sufferings

A. D.

72.

both of which doctrines have been

denied by modern Unitarians.

This being the

of Gen.

first

passage in which the words

may

26. are quoted, I

i.

mention, that the

Arians perfectly agreed with the orthodox party in

Thus in the Creed

which was drawn up by the Arians at the council
of Sirmium, A. D. 351. we find this clause; "If
" any one say that the Father did not speak the
" words, Let us make man, to his Son, but that he
" spoke them to himself, let him be anathema b ."
2. Barnahce Epistola, c. 5. p. 16.
their interpretation of them.

The following passage also proves the preexistence of Christy and that he created the world. " For
come in flesh, how could we men
" have been saved, when we looked at him ? for
" when men look at the sun, the work of his hands,
" which will cease to exist, they have not power to
" face its rays c ." It is to be observed that his hands
can only mean the hands of Christ it was Christ
therefore who created the sun. Compare Gen. i. 16" if he had not

And

GOD made two great lights,

says expressly, that Christ

the sun

of

d
.

Barnabce Epistola,

3.

The

&c. Athanasius

Maker and Lord

the

is

c. 6. p.

19.

following passage evidently implies the divi-

nity of Christ, and his union with the Father, inas-

much

as

it

refers to

him those words which Ezekiel

b Ei' Tt? to, TloirjcrufAtv avBpanov,

rov marepa npoq rov vlov Xtyeiv,

yj)]

aXX' avrov upoq

Seov

tlprjKevai,

de Synodis,
c

av

Et ydp

o-a$vi[jt.v

iavrov

avdQepa

vol. I. p.
[M>

Xeyoi
to~rw.

rov

Ath.

izac,

ot; rov fxeXXovra

jUJjj

elvat vjXiov,

kpyov %tpav avrov v'Kap%ovra /3Xeitovnc, ovk lo-yjuovartv e*s a,Kr7vaq

avrov

avroc})6aX[M)<Tai.
d

743.

yXOev iv crapKi,

rov

'0

rfkiov

Incarn.

avBpuitoi fiXeirovrei; av~

B 2

IIonjT^

tea]

7. vol.1, p.

Kvpio$.

62.

De

CLEMENS ROMANUS,

4
(xi.

19-

"
ther
" them,
:

and xxxvi.

Lo !

A. D. 96.

God the Fatake awayfrom

26.) attributes to

/ will
whom the Spirit

saith the Lord,

Lord
" foresaw, their stony hearts, and will give them
" hearts offlesh
because He was about to be ma" nifested in the flesh, and to dwell among us for
i.

from those

e.

of the

" the dwelling-place of our heart, my brethren, is a

" holy temple to the Lord e ." Thus he who was

manifested in the flesh was the person who spoke

those words in Ezekiel
and we learn from xi. 17.
;

was the Lord God.

4. Bar nab ce Epistola, c. 7. p. 20.
" If then the Son of God, being Lord, and who is
" to judge quick and dead, suffered, that his stripes
" might give us life, we will believe that the Son of
" God was incapable of suffering, except for our
" sakes f ." If Christ had been a mere man, it would
be absurd to say, that he was incapable of sufferthat this

ing

such an incapability could not be predicated of

any human being whatever.

See Acts

Clemens Romanus, A.D.

Clement

is

mentioned by

St.

24.

ii.

96.

Paul

(Phil. iv. 3.)

one of his fellow -labourers, whose names are in

as

the book

Rome

of

life.

He was

but there are

undoubtedly bishop of

difficulties in ascertaining

the

order and date of his succession. Some writers place

him immediately after St. Peter but Irenaeus , who
is the oldest authority, names as the three first bi:

tuv

Kvptoq, efeXS

'iSot, Xeyei
k. t.

X*

or*

(pctvepovvBai, kou ev
f

pioq,

Many

Linus, Anencletus, Clement.

shops,

E* ovv

vib$

e^eXXey
vjfjuv

rov-

ev o-ap/u

KaroiKeiv.

tov Seov, av

enaQev,

^ucnoirivri
vlo<;

tov

I'va

rjtxaq,

Seov

rj

TtXvjyrj

TciaTevaopev,

ovk

ffivvccTQ

Kv-

kou /xeXXwv Kplvtiv Xi mra.c kou

t

veKpovq,

sin.

dates

3, 3- p.

176.

avrov

on

itaOeTv,

CLEMENS ROMANUS,

A. D. 96.

have been assigned for the beginning of his bishopric

some have put it as early as A. D. 61, others as late

93 and while some think that he sate till the

end of the first century, others contend that he reas

This variety of opinions, as to

signed his see in 77.

the time of his being bishop, necessarily leads to uncertainty as to the date of his Epistle to the Corinthians.

Archbishop

Wake

thought that

was

it

written between the years 64 and 70: but those

who

think that he was not bishop

till

93,

must

conceive that the Epistle was not written

Lardner ascribes it to the year 96 and

have adopted that date in preference to an earlier

that time.
I

also
after

till
;

one, that I might not

seem

any of these
what the most

to give to

testimonies a greater antiquity, than

scrupulous critic would be obliged to allow.

The

Epistle was written

in

the

name

of the

church of

Rome

casion of

some jealousies and dissensions among the

and the following testimony

to the

Corinthian brethren
to the writer of

it

ing from Irenaeus,

persons

who

church of Corinth, on the oc-

is

particularly valuable, as

com-

who had

himself conversed with

had seen the apostles. " After Anen-

" cletus, Clement succeeded to the bishopric, who

" had seen the apostles, and laboured with them and
" who had the preaching of the apostles still sound;

" ing in his ears, and their teaching before his eyes
" nor was he the only one for many were still re:

" maining, who had been taught by the apostles. No

" small dissension having arisen among the brethren
" at Corinth in the time of Clemens, the church at
" Rome sent a most seasonable letter to the Corin" thians, exhorting them to peace, and renewing
" their faith, and reminding them of the doctrine

B 3

CLEMENS ROMANUS,

A. D.

96.

from the apostles h ."

There seems now to be no doubt whatever concern-

" which

it

had

lately received

ing the authenticity of the Epistle.

known

to exist entire

was not

It

when a

the year 1628,

till

copy of it was sent by Cyril, patriarch of Alexandria,

and afterwards of Constantinople, as a present to
Charles the First \ from which manuscript it was

Young

printed by Patrick

There

is

but since

in 1633.

also a second Epistle ascribed to

many

Clement

persons have pronounced

spurious, I give no quotations from

it,

it

to be

though

it

contains some express evidence of the divinity of

There seems no reason to think that Clement suffered martyrdom.

Dr. Whitby, in his " Reply/' to Dr. Waterland \
asserts of Clement of Rome, that "he constantly
" separates Jesus Christ from that God whom he
" styles the true and only God, but never once calls
Christ.

"

him God."

should wish the reader to bear this

observation in mind, and to pronounce upon the

truth of

it

after

he has read the following quotations

from the Epistle.

5.

The

dementis

la

Epistola,

c. 2. p.

147-8.

construction of Clement's words in the se-

cond chapter obliges us to apply the term

Jesus Christ,
first

who

suffered

upon the

sentence of the chapter

is

this

God

cross.

"

to

The

Ye have

all

" been humble-minded, arrogant in nothing, subh

Iren. III. 3, 3. p. 176.

ten.

This invaluable present consisted of the Alexandrian manuscript of the Old and New
Testament, now in the British
Museum, at the end of which

first

'

the Epistle of Clement

is

writ-

See the account in

the

translation of this Epistle

made by William Burton

in

1647.
k

Page 11. See Waterland's

Works, vol. III. p. 225.

CLEMENS ROMANUS,

A.D.

96.

" jected rather than subjecting, giving rather than

" receiving, being satisfied with the supplies sent
" from God : and paying careful attention to His
" words, ye have fixed them deeply in your minds,
" and His sufferings were before your eyes ." The
1

made such
God and it

person, whose words and sufferings had

an impression upon them,

said to be

is

equally evident that the sufferings were those of

is

Jesus Christ,

ment

to be

who was

See N. 39. and 44.

God.

dementis

6.

therefore considered by Cle-

l a . Epistola,

c.

16. p. 156.

may remind

The

following passage
us of St. Paul's
Phil. ii. 6, 7. " For Christ belongs to the

words in

" humble-minded, who do not exalt themselves over

" his flock.
Our Lord Jesus Christ, the sceptre of
" the majesty of God, did not come in the pomp of
" splendour or of pride, although he might have
" done so, but humble," &c. m This passage strongly
confirms the usual interpretation of Phil.
the

first

ii.

7.

that

humiliation of Christ consisted in his di-

vesting himself of his divine nature and assuming

the human.

Clement expressly says, that Christ

might have come in pomp and splendour, which
power he could not have had, if he were a mere
man, and had no existence prior to his human birth.
Neither
1

is

it

probable

that Clement would have

Hctvreq re irairewocppoveire,

hev a'AaZ QVv6iA.evoi

ro7q

rov 0v

ocfKOVfJievoii

kcu

aovq, ovk vjX0V ev Kopica aXatyvetaq,

etpobloiq

npocreyjivrec,

rovq Xoyovq avrov inipeXaq iarepvi(rpevoi

yre ro7q o-nXdyxvoiq,

itaQrjpara avrov \v

irpo

KoCi

ra

ocpdaX^av

m To
rov Seov,

a-K^Ttrpov rv\q (/.eyaXooo-vvrji;

6

Kvptoq ^\mov Xpicrroq

Kaiitep

dXXa, raneivo<ppovv.

voq'

seems to have read

Ivvdpevoq,
to

do

tent

v[auv.

iirepycpocvicct;,

ovtit

B 4

Jerom

Ka'mep icdvra

although he had power

was omnipo-

all things, or

for

he translates it cum
(In Esaiam lii.)

posset omnia.

'lvj-

dvvccue-

CLEMENS ROMANUS,

called a

mere man the sceptre of the majesty of

A. D.

96.

God,

The

may remind

passage

us of similar expressions

Martyr n " God sent

" him to them and was it, as we might suppose of
" a man in regal power, to awe and to confound ?
<e
by no means but in gentleness and meekness."
" For he might have come to us in his
Irenaeus
" own incorruptible glory, but we could not have
" borne the greatness of his glory :" which words
may remind us of the passage already quoted from
Barnabas, at p. 3. N. 2. and of a still stronger pasthe fathers

in

e.

g. Justin

" Who [the Word] being in the

sage in Origen p
" beginning with God
became flesh, that he
" might be comprehended by those who were not
" able to look at him, in that he was the Word, and
:

" was with God, and was God."

And

in another

"

% Coming down once to that which was not

" able to look at the dazzling brightness of his divi" nity, he became in a manner flesh." Tertullian

place

says

r
,

"

God

could not have entered into conversa-

" tion with men, unless he had assumed

human

feel-

" ings and affections, by which he could temper the

" greatness of his majesty, which would have been
" intolerable to human weakness, with a humility
<c

which might be unworthy of Him, but necessary

" for man." See also Arnobius, N. 344.
It will
perhaps be thought, that these later writers did not
carry the doctrine of Christ's divinity at
n

Epistola ad Diognetum.

7.

p. 237.
0

IV. 38, 1. p. 284.

Cont. Cels. VI. 68. p. 684.

all

higher

lb. IV. 15. p. 511.

395.

Adv. Marcion

II.

27.

p.

CLEMENS ROMANUS,

A. D. 96.

was maintained by Barnabas and Clement in

the first century to which I may add, that the fact
than

it

of

having been optional with Christ to appear in

it

the

human

or a superior nature,

as

is

expressly

maintained in the Epistle to the Hebrews, ch.

ii.

16,

17, 18. as in the passages above quoted from the fathers.

St.

sumed
Phil.

the

ii.

7.

The

7.

Paul certainly believed that Christ as-

human nature
Rom. viii. 3.

dementis

Heb.

vid.

l a Epistola,

c.

iv.

15

v. 2.

22. p. 161.

preexistence of Christ, and his identity with

the Jehovah of the Old Testament,

is

implied in the

manner in which Clement quotes Psalm xxxiv. 11.

Having given exhortations to moral conduct in the
different relations of life, he says, " But it is faith in
" Christ which confirmeth all these things for he
" himself thus calleth us by the Holy Ghost, Come
" ye children," &c. s
He then quotes the Psalm
:

from the 11th to the 19th

verse.

words in this
Psalm were spoken by David, and not by God. This
remark however does not affect the argument. Clement considered that they were spoken by God
and since he says in this place that they were
It might perhaps be

spoken by Christ,

said, that the

evident that in the opinion of

it is

Clement it was indifferent whether he referred them

It may be mentioned that
to Jehovah or to Christ.
Clement of Alexandria makes a large extract from
this part of the Epistle, and he quotes the passage
f

before us thus

" confirmeth
s

TavTcc Se itdvra

Xpurry

Tctartt;.

all

"

But

it

faith

is

these things.
(3e(3aioi

y iv

Ka) yap avroq ha

tov TrvevfAaroi; rov dyiov ovraq npo<7-

KaXe7rai
x

in

Christ which

Come ye
y](^aq,

Aevre,

Strom. IV. 16,

children,
k. t. A.

p.

6l2.

CLEMENS ROMANUS,

10

" saith the Lord, hearken unto

tract

is

not given literally:

A. D.

me"

but

96.

The

&c.

it

that

plain

is

ex-

namesake of
Rome, made God the speaker of the words in Psalm
and we have an equal testimony to the
xxxiv.
divinity of Christ, whether we refer the term Lord,
which is used by Clement of Alexandria, to Jehovah
or to Christ. If he meant Jehovah, he clearly understood Christ to be one with Jehovah because the
passage before him, which he was quoting from
Clement of Rome, attributes the words to Christ.
If he meant Christ by the word Lord, he held the
preexistence of Christ, and made him the source of
Clement of Alexandria,

as well as his

inspiration to the Psalmist.

dementis l a Epistola, c. 32. p. 166.

That Christ had another nature beside the human, is also clearly implied by the expression, that
" Christ came of Abraham according to the flesh u ."
8.

It is needless to

adduce similar passages from

Paul's Epistles, such as

Rom.

i.

3. ix. 5.

St.

&c. &c. in

all of which, the words according to the flesh must

be taken to imply a descent from some other source

which

is

We

not carnal.

dementis

9.

may

l a Epistola,
.

c.

36. p. 168.

observe also, that Clement says of Christ

" Who being the

brightness of His majesty

is

so

"

much higher than the angels, as he hath by in" heritance obtained a more excellent name x :" which
words are evidently taken from Heb. i. 3, 4. and
confirm the remark of Eusebius y, that the style and
;

'Ef avTOv

KCLTot a-ccpKct.
x &

Oq

Kvpioq

^Irjtrovq

to

ayyeXvv,

t<rw dia>(popaTpov ovo[/.a K-

KkfipavofAfiKev.

aitavy a<7[/.a

tSjs (/.tya-

H. E.

III. 38.

CLEMENS ROMANUS,

A.D.

11

96.

expression of the two Epistles closely resemble each

some persons had imagined that Clement translated the Epistle to the Hebrews into
Greek, it having been originally written by St. Paul
in Hebrew. Whether the words, " being the brightother, so that

" ness of His majesty," are equivalent to an assertion

of the divinity of Christ, has been often discussed by

the commentators upon the Epistle to the

we

but

cannot

fail

observe, that

to

Hebrews

Clement

also

agrees with that Epistle in saying, that Christ

higher than the angels

so that

we may

collect

was

from

all

these passages, that Christ had an existence prior

to

his

human

birth, that it

was one of

splendour, that he was higher than angels

all this

nity,

did not

we have

amount

celestial
:

and

if

to a declaration of his divi-

seen that Clement actually calls

him

God.
Eusebius, or rather an older writer quoted by him,
in his Ecclesiastical History
tiades, Tatian,

z
,

and Clement,

says that Justin, Mil-

Christ God.

all called

Dr. Routh, in his Reliquiae Sacrae % is inclined to

understand this of Clement of Rome rather than of

Clement of Alexandria.

Eusebius certainly says,

that the above writers were older than the time of

Victor: and, as Dr. Routh justly observes, Clement

of Alexandria could not well be called older than

the time of Victor,

who was

chosen to the see of

Rome, A. D. 185. But the order, in which the

names are given, seems rather to point out Clement
of Alexandria.
Had his namesake of Rome been
intended, he should have been placed

much

the most ancient

V. 28.

first,

as being

and though Clement of

a

II. p. 2 I

HERMAS,

12

A.D.100.

Alexandria survived Victor, yet he most probably

published his earlier works before the year in which
Victor succeeded Eleutherus in

the

bishopric of

Rome.

Hermas, A. D.
The book

100.

ascribed to Hernias, entitled the Shep-

herd, has been rejected by most critics as a spurious

But we may say of

work.

it,

as

Epistle of Barnabas, that though

it

we did of the
may not have

been really written by Hermas, yet

must have
have in
fact older testimony in favour of the Shepherd of
Hermas than of the Epistle of Barnabas for it is
quoted by Irenaeus, who wrote before Clement of
been written in the second century.

it

We

The

Alexandria.

from
that

latter writer cites several passages

this work, ascribing

we cannot

later than the

it

well suppose

by name to Hermas so
it to have been written
:

middle of the second century.

If

it

composed by the person whose name it

was probably written at the end of the first
century, and this is the date which Lardner assigns
to it.
The learned have also disputed, whether the
supposed author of this book was the Hermas mentioned by St. Paul, Rom. xvi. 14. Origen b thought
that he was.
Mosheim adopts the opinion of Muratori, that the Shepherd was written in the second
century by Hermas, who was brother to Pius bishop

was

really

bears,

it

Rome c

of

"
b

The Shepherd
In

Rom.

1.

X.

vol.

of

Hermas was written

IV. p.

Among

the testimonies
which Coteler has quoted from
Origen, in favour of Hermas, he

683.

has omitted one which may be

found in his Commentary upon

Matth.
c

in

refers

to

Antiq. Italic, medii

diss.

43. p. 853.

872.

vol. III. p.

Eccles. Hist. vol.

Mosheim

Greek

I. p. 1

13.

Muratori

sevi, torn. 3.

HERMAS,

A.D.100.

13

" but we have now only an ancient Latin version,

" beside some fragments of the Greek preserved in
" the ancient Greek authors who have quoted him.

" It consists of three books. In the first are four

" Visions in the second, twelve Commands in the
;

" third, ten Similitudes

book

d ."

The language

of this

and figurative, that I shall only

bring one testimony from it, the literal meaning of
which it seems impossible to misunderstand.
10.

"

so mystical

is

Hermce Pastor, 1. III. Simil. 9The Son of God is more ancient

12. p. 118.

than any cre" ated thing, so that he was present in counsel with
" his Father at the creation e ."
This passage not
only maintains the preexistence of Christ, but assigns

him an uncreated nature for had he been himself created, he would not have been older than all
to

creation, but the oldest created thing:

and the ex-

would have been similar to what is said of

the church in this same work, that " it was created
" the first of all things f."
The passage may remind
pression

us of that expression of St. Paul, in which he

Christ

7rpcQTOTOKo$ 7rddYjg Kriaeccg,

the first-born, or

begotten of every creature. Col.

said

i.

15.

Had

St.

calls
first-

Paul

the first, it might have been implied that

was himself created but he uses a word

irpooTog,

Christ

which, while

it

signifies

the nature of the relation

between the Son and the Father, puts the Son above
every creature, not only in degree, but in kind

he

was begotten before any thing was created. Thus

J ustin Martyr expressly calls him " the first-begotd

Lardner,

Filius

vol. II. p. 52.

quidem Dei

condendam creaturam.

omni

creatura antiquior est, ita ut in

consilio Patri suo adfuerit ad

I.

Omnium

Vis.

prima creata

2. . ult. p.

78.

est.

IGNATIUS, A.D.

14

107.

" ten of God, and before all created things & :" and
again, " he was begotten of the Father, and was

" with the Father before any thing was created h ."
Origen makes God say of the Son, " I have begotten
thee before every reasonable creature { f and in
another place he says, " the image of the invisible
<c

" God, begotten before every creature, is incapable of

" death k ;" a position which would not be true, if Christ

The Arians do not appear

this text, when they wished

were created
have quoted

that Christ

was a creature,

who denied

this, notices all

at first to

/ctta-pa

to prove

for Eusebius,

the passages of scripture

which might seem to support the doctrine, but takes

It seems, however, that they
no notice of this m
.

own

afterwards quoted the text in support of their

doctrine

See Waterland's Works,

11
.

vol. 3. p. 35.

Ignatius, A. D. 107.
Ignatius was bishop of Antioch.

Theodoret

YlpCOTQTOKOV TOV )0U, KCU

Tryph. ioo.
h TOVTO TO

Ttpo

Cum

Dial.

TW

OVTI

TOV

OCTTO

TtCt-

rpoq npofiXyQeii yevvrj^a npo irdvruv

TaV
5

vr\<ra.

cum Tryph.

Upo ndcrqq

T%

<TVVf\V

'KOlYllAO.TWV

Dial,

HOT pi.

62. p. 159.

ydp

r\

vol.

zIkoov

@eov tov aopxTOv itporoTOKoq

KTta-ecoq

Qa.vd.Tov.

In Joan.

tov

itd&yfq

torn.

XXVIII.
1

14. vol. IV. p. 392.

Athanasius marks this dis-

tinction very

plainly

aW

oti

oti irpo itdvTuv

upo iruvTav

eKTitrBai, in)

roc

inTiaOv),

to yovv

1<ttI'

iravTuv KtiTai' to Se,

etrrt itpo tidvToov, (Aovcp

via dp-

t5>

Expos. Fid. 2. vol. I. p.

100- 1.
Epiphanius has also
<rwthe same sentiment
/\\K\Ktvoq T7j KTicrei, dXkd itpo Kriaeccq

poTTti.

XoyiKrjq (pvaecoq lykv-

In Psalm, ex. 3.
787.

ere.

II. p.
k 'AvenfteKToq

16, 17. kv avTa ixTfodv)

navra, kou avToq iuTi itpo TtdvTm
I.

ov Keyei

p. 195.

says

and the Apo-

that he was appointed by St. Peter,

Tcdvrav twv KTio-fAaTav.

when he

says, speaking of the text, Col.

yeyevyyjj^hoq.
KTio-Toq,

aXhd

ov

yap

//.y/

elite,

npono-

icpccToroKoq.

Hser.

LXXVIII. 17. vol. I. p. 1049.

m Socrates, II. 2T. p. 107.
n

Athanas.

Orat.

Arian. 63. p. 530-1.

0
Dial. I.

II.

cont.

IGNATIUS, A. D.
stolical Constitutions p

However

this

say that

may have

been,

15-

107.

was by

it

St. Paul.

seems certain that

it

he succeeded Euodius in the see of Antioch, and

probably about the year 69 or 70

according to

which date he might easily have conversed with the

apostles, as Chrysostom expressly says that he did ^.
Some writers have repeated the foolish story of
having been the child

his

whom

his arms, Matt, xviii. 2.

name

our Saviour took in

and of

his receiving the

of Theophorus from this circumstance.

he had

this title is true,

but Pearson

swerably proved that the story

He was

sent from Antioch to

is

for they

written while he was on his journey to

all

Some

Rome.

and if we could
martyrdom, we

the date of his Epistles

fix

has unan-

Rome, to be exposed

ascertain the precise year of his

were

That

a fiction.

to wild beasts in the amphitheatre

should also

the year 107

writers have assigned this event to

s
:

while others have thought that

did not take place

till

11 6*.

it

His Epistles are seven

number, addressed to the churches of Ephesus,

Magnesia, Tralles, Rome, Philadelphia, and Smyrna,

in

and

to his fellow-martyr Polycarp.

The genuine-

ness of these Epistles has been called in question

but

if

ever there was a work, which from exhaust-

ing the subject and compelling conviction might be

pronounced unanswerable and unanswered, it is the

Vindication of these Epistles by bishop Pearson u
.

The same

opinion has been entertained by

VII. 46.

Tom.

I.

Horn. 42.

in Ignat.

Vindic. Ignat. pars

Vossius,

Lardner.
1
Pearson, Lloyd, Pagi,

Le

Clerc, Fabricius.

p. 562.
(p.

I.

II.

12.

411. ed. Coteler.)

Du Pin, Tillemont, Cave,

u Vindiciae

Ignatii,

1672.

Epistolarum

S.

IGNATIUS,

16

Usher,

Hammond,

Wake,

Cotelerius, Grabe,

A. D. 107.

Petavius, Grotius, Bull, Cave,

Du

Le

Pin, Tillemont,

Mosheim, Lardner, Horsley, &c. &c. These

are great names, the authority of which ean hardly
be set aside by that of Salmasius, Blondel, and Dallseus, who have rejected the Epistles, although we
Clerc,

may add Dr. Priestley to the number, who has told

us that " the genuineness of them is generally given
<c

up by the learned."
chastised, as

is

the reader

This presumptuous falsehood

deserved, by Horsley x , to

it

referred for an account of the larger or

is

interpolated edition of Ignatius, which

was published

and of the shorter or

for the first time in 1557?

genuine edition, which was published by

in 1646.

made

this

It

whom

may be

I.

Vossius

added, that though Dr. Priestley

unwarrantable assertion, he allowed that

the proofs of our Lord's divinity which Horsley ad-

duced from Ignatius, were true according

present copies.
Ignatii Epist.

11.

The

first

ad Eph.

Epistle of Ignatius

Ephesians, and the

" Ignatius
words

title

of

it

to

c. 1. vol. II. p.
is

our
11.

addressed to the

contains the following

to the church at Ephesus

" which was preordained before the worlds
accord" ing to the will of the Father and of Jesus Christ
" our God y"
The same expression of " Jesus
:

" Christ our God" occurs in the

title

of the Epistle

of Ignatius to the Romans, p. 25.

The Epistle begins thus " I approve in God of

the much beloved name which ye have justly ob:

"

" tained, by faith and love in Jesus Christ our Sa" viour.
Being imitators of God, having animated
x

Works, IV.

ev

p.

133.

OeXyj/ActTi

rov ivaTpo$, Kai

*\f\<T<X)

Xpicrrov tov eov ypav.

IGNATIUS,

A. D. 107.

17

" yourselves by the blood of God, ye have performed

" perfectly the congenial work z ." In this passage
the term blood obliges us to refer the annexed term

God

to

Jesus Christ,

The blood of God

sion

but

it

is

who shed

his blood for us.

certainly a very strong expres-

was not unusual with the Fathers

and

seems to afford an additional confirmation of the

feed the church

received reading in Acts xx. 28.

He

of God, which

His own

hath purchased with

blood.

MSS.

Instead of Seov, God, in Acts xx. 28. some

and other
Kal Seov,

authorities read KvpUv,

Lord and God

Lord, and

for the reading

Kvpfov

kk\y]g-{ocv

church of Christ, being supported by no

Greek MS. whatever, does not deserve to be considered.
Of the two other readings, the only one
which requires us to weigh the evidence is that of
Xpia-Tov,

Kvptov,

Lord:

to Christ,

for divinity will be equally attributed

whether

and God.
Of the two

St.

Paul called him God, or

readings,

God

observed, that the Vatican

and Lord,

MS. which

the highest authority and antiquity of

is

Lord

may

it

be

perhaps of

all,

has Seov,

God. The MS. was examined in this passage for

the London edition of Griesbach's New Testament
published in 1818, and is found to contain this reading
z

a
;

'

of which the Unitarian translators appear not

Aito^dfAevoi;

ayccTryTov aov ovopa

SiK-a/a,
'Itjo-oi/

jt>ojTat

Kara

tv'kttiv

Xpia-Toj

ovreq

eZ

to ttoXv-

KKTV]<T6e cpvaei

Ka) aydnyv Iv

trarrjpi

jWt-

Geov, avaX oo'Kvp^cravTi;

iv aiu.ari Seov, to
reXelcoq cvKfipTla-aTe.

<rvyyeviKov epyov

Commenta-

tors have observed that the first

word

anole^d/xevoi

stands alone

without any verb to complete

the sense.
But it may be read
in conjunction with the title,
''Yyvdrvioc,

tSj

am^i^d^evoq

lKK\t\<Jia,

a Stop after

y/xlptiv,

I have put

k. r. X.

corrupt quay,

which

seems to make the construction

plainer.
a

See Monitum ante

Prsef.p.ii.

IGNATIUS,

18

A. D. 107.

have been aware, who say in p. 331. of their Improved Version "that the received text reads God
to

>

" upon the authority of no

This

is

MS.

of note or value

also the reading of the oldest

riac version

c
,

which

is

MSS.

of the Sy-

supposed to have been made

end of the
Kvpkv, Lord, is

early in the second century, if not at the

Thus, though the authority

first.

also very respectable, the oldest

for

MS. and

God:

version support the reading of 6eov,

the oldest
to

which

it

may

be added, that the expression, church of God,

occurs in not fewer than eleven passages of St. Paul's

whereas the phrase, church of the Lord,

occurs nowhere in the New Testament.

Epistles

It

comes more within the object of the present

to shew what is the authority for either readaccording to the quotations which the Ante-

work
ing,

Nicene Fathers have made of

usual statement

that

is,

b Griesbach, as is well known,

sums up the evidence decidedly

but
against the reading of eov
must be remembered, that he
:

The

this passage.

Ignatius

and Tertullian

former to be of the tenth century, the latter of the eleventh.

Dr.E.

also

examined those num88, and found

87 and

it

bered

names many MSS. in his preface, of which he had no colla-

them

to read Kvptov koI eov.

MS.

in

tions or very imperfect

ones

and though he states that no

good MS. reads tov, it is probable that he must have qualified this assertion, if he had
been better acquainted with
some of his MSS. Thus he was
ignorant of the fact, mentioned
above, that the Vatican MS.
reads eov.
He also takes no
notice of the Florentine MSS.

numbered by himself 84 and 89.

Dr. Elmsley examined these at
Florence, and both of them read
ov.
Griesbach considers the

the

library at

Christ

Church, which was considered

by archbishop Wake to be 700
years old, reads

nvpiov kou

6eov,

and another which appears also

to be of the eleventh century,
reads eov.
c

I assert this on the authorof professor Lee, who has

not yet published an account of
his collations of Syriac MSS.
but he has stated it in some remarks, which may be seen in
Dr. Wait's translation of Hug's
Introduction, vol. I. p. 370.
ity

IGNATIUS,

the church

support the received reading

and that Irenaeus quotes

But the

truth

is,

it

first

is

of God,

d
of the Lo?*d

the church

that Irenaeus

Fathers of the three

19

A. D. 107.

the only one of the

centuries

who

quotes the

passage at length, and he certainly quotes

Lord c

it

the

We

must remember however

original
Greek
of
Irenaeus is lost, and all
that the
church of the

that remains

very ancient,
trust to

some

in

it

a Latin translation, which, although

is

is

not sufficiently accurate for us to

For
where fragments of the Greek have

in the question of a various reading.

places,

been preserved,

we can prove

Christ, &c.

that the translator

Lord and God, God and

confounded the terms

and substituted one

&;c.

for the other.

Thus at p. 296 we read in the Greek, "the art and

" wisdom of God:" but in the Latin, "the wisdom
" of the Lord." At p. 294 s, the Greek has " the
" body and blood of the Lord:" but the Latin
At p. 3 h
reads, " the body and blood of Christ."
f

Irenaeus speaks of " blasphemy against Christ:" but

his translator renders it "

blasphemy against God."

The translator being proved to have made these

substitutions,

we

cannot

make much

use of his au-

thority in deciding the proper reading of Acts xx.

28.

and

Irenaeus,

cannot help quoting another passage from

own opinion was

who redeemed
Remember then that

which shews what

his

concerning the divinity of that Person,

us by his blood.
He says \ "
" you have been redeemed by the flesh of our Lord,
d

III. 14, 2. p.

the

Improved Version say, that <e the

" word Lord is supported by
" citations from the early eccle-

V. 3,
V. 2,

p.

"

Home's Introduction,
The editors of

336.

II.

h
1

I.

201.

2.

3.

procem.

V- 14.

siastical writers."

c 2

4- P.

3"-

IGNATIUS,

20

A. D. 107.

" and restored by his blood, and holding the head

"from which

all the

body of the church knit toge-

" ther increaseth, (Col.

ii. 19.) both confess him to

" be God, and firmly acknowledge his human na" tureV

There

is

however one passage quoted from a Post-

Nicene Father, which, though

come within the scope

it

does not properly

of this work,

here, because, if the quotation

may

be noticed

were admitted, we

could scarcely entertain a doubt, but that the expression blood

the scriptures.
it is said,

of God was nowhere to be found in

In a note to the Improved Version

that " the expression the blood

of God

is

" rejected with horror by Athanasius, as an inven" tion of the Arians

and we may understand the
author of this note better by referring to Mr. Belsham's " Calm Inquiry," published in 1817. At

141 of that work he has the following passage

" Our scriptures, says Athanasius, nowhere mention
" the blood of God. Such impudent expressions are

p.

" only used by Arians

the original thus
6i

:"

and

in the note he gives

" Ovla^ov

7rapo$ehKa(Jt al ypa<pa,i'

oufxa

Seov Kaf? vj^ag

'Apeiavuv ra Toiavra ToX^^otTcc.

" Athanas. cont. Apollin. apud Wetstein. in loc."

This seems very strong and very decisive.

Belsham had

But Mr.

better have looked into the

works of

Athanasius, than have copied from Wetstein.

true that Wetstein, in his edition of the

New Testa-

ment, does give the quotation in these words

is also

sius.

and
k

true, that they are not the

Wetstein inserted
left

out the words

Et Deum

confitens, et

kol$

but

it

words of Athana-

Y^mg from his

a-ap/tog,

hominem

It is

own

head,

upon which the

ejus firmiter excipiens.

IGNATIUS, A. D.

107.

whole meaning of the passage turns. In the Greek

cupa OeoS liya
of Athanasius it is thus Ovlafxov
1

aapKog

7rapa$e$do/x(Tiv al ypa<pa} 9

kou avaGTavra'

means

in

translating

yj

Seov $l%a crapKog iraQovTa

'Apeiavwv ra roiavra ToX[M^[xara

which

English, (Mr. Belsham will pardon my

it,) " The scriptures nowhere speak of

" the blood of God without flesh :" i. e. without

adding something which implies the incarnation of
God " nor of God suffering and rising again
;

" without flesh : they are Arians who venture to

" use such expressions."
Mr. Belsham was probably not aware, that this

written

against

though proceeding from

at the
sians

work of Athanasius was

Apollinarian

the

heretics,

who,

different principles, arrived

same erroneous conclusion with the Patripasthey held, that Christ did not take a real

body composed of flesh and blood, but that his body

was uncreated and heavenly. Hence some of them
believed with the Marcionites, Manicheans, &c. that

Christ suffered in appearance only

but others

was divine or
was the Deity which suffered

firmed, that the body, which suffered,

in other words, that

it

af;

Athanasius asserts in this book, that the

in Christ.

scriptures never speak

of Jesus suffering as God,

human nature ;

he says in the passage misquoted by Mr. Belsham, that " the scrip-

but in his

or, as

" tures never speak of the blood of God without

" mentioning or implying his flesh m :" and my readContra

95

Apol.

II.

14.

p.

carne. III.
again, that "

1.

m Thus

Irenaeus

says,

that

" it was neither a mere man

" who saves us, nor yet without
"jlesh"
neque homo tantum
erit qui salvat nos, neque sine

20, 4. p. 214. and

we are not to think

" him merely a man, nor yet sust

pect him from his nameEmma" nuel to be God without flesh,"
uti

non

nude solummodo

eum hominem

c 3

intelligeremus

IGNATIUS, A.D.

22

107.

next sen-

ers will hardly believe, that in the very

say

" but the holy scriptures

tence he goes on to
" speaking of God in the flesh, and of the flesh of
"

God when he became man, do mention

" and sufferings

"

God

:"

al

ayiau ypa<f>ou

avSpairov yevojxevov
crcopocTog

aapKi Seov kou aapKog Seov

alpa kou nddog kou dvaaraa-iv Ky}pvTT0vai

So much

Seov.

the blood

and resurrection of the body of

for the accuracy of

Mr. Bel-

sham's quotation, and for the assertion of the Unitarian translators, that the expression

"

God is

66

the blood

rejected with horror by Athanasius n

!"

of
to

which I may add, that this passage of Athanasius

makes directly against the Unitarians for since
that Father tells us, that the scriptures do speak of
the blood of God, we ask, where else do they speak
of it, except in Acts xx. 28 ? and what is more to
:

the point, Athanasius himself quotes the passage

from Acts xx. 28. more than once, and expressly

reads the church of God.
neque rursus per nomen

Emma-

nuel sine carne eum Deum suspicaremur. III. 21, 4. p. 217.

n That
Mr. Belsham borrowed his false quotation from
Wetstein is quite evident but
I am sorry to add that Griesbach, who ought to have known
better, has been guilty of the
same mistatement. After mentioning the Fathers who support the reading ouy.cc Seov, he
adds, Sed nec defuerunt, qui
tales formulas vituperarent et
scripturam sic nunquam locutam esse contenderent
and
afterwards he says more dis:

tinctly,

hoc

Tantum

vero abfuit, ut

telo adversaries suos confi-

cerent,

ut

potius

antiquiores

patves nonnulli, et inter hos vel

ipse Athanasius

Apollinar. in

c.

sacris Uteris alya eoulegi

We

rent.

can

hardly

negaacquit

Griesbach of a wilful mistatement in extending the remark

from Athanasius to others of
the Fathers. He clearly had not
examined the passage in Athanasius
and he did not specify
any other writer, because he
;

was unable.
0

In Epist. ad Serap. I. 6.
653. the Benedictine
edition has ecu, one MS. reads
Kvptov, and three
read Xpiarov.
There seems to be an allusion
vol. I. p.

to this text in his

upon Psalm

xcix.

Kvpioq avTo\ iariv

Commentary
3.

yvSre

@eoq '^u&v,

qti

where

IGNATIUS,

23

A. D. 107.

I cannot help also noticing an inconsistency in

Mr. Belsham's mode of argument. In the passage

before us he wishes us to read the church of the

Lord; and by the Lord he means us to understand

Jesus Christ. But it is singular that at Col. iii. 13.
he wishes to read, not as Christ has forgiven us,
but as the Lord has forgiven us, and there he interprets the Lord to mean God: so that at Acts
xx. 28. he tries to evade an argument for the divinity of Christ by understanding the Lord to mean
Christ; and at Col. iii. 13. he evades a similar argument by understanding the Lord to mean God I

We

now try

will

the accuracy of another assertion

of the Unitarian translators, that the expression

" the blood of God is not quoted by the earliest

" ecclesiastical writers."

We

have already seen that

Ignatius uses this expression in his Epistle to the

Ephesians

and

in his Epistle to the

says, " I long for the bread of

Romans he

God, heavenly bread,

" the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ,

" the Son of God p, who was born in later times of
" the seed of David and I long for the cup of God,
;

" his blood

<*."

he observes, ovro<;, ^aiv, b Kvpioq

t idlq) ai/x,T< noiaocv Kvrpaxrcc-

Ath. vol. I. p. 779. Epiphanius

quotes eV^X^tr/av tov eov, and he

yyv, avToq itrriv 6 kou tov

adduces the passage in support

pevoi;

tvjj/

ypeTepov noif^aToc, tfjiMovpyoq. vol.

of the divinity of Christ. Hser.

In the treatise ascribed to Athanasius, de cornmuni Essentia Patris et Filii, all

the MSS. read iKKfaqarlav tov

LXXIV.

I. p.

@eov.

177.

vol. II.

p. 4.

The em-

peror Jovian seems to allude to

this text, and to confirm the
received reading, when he says,
in a letter to Athanasius, iirdviOi
toIvvv e*g Tccq
noi[xouve

tov

dyiaq
tov

lKKhY\<T\ac,,

&eov Xaov.

kou

Op.

6. vol. I. p. 895.
p I believe the true transla-

" Jesus Christ, the

" Son, who is God, who was
" born," &c. but since the words
will bear the other construction,
I do not wish to quote them as
proving the divinity of Christ,
tion to be

"J

viov,

"Aprov Qeov 6e\a, apTov ovpdapTov

^oorjt;,

tq

i&Ti accp^ 'lyo-ov

Xpio-roi), tov vlov tov

4s

&eov tov yevo-

IGNATIUS,

24

A. D. 107.

There is a remarkable passage in Justin Martyr,

which may be quoted in this place. Like the rest
of the Fathers he refers Gen. xlix. 11. to Christ,
which

in the Septuagint version is thus

o'lv TYjV <7T0\y}V OLVT0V)

KOU V

OLlfJLaTl

UTaCpvX^

irXwet

ev

TY}V TTeplftokYJV

upon which Justin observes, " The words

avrov'

" blood of the grape are used purposely to express,

" that Christ has blood, not from the seed of man,
" but from the power of God.
For in the same

" manner that man does not produce the blood of

" the vine, but God so also this passage foretold,
" that the blood of Christ was not to be of human
;

s<

origin,

but from the power of

" phecy shews, that Christ

men

"

according to the

God

and

this pro-

not a man, begotten of

is

common law

men r ." Eusays, that men

of

sebius, speaking of the same text,

" are redeemed by the blood of the grape, which
" has God dwelling in it, and is spiritual s ."
Clement of Alexandria speaks of " the power of

"

God

the Father and the blood of God the Son

" I well know, we are not our

Tertullian says

" own, but bought with a price

"price? the blood of

[Atvov Iv vcrrepip

kou
It

e'/c

cnapfAaToq Aa/S/S'

nopa eov 6eXa to alpa, avrov.

might be said however that

ainov refers to
r

To

'lyo-ov Xpio-rov. c. 7.

alpa Tyq

ara<pv\yji;

meiv tov Xoyov, hia Tvjq Tt^v^q

A&}K6v, 'on alfxa

ovk
TVjq

God u "

e'|

jwey

e%ei

SeS'/j-

Xpitrroq

avQpuvov cricep^aToq, aXX' Ik

tov

&0v dvvd \J.zotq.

''Ov

rpoizov to TYjq d^-weXov al[*a ovk

$pct)Ttoq

el-

iyevv/}(7v,

dXkd

Kol to tov Xpto~~ov

Gpundov

yevovq

yap
av-

eoq, ovruq

aljj.a ovk

e<r<rdai 3

e| dv-

aXX'

e/c

and what

sort of

It is this passage,

Seov hvvdfAeuq

npoeixyvvo-ev.

KpocpvjTeia avT'/j

'H

diroheiKVvei, qti

eo-Tiv 0 XptcrToq avBpuiroq

i!j

he

gvk

dvOpunrav

Kara

to koivov tuv avdpwirav yevvyj-

Beiq.

Dial,

cum Try ph.

54.

p.

H9 5s

Dem. Evang.

Awd[Ai Seov narpoq Ka) aif^ari

eov nathoq.

tur?

VIII. p. 380.

Quis Dives Salve-

c.

34. p. 954.
u Quod sciam,

non

nostri, sed pretio ernpti

pretio

rem,

sanguine Dei.

II. 3. p.

168.

sumus
et quali

Ad Uxo-

IGNATIUS,

25

A. D. 107.

which has caused Tertullian to be named as reading

the church of God in Acts xx. 28. but his words
bear such a direct reference to another text, 1 Cor.
vi.

19, 20, that

we cannot

whether he had the

say,

words of St. Paul to the Ephesians also in his mind.

Origen upon those words of Psalm lxxi. 19. " Thy
" righteousness also,

God,

is

very high, who hast

" done great things" &c. remarks, " having given

His

" peace by

blood to the things in heaven and

The pronoun His can only refer to

God, who had done great things : but we may ob-

" in earth

x ."

commentary is a manifest allusion to Col. i. 20. " having made peace through the
66
blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things
serve, that Origen's

" unto himself: by him, whether they be things in

" earth, or things in heaven :" in which passage it
is difficult to

decide the person to

having made peace, and

whom

eipvjvoTroivjo-ae

to be re-

avrov his are

ferred.

Origen, like other commentators, considered the

Song of Solomon to refer to the union of Christ and

and upon those words, v. 10. " My behis church
" loved is white and ruddy," he says, referring them
to Christ; " white, because he was very God: and
" ruddy, on account of the blood which was shed
" for the church y."
This passage might seem particularly to contain an allusion to Acts xx. 28. on
;

account of the church being mentioned in connexion

with the blood of God.

Dionysius of Alexandria says, " The holy blood of
" our God Jesus Christ is not corruptible, nor the
x elp^voTtot^araq

avrov
II. p.

ia,

tcc Iv ovpowoTq

760.

Toy

al^ocroc,

kou roc in)

"yvj?.

XevKoi;, inei^rj

wfipoq

@eo$

aX'q&ivot;'

$<a to al(/,a to vnep

kKKkn*la$ %vQzv. III. p. 98.

Tr\<;

IGNATIUS,

26

man

" blood of a mortal

God

"

7'''

Epiphanius

speaks of the church,

aXXa oufAan
vol. II. p.

QeiKcp

A. D. 107.

like ourselves, but

(if

of very

the treatise be genuine)

ovKeri

acfypayi&fxevY].

aifxari

SovXiku

(pvpcofxevy,

Serm. in Fest. Palm,

254.

Having already mentioned the

assertion of the
"
Unitarian translators., that the blood of God is not
" quoted by the earliest ecclesiastical writers," I

draw his inference as to the acand I only observe, that these

passages alone might seem sufficient to prove, that
leave the reader to

curacy of the remark

the Ante-Nicene Fathers believed in the divinity of

That they believed him, who shed his blood

be God in some sense or other, can-

Christ.

on the

cross, to

not be denied

for our opponents to prove, that

it is

they did not believe him to be verily and essentially

God.
Ignatii Epist.

12.

ad Eph.

c. 7. p.

13.

In the same Epistle, having warned the Ephe-

beware of those who taught false doctrines,

and whom he considered almost incurable, he says,
" There is one Physician, fleshly and spiritual, made
" and not made, God born in the flesh, true life in
" death, both of Mary and of God, first capable of
" suffering, and then incapable a ." There is little to
sians to

ov

alpa to ayiov

<p6aprov to

TOV 0V

f\\fMV

*\f\O~0V

avBouTtov

KaO'

7I[a3,<;

Qeov

ScX'/jBivov.

c.

XplGTOV, 0VT

O^tov,

Paul.

aXkbt,

Samos.

Qusest. IV. p. 237.

a

E*s larpoq iaTiv aapKiKot; re kou

irvV[Aa,TiKG<;,

iv aapKi
^covj

yew/pos kou

yevo^evoi;

xXyOivrj, kou Ik

ayevvvjroi;,

066$, iv OocvaTtp

Maplaq kou k

tov, npaiTOV naB^Toq kou to'tc

6y<;.

The commentators

doubt whether to read

clticl-

are in

<yojTo$

and

and ocyevwjToq
There is no doubt,
that after the council of Nice
the difference between these two
expressions was carefully observed; but earlier writers sometimes confounded them.
The
difference seems to have been
that yewriToc, and o\yewf\Toc, meant
begotten and not begotten, yevyjToq and ayevrjToq meant made or
created, and not made or not
ayevYjToi;

or

yevvvjToi;

in this place.

IGNATIUS, A.D.

107.

observe upon these words, which expressly assert

the two natures of Christ, except that they may
remind us of the passage in John i. 14. " The Word
"

was made flesh, and dwelt among us

may

and they

:"

seem to support the received reading in

16. God was manifest in theflesh, which
have occasion to notice more at length in a

also

Tim.

shall

iii.

future page.
See Damascen.
created.
Epiphan. Hser. LXIV. 8.

We

p. 532.

I.

9.

vol. I.

should therefore

say of the Son, that he was yev-

created.

The

fact

is,

that Ori-

gen, like the writers before and

him, used the terms without reflection, and it is probable

after

he was

that Ignatius did so in this place,

begotten of the Father, not made

or created: and that he was

where he wished to mark the

antithesis of the two natures in
Christ, according to one of which
he might be said to be made,
like any other man, but accord-

y/jTot;

not

yevq-ros,

ccyev'fj-voq

but not

classical

writers

no such

l.

e.

ayivv/jTOi;.

Ill

we meet

distinction.

We

with

might

notice deoyen^q and OvrjToyevrjt; in

two consecutive lines of Sophocles, (Antig. 834-5,) where the

ing to his divine nature, he was,

like

God, uncreated.

upon the exclusive ap-

metre evidently decides the

omission or insertion of the v.

plication of ayevriToq to

Cicero also in translating a passage from the Phaedrus of Plato,

ayivvjrov, renders it, prinapx>]

this

cipii
eneiVfi

autem nulla
8e

nunquam

ocyevrjTou

oritur.

and
quod si

est origo,
icrri,

Disp.

(Tusc.

In the same manner

23.)
ecclesiastical writers sometimes
I.

thus
confounded the terms
the Son was said to be ayevvvitoi;, by which it was not meant
that he was not begotten, but
that he was not created: and
Origen was greatly censured
for calling the Son yei/>?To<; eoV
though he certainly did not
mean, that he was a created
God; for in one of his works
(c. Cels. VI. 17. p. 643.) he
:

expressly calls

him

ayevyrov,

un-

Athana-

sius asserts that the Arians first

insisted

God the
Father, meaning thereby to include the Son among yevvjTa. If
be true,

it

would account

of terms in
the writers who went before
him. De Decret, Syn. Nic. . 28.

for the confusion

vol.1, p. 233. cf. Orat. I. contra

Arianos, 31. p. 435. 32. p. 437.
De Synodis 46. p. 760. See
Bull, Defens. Fid. Nic. II. 2.
6.

and

9.

Huet. Origeni-

9.

ana, II. Qusest.

cer in VOC.

2.

ocykvt\roc,

Waterland, IV.
and particularly
Trin.

1.

V.

c.

aapK) yevopevoc,

Sui-

yevfjioq.

260.
Petavius de
Instead of iv
1.
eo? in the above
p. 239,

Theodoand Gelasius read iv av-

quotation, Athanasius,
ret,

23.

and

Bpunco eo?.

IGNATIUS, A.D.

28

Ignatii Epist.

13.

107.

ad Eph.

After quoting from St. Paul,

18. p. 15.

c.

(1 Cor.

Where

20.) "

i.

"

is the wise, where is the disputer f where is the

" boasting of those who are called intelligent ?" he
adds, " for our God Jesus Christ was conceived by

" Mary, according to the dispensation of God, of the

" seed indeed of David, but of the Holy Ghost b ."

Ignatii Epist.

14.

ad Eph.

19. p. 16.

c.

In the next chapter he alludes to the

star,

which

guided the wise men to Bethlehem, and mentions

some extraordinary circumstances, which he conhave

ceived either figuratively or literally to

at-

" Then," he says, "

tended its appearance

all magic
" art was destroyed, and every bond of iniquity was
" abolished ignorance was put away, the old king:

"

dom was

destroyed, when God was manifested

" humanly for the newness of eternal life c ."

The
ther

ad Magnes.

Ignatii Epist.

15.

c. 6.

p. 19-

preexistence of Christ in union with the Fain the following passage, where,

asserted

is

speaking of Christ, Ignatius adds, " who was with

" the Father before the worlds, and appeared at the
end

"

d.

16.

Ignatii Epist.

ad

Trail,

c. 7.

p. 23.

Having warned the people of Tralles to beware of

heretics, Ignatius has these words, " Keep yourselves
" then from such men
and you will do this, if ye
" are not puffed up, and if ye do not separate from
:

"

God
b

XptcTTO?

Jesus Christ
yap

0eo?

Tj/xav

eKVCKpopYjO'S] vtio

oIkovo[aIo.v

0eov,

eK

e ."

'Ivjo-oS?

Maptat; Kar*

critepfAtxToq

[/.ev

0eoS

avdpom'tvat;

(pavepo-

elq

/cammjTa
%<;

ttpo

aiViov

&>Sfe.

aiavwv irapa naTpi

^f, kcci ev teXei ecpdvrj.

e

Aa/3/, i:vev^a,Toq 8e dyiov.

c

pevov

'Itjo-ou

Kai

ovcriv

d^aptcrroK; <deov

have tried to

XpiaTOv.

IGNATIUS, A.D.
Ignatii Epist.

17.

The

ad Rom.

exhorts the

Romans

c. 3. p.

26-7.

Romans has been

of the Epistle to the

title

alluded to above at p. 16.

29

107.

In the third chapter he

to pray for him, that

he might

be a Christian, not outwardly only, but inwardly

" That I may not only be called a Christian, but
" really proved to be so for if I am proved, I may
" easily have the name, and may be faithful even
;

"

w hen

I make no appearance to the world

nothing
" that is seen is eternal for the things which are
" seen are for a season only, but those which are not
" seen are eternal f for our God Jesus Christ is
r

" rather seen by his existence in the Father

This

s."

somewhat obscure and difficult to be transmeaning of Ignatius seems to have

Having said, that whatever is visible to
been this.
the eye is not eternal, he was aware that it might
be said, that Jesus Christ, since he became visible to
passage

is

lated, but the

us in the

flesh, is

He

not eternal.

therefore guards

against such an inference by saying, that though

Jesus Christ Jiad been really and actually seen in

human

way

which we
can fitly contemplate him is as existing in the Father and thus his former remark holds good. Jesus
Christ was seen in the flesh, for a season only but
as existing in the Father, and partaking of His
godhead, he cannot be seen, and is eternal. In
whatever manner we translate the sentence, Ignatius expressly says, that Christ is God, and that he
is in the Father.
his

nature, yet the only

in

translate the last

words

literally

otherwise the God Jesus Christ,

Or our God JesUS Christ, would
sound better in English.
f

See 2 Cor.

iv.

18.

ovth (paivopevov

alavw

tyawL^zva npoaKaipa'

nopeva

alavta.'

'Ivjo-oS? Xpi<TTo<;

<f>alverou.

iv

ra. Se

yeep

to.
jtwj

@0<;

narpi av

yap

/3Ae-

r-^av

paWov

IGNATIUS, A.D.

30

Ignatii Epist.

18.

107.

ad Rom.

28-9.

c. 6. p.

Being now on his journey to Rome, whither he

was going that he might be exposed to wild beasts
Amphitheatre, he

in the

make any

not to
to die
<e

am

" Suffer

interest for his life

me

Rome

brethren at

tells his

he was willing

when I
man of God perthe suffering of my God h ." It

to catch the pure light

arrived thither, I shall be a

me

" mit

to imitate

need not be observed that he alludes to the

God

ings of

the Son.

Ignatii Epist.

19.

suffer-

ad Smyrn.

c. 1. p.

33.

This Epistle begins with an express declaration

C
of the divinity of Christ.
I glorify Jesus Christ,
" the God who hath endued you with such wisdom ."
l

ad Smyrn.

Ignatii Epist.

20.

10. p. 37.

c.

"

As to Philo, and Rheus, and Agathopus, who

" have followed me in preaching the word of God,
" ye have done well in receiving them as ministers
" of Christ [our] God k ."
Ignatii Epist.

21.

ad Poly carp.

c. 3. p.

40.

It is unquestionable that Ignatius refers the fol-

lowing expressions to Christ " Wait for him who

" is beyond all time, eternal, invisible who for our
" sakes became visible who was not tangible who
:

" was incapable of suffering, and for our sakes suf-

" fered

who endured

in various

ways

for us

1 ."

It

equally certain, that these expressions maintain

is

the eternity of Christ as well retrospectively as pro-

and the union of the two natures

spectively,
h

imrpeipare pot

irocQovt;
1

rov eov

Ao|a&>

eov rov ovraq

k
[Atvoi cbq

[/.t[/.'^rvjv

elvoi

'I'/jaovv

Toy

virepKaipov

a%povov, rov

f/.ov.

~Kpio~Tov

rov

vy.a<; (rocjjicravra,.

Ku'huq iiroirjo-are

woSe^a-

hiaKovovq Xpio-rov Seov.

oparov, rov

rov h'

YjfAag

rpmov

*'

a.opa.rov,

in him.

irpoo~hoKay

rov oi

a,ipvjAdc(p'/]rov,

naOyrov, rov

rov
vj^aiq

rov ana-dy,
Ka.ro.

vitOfAeivavra..

nuvro.

IGNATIUS, A.D.

SI

107.

when he says
"
of Christ,
He is in all respects also a man, the
" creature of God and therefore, summing up manIrenaeus seems to have imitated this,

" kind in himself, the invisihle became visible, the

" incomprehensible became comprehensible, the im-

f passible became passible, and the Word became

" man m :" and in another place, " The Word, natu" rally invisible, who became palpable and visible

" amongst men, and descended even to death

Ignatii Epist.

He

ad Poly carp.

c. ult. p.

n ."

42.

ends the Epistle to Polycarp with praying for

his health " in our

Having now

God Jesus

Christ

."

finished the quotations

from what

are called the apostolic Fathers, I cannot help bring-

ing forward two assertions which have been

made

within the last half century by two writers of considerable note

p.

among

the Unitarians.

Lindsey, in
" Those

158. of his Apology, uses these words

" very early Fathers, Irenaeus and Justin Martyr,

" although free from any thing bordering on such
" extravagancies, [those of the Docetae,] did never" theless contribute to bring into Christianity the
" Platonic doctrine of a second God, which they
" had learnt before their conversion to the faith."

The

passage

ing of

it

Irenaeus)

is

is

rather oddly worded

plain, that Justin (for

was the

first

m In omnibus autem
homo,

minem

est et

ergo in
capitulans est, invisibilis visibilis factus, et incomprehensibilis
factus comprehensibilis, et impassibilis passibilis, et

homo.

Verbum

III. 16. 6, p. 206.

11

but the mean-

he wrote before

of the Fathers

et hoDei
semetipsum re-

plasmatic*

who

speaks of

Et hujus Verbum, natura-

quidem invisibilem, palpabilem et visibilem in hominibus

factum, et usque ad mortem
descendisse. IV. 24. 2. p. 260.
liter

0 'Epp3o-9<zi

e$

vpcZi;

dia,

navroq iv
,

v^awv 'tyaov Xpi<rr$ euxpau.

JUSTIN MARTYR,

32

A.D. 150.

p expresses himself more

"
we find nothing like diplainly, and says, that
" vinity ascribed to Jesus Christ before Justin

Christ as God. Dr. Priestley

" Martyr."
I

do not wish to enter into any examination of

these sentiments.
I trust

have laid before the reader, and

not unfairly, the words of those writers

reader will decide whether

who

Martyr; and the

lived before the time of Justin

Mr. Lindsey and Dr.

Priestley have given a true account of the doctrine

of the apostolic Fathers.

But

there

is

another as-

which may be refuted more

that Justin Martyr is the first

sertion of Dr. Priestley,

precisely.

" writer

The

He

says,

<s

who mentions

reader

is

the miraculous conception

referred to the words of Ignatius,

which shew that this

and
writer believed Mary to have been a virgin
in another place
Ignatius says, that "the virgi" nity of Mary was unknown to the prince of
" this world." He also alludes to the star which
given

at

N. 12. and 13.

appeared at the birth of Christ, which shews that

he believed the beginning of

St.

Matthew's Gospel

to be genuine.

Justin Mahtyu. A. D. 150.

Justin Martyr was born in Flavia Neapolis, the
place which was anciently called Sychem, in Sa-

maria; and, according to Fabricius, his birth took

place about the year 89, though
later.

place

it

After having studied philosophy in various

History of Corruptions, vol.

32. He says of the Epistle
of Clement, that " it contains
" no such doctrine as those of
" the divinity or preexistence
p

I. p.

others

" of Christ." History of early

Opinions, I. p. 93.
^ History of early Opinions,
vol. IV. p. 107.
r
Ep. ad Eph. c. 19. p. 16.

JUSTIN MARTYR, A.D.

schools,

he was converted to Christianity, as some

The

think, about the year 133.

his,

which have come down

gies, or

83

150.

works of
two Apolopresented to Ro-

principal

to us, are

Defences of Christianity,

man emperors

and a Dialogue, or Disputation, with

Trypho, a Jew. The first Apology is supposed by
some critics to have been presented to the emperor
Antoninus Pius in the year 140, but others 1 bring
it

down

After

to 150.

he went again to Asia,

this,

where he held his disputation with Trypho the Jew

and different dates have been assigned for the publi:

Scaliger u thought that

cation of this Dialogue.

was written
critic,

that

it

to 155.

Du

Coming

ascribing
to

Rome

Apology

it

but

in the reign of

it is

the

Antoni-

to the year 140, others y

a second time, he presented

to the

emperor M. Aur. Antoni-

That he died a

nus, probably about the year 162.

martyr

Pin, and almost every other

was published

nus Pius, some

his second

Hadrian

in the reign of

opinion of Pearson,

it

for the Christian faith, is

an undoubted

fact,

shewn by the name which he always bears. His

death is supposed by some z to have happened in

as

is

164, by others

in 168.

Epiphanius

is

undoubtedly

wrong, who says that he died at the age of 30, in

the reign of Hadrian b
.

These

dates,

though they

differ

so

much from

one another, sufficiently confirm the assertion

Methodius
s

and Eusebius

Tillemont. Cave.
Tillemont. Grabe.

Animadv.

in

Chron. Eus.

p. 229.
x

Pagi. Basnage.

Massuet.
Cave. Fabricius.

d
,

of

that J ustin was not far

a

Tillemont.
This is demonstrated by Pe-

tavius in a learned

and valuable

note upon Epiph. Haer.

vol.11, p. 81.
c
Photius, Cod. 234.
d

H. E.

II. 13.

XLVL

JUSTIN MARTYR,

34

A.D. 150.

removed from the apostolic times. His first work

was written in the former part of the second century, when many persons must have been alive who

had seen the

apostles

at all events the interval

was

not so great, as to allow the probability of his intro-

ducing any new doctrines of his own.

We

have

Mr Lindsey accused him of having done

by "bringing into Christianity the Platonic doc" trine of a second God." Had we found no traces
seen that

so,

of Jesus being called

God

either in the

New

Testa-

ment, or in the works of the apostolic Fathers,

would have been

difficult,

As

fute this assertion.

of

it

will appear

it is,

tin

the truth or falsehood

by an examination of the writings

who preceded him and Mr. Lindsey himmust be cited as a witness to the fact, that JusMartyr at least speaks of Christ as God. Dr.

of those
self

it

perhaps impossible, to re-

indeed

66

We

can hardly doubt

" (whether Justin confesses it or not) that the doc" trine of the simple humanity of Christ must have

Priestley

says

" been the prevailing one in his time."

Dr. Priestley's permission,

what he seems

Now, with

would observe, that

to treat as an unimportant point, viz.

whether Justin asserts

greatest importance

it

or not,

or rather

is

it is

a point of the

the only means

which we have of judging of the accuracy of

statement. For his assertion reduces him to this
ternative.

If the simple

his
al-

humanity of Christ was

the prevailing doctrine of Justin's days, the works of

Justin must contain that doctrine.
e
Quadratus, who wrote about
A. D. 124, said that persons
were alive even in his days who
had been cured by Christ, Eus.

H. E. IV.
f

III.

If he admits

3.

History of early Opinions,

p. 287.

JUSTIN MARTYR, A.D.

35

150.

that they do not, but contends that Justin did not

speak the sentiments of his contemporaries, I then

ask,

how

we to know what was the doctrine of

when no other works of the first forty
the second century have come down to us,
are

those days,

years of

except those of Justin Martyr? It must therefore be

important to decide the

fact,

whether Justin did or

did not believe in the simple humanity of Christ

and the following quotations may perhaps assist us

in coming to a conclusion.
We may also remember the assertion of Eusebius,
which has been before alluded to, that Justin, Miltiades, &c. all

sebius at least

so that

was not of the same opinion

Eu-

as Dr.

But one of the most daring assertions ever

made by Dr. Priestley in another place ,

Priestley.

uttered

God

spoke of Christ as

is

where, speaking of the miraculous conception, he

represents Justin Martyr as saying to a Jew, " that

" he was at full liberty to think as he should see

" reason to do on that subject and that he might
;

" be as good a Christian as the Ebionites were be" fore him, though he should believe no more of the
" miraculous conception than they had done." This
is

an entire invention.

Justin, throughout his Dia-

logue with Trypho, never makes any concession of

the kind

on the contrary, he frequently

insists

on

the miraculous conception as a necessary article of

References to the passages

belief.

the note

The

be found in

reader

is

also referred to Dr.

s History of early Opinions,

IV. p.T 3
h
Dial, cum Tryph. c. 43.
p. 139, &c. c. 63. p. 160. c. 66.
.

may

163.

c.

p. 173.

c.

p.

p. 195.

Waterland

75. p. 172.
84. p. 181.

c.
c.

for

76.
100.

JUSTIN MARTYR,

36

A.D. 150.

an able exposition of the doctrine of Justin Martyr

concerning the divinity of Christ. III.
23.

This

first

Justin. Apol. l

quotation

is

Defence which, as stated

a
.

c.

p.

249. &c.

63. p. 81.

taken from the Apology or

above., Justin

Martyr pre-

sented in the year 140, or 150, to the emperor

An-

toninus Pius, and, in fact, to the senate and people

of

Rome.

Like many other of the Fathers, he conceived

it was Christ who talked with Moses out of
the bush and he condemns the Jews for confounding God the Father with His Son. " The Jews, who
" think that it was always God the Father who
" spoke to Moses, (whereas he who spoke to him
that

" was the Son of God, who is also called an Angel,

" and an Apostle \) are justly convicted both by the

" prophetical spirit k , and by Christ himself, for

" knowing neither the Father nor the Son. For
" they, who say that the Son is the Father, are con" victed of neither knowing the Father, nor of un" derstanding that the God of the universe has a
" Son who, being the first-born Word of God, is
" also God. And formerly he appeared to Moses
:

" and to the other prophets in the form of fire and

" an incorporeal image
and now in the time of
" your empire, becoming man by a virgin, accord:

Avto<;

yvuo-Oyjvcci,
a-cov

ta-a

%<ra let

only place in the scriptures in

kou ScKcxniKherai pjvu-

which Christ is called an Apostle

though the promise of the
Shiloh, or the Sent, must have

yap a-nayyeKkei

ayyeXXerai.

Justin, ib.

When

he says that Christ is

called an Angel, he alludes to
Exod. iii. 2. Isaiah ix. 6. (ac-

cording to the Septuagint,) lxiii.

As to his being
9. Mai. iii. 1.
called an Apostle, he must alhide to Heb. iii. 1. which is the

made

the

Jews acquainted with

one of the

titles of the
Messiah.
k In allusion to Isaiah
i. 3.
and Matt. xi. 27. as he himself

this as

tells us.

JUSTIN MARTYR,

A.D.

37

150.

" ing to the Father's will, he endured to be de" spised and to suffer for the salvation of those who
" believe in him 1 ."

We need

not enter into the inquiry, whether Jus-

was right

tin

who spoke

have been Christ

in considering it to

The change

to Moses.

of person from

the Angel of the Lord to the Lord himself in this

and in Gen. xix. and elsewhere, shews that

something more was intended, than an ordinary revelation by one of the ministering and created spirits.
The explanation given by Justin Martyr and
place,

the other Fathers

but

may

sufficient for

is

it

such a notion

perhaps be the true one

our purpose that they held

which they could not have done,

if

they believed in the simple humanity of Christ.

Could Christ have said, / am the God of Abra-

ham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob,

if he had not been very God, one with the Father ?
Or could he have spoken to Moses at all, if he had
no existence previous to his birth at Bethlehem?
Justin believed that it was Christ who spoke these
he therefore believed that Christ was the
words
Jehovah of the Old Testament and as he says ex:

pressly in the passage quoted above, being the first-

Word of God, he is also God.

Having stated that all the early Fathers agreed

born

*\ovbouoi ovv y]y/]o-a,[Avoi de) rov

narepa

rav

oXcov

XeXaXvjKevai

Macei, rov XaXqo-avroq avra

vlov

rov eov

-SiKataq

rat koi did rov

roq,

Kai

Si'

rol

'ovroq

eXeyypv-

npo(p'/]riKov nrvevjxa-

avrov rov Xpicrrov,

ooq

ovre rov itarepa ovre rov vlov eyvoo(Tolv.

ol

yap rov

vlov

eXeyypvrai

crKOvreq

elvai

itarepa

e.'Kio-rdp.evoi,

vloq

itarepa

ra warp) ruv

[/.YjO'

(pa-

0$

Kai Aoyoq nvpoororoKoq av rov @eov

kou eoq
rov

rvjq

vizapyjii.

itvpoq

kou nporepov

da-a^drov ra Mcocrei Kai

itpocpyjratq
rvjq

vov

ecpdvq'

v[/.erepaq

vvv

dpyfiq

S'

(3ovX-qv,

vicep

avra kou

iticrrevovrav

on

ku) itaQeiv vne^eivev.

oXoov yivooo-KOvreq'

"bid

eiKovoq

roiq erepoiq

iv

yjpovoiq

Sia napQe-

dvOpanoc yevo^evoq, Kara

itarpoq

pfre rov
eariv

kou

[Aopcpvjq

rvjv

crtovqp'iaq

rov

rSv

eiiovSev'fjOrivcci

JUSTIN MARTYR,

38

A. D. 150.

with Justin Martyr in referring these manifestations

of Jehovah in the Old Testament to
I

must interrupt the

time in order to prove this point

being so many,

God

the Son,

series of quotations for a short

I shall

marking the passages

but the instances

only mention a few of them,

Old Testament, and

in the

giving references to the works of the Fathers, in

which these interpretations may be found.

It was Christ who talked with Adam, Gen.

where the person

is

Theophil. in Autol.

said to be the

II. 22. Tertull.

iii.

8, 9.

Lord God,

adv. Prax.

c.

v.

16.

p. 509. Irenseus, IV. 10. p. 239.

It

was Christ who spoke

to

Noah, Gen.

vi.

13.

Irenaeus, IV. 10.

was Christ who went down to confound the

tongues at Babel, Gen. xi. 5. where it is said that it
was the Lord. Justin. M. Dial, cum Try ph. c. 127It

p.

220. Tertull. adv. Prax.

c.

25. p. 723.

c.

16. p. 509. Novatian.

was Christ who " appeared to Abram, and

" said unto him, I am the Almighty God." Gen.
It

xvii. 1.

Justin.

M.

Clem. Alex. Psed.

Dial,

cum Tryph.

I. 7. p.

c.

121. p. 220.

131,

was Christ who appeared to Abraham in the

plains of Mamre, Gen. xviii. 1. where he is called the
Lord, and the Judge of all the earth, ver. 25. Justin. M. Dial, cum Tryph. c. 56. p. 152. Clem. Alex.
It

Paed.

I. 7. p.

131. Tertull. adv. Marc. III. 9. p. 402.

Origen. in Gen. Horn. IV. 3.

was Christ who rained

upon Sodom, Gen.

xix. 24.
The Fathers particularly mention the expression, " then the Lord rained upon Sodom and
" upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord."
Justin. M. Dial, cum Tryph. c. 56. p. 152
c. 127.
It

fire

JUSTIN MARTYR, A.D.

p.

221. Irenseus, III.

6. p.

39

150.

180. Tertull. adv. Prax.

13, 16. p. 507, 509.

It

was Christ who tempted Abraham, Gen.

Gen. Horn. VIII.

Origen. in

8.

Cyp. Test.

xxii.

II.

5.

p. 286.

was Christ who appeared to Jacob, Gen.xxviii.

13. where the person calls himself " the Lord God
It

te

God of Isaac."

of Abraham, and the

Dial,

cum Tryph.

58. p. 156.

M.

Clem. Alex. Paed.

131.

I. 7. p.

It

c.

Justin.

was Christ who spoke

to Jacob in

a dream,

Gen. xxxi. 11, 13. where he calls himself the God

of Bethel, (see Gen. xxviii. 13, 19.) Justin. M. Dial,

cum Tryph.

c.

Cyp. Test.

58. p. 155.

II. 5.

Nova-

tian. c. 27. p. 725.

was Christ who wrestled with Jacob, Gen. xxxii.

where it is expressly said that he was God, ver.
28, 30. Justin. M. Dial, cum Tryph. c. 58. p. 155,
It

24.

156.
Paed.

125. p. 218.

c.
I.

7. p.

Irenaeus, p. 239- Clem. Alex.

132. Concil. Antioch. (Reliq. Sacr. II.

p. 470.)

It
1,

9.

was Christ who appeared

Justin.

M.

Dial,

where he says, " he is

" will be m ." Cyp. Test.

to Jacob, Gen.

cum Tryph.
called

c.

God, and

xxxv.

58. p. 155.
is

God, and

II. 6.

was Christ who appeared to Moses in the bush,

Exod. iii. 2. where the person calls himself " the
It

66

"
"
c.

God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the

God of Jacob :" and at ver. 14. " / am that I
am? Justin. M. Apol. I. 62. p. 80. Dial, cum Tryph.
Irenaeus, IV. 10, 12. Clem. Alex. Co-

60. p. 157.

hort,

ad Gent.
m

p. 7.

Tertull. adv. Jud.

eos KotXtiTai,

Kcci

Seoq

D 4

i<rri,

c. 9. p.

kcu terra*.

194.

JUSTIN MARTYR,

40

A. D. 150.

was Christ who said to Moses, (Exod. xx. 2.)

the Lord thy God, which have brought
" thee out of the land of Egypt" Clem. Alex. Paed.
It

"

/ am

I. 7. p.

131.

It was Christ who spoke to Moses, Levit. vi. 1.

and consequently who delivered the whole of the

law. Origen. in Levit. Horn. IV.

was Christ who appeared

It

richo, Josh. v. 13.

Justin.

M.

init.

to

Dial,

Joshua near Je-

cum Tryph.

c.

62.

p. 159-60.

These instances might be multiplied so as

but enough perhaps has been said

a volume
that

all

opinion

to

make

to shew,

the Fathers agreed in entertaining the same

n

again repeat, that I

am

not concerned

to inquire into the soundness of this opinion

who

the Fathers,

held

it,

but

could not have believed

was a mere man, nor even an angel

that Christ

they assert over and over again, that the person

who

appeared to the patriarchs could not be an angel,

because he

God and Jehovah and they

that he who revealed himself

called

is

expressly assert,

God and Jehovah, was

as
as

not the Father, but the Son.

See Bull, Defens. Sect. IV. 3. and Waterland's Works,

II. p. 20.

may

add, that the Arians openly proit was Christ, " to whom the

fessed their belief that

" Father said,

Let us make man, &c. who was seen

" by the patriarchs face to face, who gave the law,
u and spake by the prophets, &c." Eusebius, who
has been suspected of Arianism, devotes the

book of

his

this point.
n

give

St.

Demonstrate Evangelica
See also

the same work,

Paul himself seems to

some countenance

doctrine,.

Cor.

x. 9.

to this

p.

fifth

to establishing

I. 5. p.

11.

Athanas. de Synodis, vol.

740. See also p. 743.

I.

JUSTIN MARTYR, A.D.

We will now return

41

150.

to the testimonies

from Justin

Martyr.

cum Tryph.

Justin. Dial,

24.

One

of Justin's longest works

c.

34. p. 130.

a Dialogue or

is

Disputation which he held at Ephesus with a Jew,

named Trypho,

in the year

140 or 155.

After hav-

ing shewn that the Jews misinterpreted

many

pas-

sages of scripture, he brings forward the 72d Psalm,

beginning with " Give the king thy judgments."

Where

are, "

God, give thy

"judgment to the king, since Solomon was a king,
" you think that the Psalm was spoken in honour
" of him whereas the words of the Psalm expressly
His words

it is said,

" declare that

spoken in honour of the eternal

it is

" King, that

for Christ is declared to be

is, Christ
u a King, and a Priest, and God, and Lord, and
:

" Angel, and Man,, and Chief-captain, and a Stone,

" and a Child born and first made capable of suf" fering, then returning into heaven, and again
;

" coming hither with glory, and in possession of the

" eternal kingdom, as I prove from all the scrip" turesP."
He then quotes the whole Psalm; and

having finished

he shews that though Solomon

it,

was a great king, there are many expressions in the

Psalm which did not apply to Solomon, and were
never

him.

fulfilled in

All Christian writers, ancient and modern, have

agreed

in interpreting this prophetical

reign of the Messiah

P

tcov

Xoyav

dictpp'ftyjv K'fjpvcrtTCjytav

ficcatAeoc,

TouTtVriv

elpvicrOou.

eli;

but what

xf/aAjj-ov

arpa,T'/jyo<;,

kou

yewa^tvov,

kou

rov XptcToy,

yap Xpicnoi;

fiucritevc,

Psalm of the

we have

rov al&viov

tov
el<;

XiQoq,

tepevq,

ayyekoq,

kou &eoq, kou

kou

avOpanoq,

Kvpiot;,

kou

kou

apyj.-

kou

naQ'^roq

ncttitov

yevopevoq

TtpaTOV, elra e<? ovpavov ocvep-ftofAeyoc,

kou ncchiv nocpayivo u.evo<; [xercc

l

Koci

chiefly to

kou

alavioi/

KYjDVKTCtl.

Softs',

Tyv fiaaiAuav tyjAV ke-

JUSTIN MARTYR, A.D.

42

observe in the

not only

comment

150.

of Justin Martyr

is,

that he

Christ the eternal King, but he exhim God; and when he speaks of his

calls

pressly calls

ascension into heaven, he not merely says that he

went
John

thither,
vi.

but that he returned thither, as in

62. thereby clearly asserting the preexist-

ence of Christ.
Justin. Dial, cum Tryph. c. 35. p. 132.
25.
Trypho having objected the corrupt practices of
some who called themselves Christians, Justin acknowledges, that there were persons whose doctrine
and practice were wholly contrary to the religion
which they professed but he adds, that such persons were not owned or received by sound Chris" We hold no communion with them, knowtians.
" ing them to be impious, and irreligious, and un" just, and lawless
and instead of worshipping
" Jesus, they confess him only in name
Justin
Martyr therefore, and all true Christians, worshipand yet Mr. Lindsey argues at some
ped Christ
length that Christ is not to be worshipped and
at p. 141-2. he says, " the opinion and practice of
:

1
",

" the ancient Christians before the council of Nice

" has been often shewn from their writings

which he must mean, that

;"

by

has been often shewn,

it

that the Christians before the council of Nice did

Justin Martyr, as appears from

not worship Christ.

the present quotation, does not support Mr. Lindsey's assertion;

and

at p. 160. after quoting great

part of the 45th Psalm, he draws this conclusion

from
(

it

"

Now

that he,

'fiv ovhev) KQivoMOviAev, ol

ZpvTeq uQeovq Kct\

utrefitiq

yvapi-

kou

ctVt-

Kovq kou ccvopovq avTovq ii:upx 0VTa i>

who

is

testified of

kou ocvt) tov tov

paTi
T

[/.Lvov

ApoL

\r\crovv tre/Seiv, ovo-

opoXoye7v.

p.

by the

3 6, &C.

JUSTIN MARTYR,

A. D. 150.

43

" doer of these things, is to be worshipped, and is

" God and Christ, the words of this Psalm plainly
" shew s ."
And at p. 165. " Do you think that any
" other person

f
"

mentioned

be worshipped, and

to

is

is

Him who

is

who

in the scriptures,

Lord and God, except

is

the Creator of the world, and Christ,

"

who has been proved by so many texts to have

" taken a human nature ' ?" See also N. 29. Such

were the sentiments of Justin Martyr concerning

we

In a future page

the worship of Christ.

shall

what were the doctrines of other of the Fathers

upon this point. See N. 73.
see

cum
new line

Justin. Dial,

26.

Justin begins a

words

You must

<e
:

Trijph.

c.

36. p. 133.

of argument with these

me

allow

in the first place to

" quote such prophecies as I please, to prove that

" Christ is called God, and Lord of Hosts , and
11

He

" figuratively Jacob by the Holy Ghost x ."

then

adduces the whole of the 24th Psalm, and makes

" That Solomon is not the
this comment upon it
" Lord of Hosts has been proved
but when our
;

" Christ rose from

s

the

"Or* yovv kou itpouKWffcoq

KOU 60? KOU XptCTTOS

VT10

etrri

TOV TOCVTCC

noiriaavToq [AxpTvpovpevoq, kou ol Xo-

yoi ovtoi

diappYjd'/jv (rvjiAalvovai.

cum Try ph.

1

kou

c.

Dial,

Kvpiov,

kou

eov

Xeyo//.voy

iv

Touq ypoupou*; voeTre eivou, ivX f\v tov

r

noiYjeavToq

tovto

~Xpi<TT0v,

0$

(pav aTzebdyfifi

pevoq

Dial.

to nctv,
tcov

dioc

KOU TOV

Toa-Qvrov ypoc-

vfMv dvdpconoq yevo-

c.

them

68.

u
I may here mention the ingenious remark of Athanasius,
that the second and third Persons of the Trinity are each of

called

in the

New

Lord of Hosts
Testament, which

he proves thus
Isaiah speaks
of the Lord of Hosts sending
:

him

63.

M'^ t< dXXov Tivd itpoaKW-qrov,

and ascended into

dead,

(vi.

to the
1,

3,

people of Israel

8, 9.)

John

St.

that the glory which Isaiah

was that of Christ;

(xii.

says

saw
41.)
the

St. Paul says that it was

Holy Ghost, who spoke to Isaiah.

(Actsxxviii.25.) Ath.
i

o. vol. I. p.
x

De Incarn.

878.

elq eV/Sei^iv

on

kou Kvpioq tojv tvvd^av

kou
vTco

'lctKufi

KaXeirou

iv

tov dyiov TrvevpaToq.

kou Qeoq
o

Xpio-roq

vapafioXri

JUSTIN MARTYR,

44

" heaven, those

" in heaven are

whom God

A.D. 150.

has appointed officers

commanded to open the gates of

" heaven, that he who is the King of Glory may
" enter in, and, having ascended, may sit down at
" the right hand of the Father, until He make his
" enemies his footstool.
For when the officers in
" heaven saw him bearing an uncomely and undig-

" nified and inglorious form, they did not recognise

" him, and asked, Who is this, the King of Glory ?
66

and the Holy Ghost answers them, either in the

" person of the Father or in his own, The Lord of
66

Hosts

answer

King of Glory?" The

also attributed to the

is

phanius
this

himself, he is the

Holy Ghost by Epi-

Who

but he supposed the question,

z,

King of Glory?

is

upon

to relate to his descent

Eusebius supposes the words to have been

earth.

spoken by the angels, when Christ ascended

a
.

In

another work, which has been ascribed to Epiphanius, the passage is applied to the descent of Christ
Justin calls Christ the Lord of hosts
into hell b
.

says, "

where he

Let us Gentiles
" join in glorifying God, for He has visited us also
" let us glorify Him by the King of Glory, by the
" Lord of Hosts/' I should not perhaps have ven-

in another place

tured to apply these expressions to Christ,

y 'AXXd

vj^erepoq Xpio-rlq ore eK

veKpav dvecrrrj kcu dve[3aivev

elq

rov

ovpavhv, KeXevovrai ol iv ro7q ovpavoiq

rayfievreq

viro

rov

Seov

dp^ovreq

dvoT^at rdq itvXaq ruv ovpavav, Xva

[Aa to dyiov ^
rpoq, %

duo

dno rov

This passage

irpoo-eoTtov

1%'iov,

is

if

Justin
rov ira-

Kvpioq k. t. A.

again applied to

Christ at p. 181-2.
z
Physiol, vol. II. p. 190.
a

Dem. Evang. VI.

req eapccv deity Kai drifAOv to elhoq

2. p. 260.
In Sepulchrum Christi, vol.
Ho p. 272.
c
Dial, cum Tryph. 29. p. 1 26.

elieXB^ ovroq oq iari fia<TiXevq

do^Tjq,

koI
ineiP/j

dva[3uq

yap

ol

T7\q

KaBl<r^

k. r. X.

iv ovpava

dp^ov-

Ka) abo^ov l^ovra avrov, ov yvapi-

Ao|aV/>cey avrov $id rov fiacriXeuq

X^ovreq avrov, invvddvovro, rlq k. r. X.

ryq

Kai

fiecov.

dvoKplverai avroiq ro nrvev-

ho^rjq,

hid rov Kvplov Tav tvvd-

JUSTIN MARTYR, A.D.150.

45

had not so applied them in the passage quoted above;

and at p. 182. he says that this Psalm and other passages of the scriptures declare him to be the Lord
of Hosts. Compare Hippolytus, N. 155.
The next passage which he quotes is Psalm xlvii.
from ver. 5. to the end, " God is gone up ivith a
" shout" &c.
He makes no comment upon these

but we may observe, that no passage in the

whole of the Old Testament contains more express
mention of God, the Lord of heaven and earth, than

words

this

Psalm

and Justin

The next
"

applies

quotation

Lord reigneth"

is

to Christ.

it

the 99th Psalm, "

The

which he prefaces by saying,

" The Holy Ghost also reproaches you in the 98th
44
(99) Psalm, and shews that he, whom you will
6e
not have for your King, is King and Lord even of
" Samuel, and Aaron, and Moses, and all other per" sons whatever d ."
Justin. Dial, cum Tryph. c. 48. p. 143.
87.

We

may now

&;c.

give the sentiments of Justin

The Jew,

tyr in the words of Trypho.

time, addresses

him thus

after

Marsome

" I have heard your opin-

" ion upon these matters; resume the argument

" therefore where you left it off, and finish it for it
" seems to me to be extraordinary, and one that
;

" cannot be demonstrated at

all.

For

as to

what

" you say, that this Christ had a previous existence,

" being God before the worlds, that he then endured
" even to become a man, and to be born, and that
" he is not man, born of man, this appears to me
" not only extraordinary, but absurd R ."
d

Ka<

ovcitt^ei

iv ivei/v)KQ<TTa oyboa \pce\[Aa

v^ac,

Kai Tovrov %v

to nvev^a to

{M}

Scyio'

6eXeT /3a<xiAea

vai, (3aai\a kou Kvpiov kou tov

el-

2a-

[AOVYjX

kou tov 'Aapuv kcu

M.ccv<xeoc<;

kou tSv ah'kwv navrav anXaq ovra

Ltrjvvet.

To

P. 134.
<yccp

Xeyeiv ce

Tzpov-Ttapyjiiv

JUSTIN MARTYR,

46

A.D.150.

need not state the manner in which Justin rebut his own
conciles this seeming contradiction
I

opinion concerning the divine nature of Christ

very strongly expressed

some,

who

when,

is

after confessing that

called themselves Christians, held Christ

mere man, he says, " With whom I do not

agree, nor would I agree, even if the majority of
those who now think with me were to say so f
for we are commanded^ by Christ himself not to
follow the doctrines of men, but those which are
preached by the blessed prophets, and taught by

to be a

"
"

"

"

"

" himself

Justin therefore considered that the

prophecies in the Old Testament, and the gospels

in the

At

New,

plainly spoke of Christ as

God h

the end of the 54th chapter, he again very

strongly asserts, " that Christ was not a mere

" born in the ordinary way of men

man

."

Justin. Dial, cum Tryph. c. 61. p. 15728.

" I will give you another proof from the scrip-

" tures, that

ovra

eov

Ttpo

in the beginning, before all creatures,

alavuv

rovrov

tov

Xpitrrov, elra Kai yevvrfirivai avBpoo-

tcw yevopevov imo^eivai, Kai

avBpooicoq

paZofcov

if;

on

ovk

dvBpairov, ov povov

na-

dXkd

Kai

version

of

$0Kei

[/.oi

elvai,

Dr. Priestley's

this passage

"
"
"

" with

very

them

ungramma-

do not
agree, nor should I do so,
though ever so many, being
of the same opinion, should
urge it upon me." (History

tical

"

is

of early Opinions, III. p. 279.)

But when he says that nearly the
most literal rendering of the passage is, " Neither do I agree
" with the majority of Chris" tians, who may have objected

we

opinion," (p. 283.)

as well as inaccuracy.
S

Kai yap

duo rov

elcri rivet;

vj^e-

repov yevovq o^o"koyovvreq avrov Xpicrrov elvai, dvBpoovov Se

fxapov.
f

my

" to

cannot acquit him of unfairness

e dvBpa-noov

yevopevov d7iO(paivo[/,voi'

etWev*

hofjdaavret;

avrov

dKkd
rwv

ineidv]

titdy^acri

BpooTce'ioic

vtt*

rov

ro7q did

on
if;

ovk

[/.oi

dv-

Tte'iBeaBai,

[AaKap'iwv Trpotyfj-

Kai

44-5.
passage
by Bull. Judicium,
1

crvv-

KeKeXevcrpeBa

Xpi&rov

ruv

Kfjpvyfiiiio't

laxBelart. P.
h This

avBpwvoc,

01$ ov

dv nXeTirroi Tavrd

r[6e(/,ai 9 o8'

di

avrov

8t-

ovk

is

eariv

dvBpaitccVy

vindicated

c. 7.
0

Xpicrroq

Kara to

vbv roov dvBpeonav yevvyBeti;.

P.

kqi1

50.

JUSTIN MARTYR,

47

A. D. 150.

"

God begat a certain reasonable power of himself,

" which is also called by the Holy Ghost the Glory
66

66

of the Lord, and sometimes Son, sometimes Wisdom, sometimes an Angel, sometimes God, some-

Lord and WordK" He then quotes Prov.

viii. 22. to the end, which many of the Fathers have
considered to be spoken of Christ
He also alleges
" times

Gen.

i.

26.

iii.

22. Joshua v. 13

15. as all of

them

shewing the preexistence of Christ in the Godhead.

Justin. Dial, cum Tryph. c. 68. p. 166.
29-

The next

passage

is

important, as shewing the

opinion which the Jews entertained concerning their

" As to the
Messiah.
Justin's words are these
:

" scriptures which we quote to them, (the Jews,)

" which expressly prove that Christ was to suffer
" and to be worshipped, and that he is God, they
w are compelled to allow that these were spoken
" concerning Christ, but they have the presumption
" to say that this (Jesus) is not the Christ but they
" acknowledge that he was to come, and to suffer,
:

" and to be
" God ra ."
k Motprvptov
dicb

Se

ypcKpvv

roov

a King,

kou
hacrcc,

yeytvvvjKz
XoyiKTjV,

rov

^vvotf/.iv

r\riq

'nvevy.ctroq

kou
rov

rivd

Soa

" and Arians formerly."

See
144-5.
Irenseus, IV. 20,3. Clem. Alex.
Strom. VII. 2. p. 832. Tertull.
c. Hermog. c. 1 8
c. Prax. c. 6.
Origen. in Johan. I. 11, 17. Cyprian. Test. II. t.
Epiphanius
is, I believe, the earliest writer
who remarks, that this passage
is not quoted in the New Tes-

co<;

eavrov

K.vp(ov

into

aylov KaXtTrcu

" The Jews of old, and the

" Christian church from the be" ginning, understood that pas" sage of a Person, the sabstan" tial Wisdom of God, (either
" the Word, or the Holy Spirit,
1

generally

"

this

And

the

as

on dpy^v

k. r. A.

" but

worshipped

be

to

aKXo v{mv

itdvTM rav Kn<xy.drav

upo

and

former.)

was no matter of
" dispute between the catholics

terland,

III.

Wa-

p.

tament
Hser.

as referring to

LXIX.

Christ.

20, 21, 24. vol.

I.

743' 745' 748- Ancor. 42,

43. vol. II. p. 48.
P-

111

<pdq,

*A<; S

cu

dv AeyufAev

ctvrotq

ypa-

hiappr^v rov Xpi<rrov kou

JUSTIN MARTYR,

48

A. D. 150.

According to the opinion of the Jews therefore,

who ought

to be the best interpreters of their

human

prophecies, the

were not the obstacles

dition of Jesus,

him

lieving

was

it

Martyr

therefore entirely at variance with Justin

when he

their

Dr. Priestley was

come, was God.

to

to their be-

and

that of Christians, that the Messiah,

belief, as it is

who was

Messiah

to be the

own

humble con-

nature, and the

66

said, that

the Jews expected that their

" Messiah would be a mere man, and even be born

" as other

men

ion of the

Jews

are n ."

If Justin reported the opin-

fairly, their

expectations concerning

the Messiah were directly opposite to these

remarkable expression

of Philo

the repugnance

and a

may be

Judseus

quoted in this place, who, when he

speaking of

is

by the Jews to pay divine ho-

felt

nours to Caligula, observes, that " they would more

" easily believe that God would change into man,

" than a

man

says, that all the

come

to

as

God ." Origen however

into

Jews did not expect

God, or Son of God

p.

certainly

Messiah

their

We

may

observe

also,

that in this and other places already quoted,

(see

N.

Christ

Justin

25. p. 42.)
to

is

expressly

be worshipped as

plainly says in

many

God

says,

that

and yet he as
is only one

places, that there

God.
Justin's

itaQ'qrov

arguments in

npoo-KwyrGv kou

kou

amhetKvvovaiv
(ttov

y.\v

lavtac,

y/q

Xpta-Tov toXjxaat Xeyeiv'

kou naQeiv, Ka)

TtpotrKwrfTov

yovaiv.

qv
Xpi-

avccyKa^oixevoi

elpyjcrOai

cvvrldevraif tovtov

de

elc,

etvou

ZXevo-ecQai

(3cc<riXev<Tai 9

yevecrBai

?ov

Seov

kou

ofioXo-

this chapter arose

from the

History of early Opinions,

11

I. p.
0

23.
S-ttov

yap av

eiq

avBpomov

6eov,ri elq 6eov avBpuitov ^{Aerafia'keiv.

De
P

Virtut. vol. II. p. 562.

Cont. Celsum I.49. p. 366.

2. p. 53*

and IV,

JUSTIN MARTYR,
following remark of Trypho,

A.D.

who

150.

49

said to him, "

You

" are attempting to demonstrate a thing which

" incredible and almost impossible, that
" mitted to be born and to become man

God

is

sub-

Justin

however acknowledges the proposition, and proceeds

to demonstrate

it.

cum Tryph.

Justin. Dial,

30.

c.

71. p. 169.

In the 71st chapter of this Disputation, Justin

accuses the Jews of having expunged from the Septuagint version of the Scriptures " many passages
" which expressly shewed that this Jesus, who was

" crucified, was spoken of as God and man, and cru" cified and dead r ."
Being asked by Trypho to

name

these passages, he quotes one from the book

of Ezra, which

Jerem.

punged

is

not in our copies

he also names

which he says that the Jews had exand he accuses them of mutilating Psalm

xi. 19:

To

xcvi. 10.

consider whether these charges were

just or no, might lead us into an

from our present subject.

inquiry foreign

have quoted the pas-

sage to shew, that in Justin's opinion the scriptures

God and man.

Dial, cum Tryph.

spoke of Christ as
31.

Justin.

c.

113. p. 206.

Having remarked some points of resemblance between Joshua and Jesus, he mentions the following:
66
In the same manner that he, and not Moses, led
" the people into the Holy Land, and as he divided
"

it by lot to those who entered in with him, so also

" will Jesus Christ turn back the dispersion of the

1 "Atticttov
irpay[xoc,

kou

iitt^eipeTt;

vnepeive

ahvyarov a-yj&ov
a.no'beiKVvat,

yevv'/i$rjvou,

oti

kou avBpw-

ytveaQou.

hoc,
r

Kou on 7roAXa$

itepiu'Kov

ef

av

ypacf)a.<;

happ-fivjv

TeXtov
ovToq

ccvrot; o <TTavpaf)ei<;, oti

Seoq, kou av-

dpunoq, kou aTctvpovf^evog, kou

octcq-

Qv-qaKav KK7}pvyixevoq anobeiKVVTat.

s
Lactantius quotes this passage as from the book of Ezra,
Inst. IV. 1 8. p. 324.

JUSTIN MARTYR,

50

A. D. 150.

" people, and portion out the good land to each

6i
for he (Joshua) gave
but not in the same way
:

" them a temporary inheritance, as not being Christ,

" who is God, nor the Son of God but He, after
:

" the blessed resurrection, will give to us the ever" lasting possession

Justin. Dial,

cum Tryph.

c. 115, p. 208.
"
In this place also he speaks of Christ the Son of

32.

" the Father, our Priest and

context

is

not necessary to

need not transcribe

gible, I

Justin. Dial,

33.

God
make

and since the

the words intelli-

11

;"

it.

cum Tryph.

c.

125.

p.

SI 8.

word Israel from Isra, which

Justin derives the

a conqueror, and el, strength, " Which it

was foretold that Christ would fulfil, when he became man, by the mystery of Jacob's wrestling
with one who was visible, inasmuch as he served
but was God, inasmuch as he
his father's counsel
was His Son, begotten before the whole creation*."

signifies

"
"
"

"
66

The

etymology of Israel seems to be that

true

pointed out in Gen. xxxii. 28. and which

noticed

is

by Clement of Alexandria, Strom. I. 5. p. 334.

Justin. Dial, cum Tryph. c. 126. p. 219.
34.
The next passage requires to be given more at
length.
He says to Trypho, " If you had known
" who this is ? who is called the Angel of great

OwceV* he Kara, ravra'

yap npoGKaipov
KM)povo(Aictv 9

av,

ovhe

are

vloq

ov

eov'

dylav avaaratxw

Xpiarog
o

avrdiq

ehcoKev

he

aldoviov

pt.h

t\v

Seo;

pera r\v
y][mv

r\v

Kardcr^etrip "hacrei.
u
rov yperepov Upeoaq, kcu

@eou,

rav

Ktxi

%'hav.

Xpivrov, vtov rov icarpoq

x "Ottep

kcu

rrjq irdXvji; r\v

hta

rov

[Avcrrrjp'iov

eTtdXauxev 'Ia/cw/3 jxera

rov (patvo^evov pev, eK rov

mccrpoi; (3ovX^

inrypert'iv,

tt)

Seov

he,

rov
eK

rov elvai reKvov izpuroroKOV rav oXav

KriafAarw,
avOpconoq
(reiv.

inert pocpyrevro ovruq koi

yevopevoq

Xpiaroq

noivj-

JUSTIN MARTYR, A.D.

51

150.

" Counsel?, and by Ezekiel a man, and by Daniel

" the Son of man, and by Isaiah a child, and by
" many Christ, and God who is to be worshipped,

" and David, and Christ, and a stone, and by Solo" mon Wisdom, and Joseph and Judah and a star
" by Moses, and by Zechariah the East, and by
" Isaiah subject to suffering, and Jacob, and Israel,
" and a staff, and a flower, and the head stone of
" the corner, and the Son of God,
I say, if you
" had known this, you would not have spoken blas-

" phemies against him who is already come, and has

" been born and suffered, and ascended into heaven
" who will also come again, and then your twelve
;

tribes will

mourn.

For

you had understood

w ould not have

if

" what the prophets have said, you

y Instead of " Wonderful,
" Counsellor, the mighty God,'''
which we read from the Hebrew at Isaiah ix. 6. the Sep-

tuagint

translation

substituted

Angel of great Counsel, ^yaX-qq

and since most
PovXvjq ayyeXoq
of the Fathers followed the Septuagint, we do not find this text
quoted in proof of the divinity
of Christ so often as we might
expect. Irenseus however quotes
:

it

literally,

fortis,

IV. 33, ri.

p.

God, God a child, and a Virgin,

&C. ov Ic-yvpov, Seov -naiViOv, k.t. X.

which seems to be an allusion

to this text, p. 207-8. and in
another place, Seoq
[xeXXovroq alavoq,

nasius

certainly

vol. I. p.
y^occrroq,

273. and

k. t. X.

107. and
crv[Jt.(3ovXoq,

ocyyeXoq,

De

rov

Mat. XI. 27.

a.

fx. jS.

eoq

6a.v-

to-ftvpoq,

Incarn. 22. p. 889.

also Eusebius, u.

elp'/jvyq,

Alex, also quotes

xaTvjp k. t. a.

o-vufiovXoq,

Athaunites
both

(3ovXvjq

yeXXovroq alavoq. In

So

rov

na/ity

238.

\<ryvp\q, trover tacnyjq, itar^p

in III. 19, 2. p. 212. mirabilis

Consiliarius et Deusfortis. Clem.
it

p.

readings, peyaXriq
eoq

layyplq, iov-

eip'qvqq,

icpxcov

(TiocaT^iq,

Deus

Consiliarius,

eoq

lor'^upoq,

jS.

a.

ap%m

i^ovaria<TTrjq,

Dem. Evang.

V.

but the words (xeydX'/]q fiovXyjq ayyeXoq precede the

other, so that his copies seem
to have united the two readings

and, at p. 336, he
read
observes that the
pey. jS. ayyeXoq, but that some
Copies have

OtzvfAaa-Toq, avtA^ovXoq,

Pad. L 5. p. 112. Tertullian

read Magni Consilii Angelus, de

&oq

i^ovaiaarviq, ccp%oov el-

p^vyjq,

Carne

This remark

Seoq

vva<rrv}<;'

319. but
Dionysius of Alexandria says,
that Isaiah foretold the mighty
Christi, c. 14. p.

10. p.

236

LXX

ItT'yypoq,

na,Tvip

rov [AtXXcvToq
is

collation of existing

E 2

aiuvoq.

confirmed by a

MSS.

JUSTIN MARTYR,

52

A. D. 150.

" denied him to be God., Son of the only unbegotten

" and ineffable God
He then quotes Exodus

Gen. xxxii. 24, 30.

vi. 2.

Deut. xxxi.

xi. 23.

xviii. 2, 13, 16, 17.

Numb,

making mention of

2, 3. as all

and identifying him with God.

Justin. Dial, cum Tryph. c. 127. p. 220.
He continues the same subject in the following
chapter, and lays it down as a general rule, that
wherever in the Old Testament God is said to have
appeared, or to have conversed with any man, as in
Gen. xvii. 22. xi. 5. and vii. 16. we are not to un-

Christ,

35.

God

derstand that

down

to earth, but

pressions of "

who

the Father,

we

is invisible,

are to interpret

him who being

also

God

all
is

came

these ex-

His Son

" according to His will, and an Angel, inasmuch as

" he ministers to His purpose whom He also willed
;

" to become man and be born of a Virgin who also

" once became fire in the conversation held with
" Moses out of the bush.
For unless we put this
;

interpretation upon the scriptures, there will be

" times when the Father and Lord of the universe
" was not in heaven, as it is said by Moses, The
66

"

Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah

and fire from the Lord out of heaven,

" brimstone

" Gen. xix. 24.

Now that Christ is Lord, and
" substantially God the Son of God, and in times
" past appeared potentially as a man, and an angel,
" and in fiery glory, as he appeared in the bush, and

"koq

T/$

eariv oinoq

^eyahqq

npo<TKW/)To<;

eov,

o$

Kai ayye-

Kai

/3ovAtj<;

KfiKhrfcai,

el iyi/&KLTe,

avrov

Kai

enei

vloq

rZv

ovk av ifi\a<r(py]-

Kai napayevo-

(AeTre

elq

y^evov,

Kai yevv/jBevra, Kai naOoi/Ta,

yl'/]

Kai avafiavra

eoq

el

el<;

vevo'f]Kare

Kpo(pv}Tcov, ovk

tov ovpavoV

ra

elpv)[Aeva

vico

av e^rjpveiaBe av-

rov ewai Seov, rov povov Kai ayevV'f\tov

Kai apprjTQV &eov

vlov.

JUSTIN MARTYR, A.D.

53

150.

" at the judgment of Sodom, has been proved by

" many arguments a ."
Justin. Dial,

36.

cum Tryph.

c.

129. p. 222.

He again notices the text, Gen. xix. 24. and

" When it is said, The Lord
argues from it thus
" rained fire from the Lord out of heaven, the
:

who was

ff

sacred text speaks of two in number, one

ff

on earth, who, he says, came down to see the cry

" of Sodom
and the other, who was in heaven
" who is also Lord of the Lord that was upon earth,
" inasmuch as He is Father and God, and the cause
;

" of existence to him

" Lord and God b ."

who

is

himself mighty and

We

must remember that when

fire from the Lord"
the Hebrew word in each case; and

read " the

we

Jehovah

is

Lord

rained

Justin, like the other

Fathers, supposes that the

Jehovah mentioned

the beginning of the verse

was

in

same expression of the

Justin uses the

Christ.

Father and the Son being two in number, or nuHis meaning was, that

merically, at p. 152, 221.

they are two distinct persons, and not two modes or

energies of the same being.

Justin. Epist.

37.

ad L>iognetum.

c. 7- p.

237.

Diognetus had asked Justin to solve some doubts

and

difficulties

'AXX' kIV0V TOV KCCTO,

fiovAYjV

dyyeXov

tov

in

vnypeTeiv

tSJ

avrov' ov koa dvBpoiizov yevvyQv\vat

oq

tia.

TYjq

napBevov j3e(3ovAriTai.

Kai nvp wore yeyove k. t. a.

Kai on Kvpioq uv
ov

Aoyoq

hvo

o TvpoipyjTiKcq'

ovra, oq
tt)v

(jjvjo-i

Kpavy\v

yyjq

vloq vitdpyuv,

kou hwdpei (pai-

Kat (deoq, a'moq re

aq dvyp, kcu dyye-

itvpoq

So^rj

[/.ev

[/.rjvvei

in) yr\q

tov
%q

Ka) tov in)

aq narvp
avra tov thai

Ka\ tvvarw Ka) Kvpup Ka) e>.

dito^e-

E 3

ifciy

iv To7q

Kvpioq ianv,

Xpia-roq kcu ehq

Kai iv

tov

Kara(3e(3rjKevai

2oSojm.&iv'

ovpavoiq vitdpyfiVTa"

Kvpiov

eip'rjfxevoiq,

ovTaq dpiBi^Z

vofAevoq irporepov

Aoq,

concerning

detKTai iv iroAAoTq roiq

Kai Seov ovra vlov ainov,

ty/v eKetvov

koa

entertained

In compliance with his request, Justin

Christianity.
R

which he

JUSTIN MARTYR,

54

wrote

this letter

A. D. 150.

and speaking of the

special re-

velation of His will, which God had made to Christians, he says, " This is no earthly invention which

" has been handed

down

to them, neither is

it

" mortal notion which they are bent upon observing

" so carefully, nor have they a system of human

" mysteries committed to them but the omnipotent
:

" and all-creative and invisible

God hath Himself

" from heaven established the truth amongst men,

" and the holy and incomprehensible word, and
" rooted it in their hearts not, as you might sup:

" pose, by sending to

men any

of His servants, either

" an angel, or a prince, or one of those who ad" minister the affairs of earth, or one of those who

" have the management of heavenly things intrusted

" to them, but the Framer and Creator of the universe
" himself, by whom He created the heavens, by
" whom He shut up the sea in its own bounds d ."

We

have here an express declaration that Jesus

was the Framer and Creator of the world.

God created them by Jesus Christ, as is said in the
Epistle to the Hebrews, i. 2. and if the words quoted
Christ

above are not sufficiently strong to exclude the idea

God having employed any

subordinate agent, we
find in the very next chapter the expression of " God
of

c
I should mention, that some
persons have doubted the authenticity of it, though few the
Tillemont thought
antiquity.
it was older than Justin, and
Barawritten before A. D. 70
;

Clemens RoWhiston to Timothy,

aXX

avroq a.% ovpavwv

Tociq

^e^ipccq, %

to Apollos.

ttjj/

aXvjQeuw kou

KapYiouq avrav' ov, KaOunep av

man us;

it

TravTOKpdrccp

OpcoKOiq ividpvrcu, kou eyKccTea-Trjp^e

nq

blioth. ascribes

tov Xoyov tov aytov kcu a-cepmrirov ay-

tier ascribed it to

See Fabricius Bibl. Gr. V. p. 5 8.

Jortin's remarks on E. H. vol. I.
Gallandius in Bip. 342, &c.

avroq

kcu itawoKtla'T^q kcu dopocroq Seoq

elKda-eiev, ctvOpunoiq vnvjpirvjv

nva

ukX

av-

ayyeXov,-

tov tov Te^ymjv kou fypiovpyov tv

okcov,

3>

Tovq ovpavovq eKTicrev,

OdKao-a-av

loloiq opoiq

a t\v

iveKXeiaev.

JUSTIN MARTYR,

A. D. 150.

" the Lord and Creator of the universe,

" all things and arranged them in order
according to Justin's

own words, God

world by His Son; and His Son, by

55

who made
e ."

Thus,

created the

whom He

created

them, was God.

This passage suggests two remarks

Hebrews

firms our translation of

'*

2.

It con-

" by

whom

He

also

made the worlds." li ol kou tov$ almag

The Improved Version translates this,

7toiy)<tv.

" for

i.

1.

whom

he constituted the ages," which

also

perhaps does not convey any very distinct idea

Mr. Belsham, " with a view

to

whom

" stituted the former dispensations^"

pears, did

when he

Justin,

not understand the passage thus

says

oo

rovg ovpavovg eVn<7i>,

and.

he even con-

(h

tyjv

it
:

ap-

and

BaXaaaav,

he clearly meant that Christ was the instrumental and not the final cause. Irenaeus had the

k. t. A.

same notion, who says of Christ, per quern constiomnia s ; and Clement of Alexandria, co rk ttolvtcc
h and Tertullian, " tradidit omnia Filio
Y)[uovpyriTou

tute

" Creator quae per

that in John

and

3.

i.

eum

condidit \"

Col.

We

16. both the

i.

may

add,

Improved

Version and Mr. Belsham translate the preposition

foot

by and not for.

Version translates
e

'O

viii. 6. the Improved

and Mr. Belsham through :

In 1 Cor.
it

by,

tea-moTvjq Kcti hypiovpyoq

rwv

ndvTa

/cat

oXuv eo?,

roc

o not'/jcrat;

Kara, TafiJ/ dioiKplvaq. p. 238.

f

The

creation of the worlds

would appear to be expressed

still more plainly in Heb. xi. 3.
nivzsi voovjxev KarriprlaQixi, rovq al-

avaq p^fxari eou,

vojAevav

roc

elq

to [M] Ik (pai-

fiXenoueva,

But Mr. Belsham

yeyovivai.

" arranged by the power of God,

" that so what is now seen did

" not arise from things which
" before appeared :" and he explains the meaning to be, " By
" faith we learn that the moral
" dispensations of God to man" kind have a supernatural ori" gin."

translates the

passage thus, " By faith we un" derstand that the ages were

h
'

IV. 20. 4. p. 254.

Cohort, ad Gent. p. 7.
Adv. Marc. IV. 25. p. 440.

E 4

JUSTIN MARTYR, AD.

56

and

may

150.

add, that in 1 Cor. xv. 21. where Mr. B.

lays such stress on Jesus being called a

his

reasoning would totally

own

mere man,

fail, if $ia

With

signify the instrumental cause.

did not

respect to

Mr. Belsham follows Grotius, who says,

sometimes the same as h ov. It would
that h
He rebe satisfactory to have some instances of it.
ovirep irdvia eKiv^vvevov,
fers us to Thucyd. VI. 7"for whose sake they put every thing to hazard."
Heb.

i.

2.

ob is

The

reference

wrong, for the words occur in the

is

57th chapter, and nothing can be more absurd or

mistaken than Mr. Belsham's translation of them.

They

the person

refer to

who was

Harmodius and Aristogiton

conspiracy to Hippias

to

" they wished therefore

km

first

man who had inand through

" to avenge themselves upon the

" jured them,

suspected by

have betrayed the

ovnep itavia eKivtovvevov,

" whose treachery the whole plot

was

in clanger

of

"Jailing" He refers also to 1 Cor. xiv. 19. where

he translates ha voog, 66 with a view to be understood :"
but unless voog means in this place the understanding of the person who hears the words, which
evidently does not, this interpretation is absurd
:

it
it

means the mind or understanding of the speaker:

and Mr. Belsham may learn the use of the preposition ha by observing, that Marcion, who altered
this passage, as
BeXoo 7Tvt

Xoyovg

he did
too

many

others, read

it

vof [xov kakYi&ai ia rov vofxov.

phanius did not censure him for altering ha

fxov

to

tco

vol'

fAov,

for he

knew

rov

vo'[Aov

k
.

him

Schleusner, to

Epiphan. Hasr. XLII.

Epi-

rov voog

the expressions to be

equivalent, and he only reproves

words ha

thus,

vol. I. p.

for

adding the

whom Mr.

361-2.

B.

JUSTIN MARTYR,.

A. D. 150.

57

propter as one of the meanings of

refers, gives

with a genitive

but

from

plain

is

it

foot

his examples,

that he meant to use propter as denoting the in-

strumental, not the final cause. Mr. Belsham's translation of

if

we

ol will

appear

more extraordinary,

still

turn to another passage in this same Epistle to

the Hebrews,

ii.

10.

"E 7re

yap

avrto, t

ov

Trdvra

rot

Here we have both constructions of the preposition foot, and we can hardly
think that St. Paul considered them as identical
nor did Mr. Belsham think them so in this place,
where he translates fo' ol by whom, though in the
kou

ol

$i

ra 7ravra

ought to be ren-

former passage he contends that

it

dered for whose sake. So also in

Rom.

we read On
Mr. B.

translates,

him are

to

e| avrov

all things.

he considers

cause; but

when

elg

xi. 36.

avrov

where

rot iravra,

For of him and through him and

foot

appears therefore that

It

wherever the expression

ther,

avrov Kai

/cat t

is

to

applied to

mean

God

the Fa-

the instrumental

applied to the Son, he under-

it is

sometimes denoting the final cause, and

sometimes the instrumental
stands

it

as

The

instrumentality of the Son, in creating the

world, has been expressed so clearly by

many

of the

Fathers, beside the passages quoted above, that

it

seems quite useless to torture the words of the apoto the

stle

avrov Kai
rov vlov. p.
1

how

Hebrews

thus Athenagoras says,

Hippolytus says,

287.

Philo Judaeus may shew us

the prepositions were used

in his

time: npo;

TtoKha. Se? <rvveX6e7v'

ov,

to

to

vcf>

Si'

ov, to

oi, to

irpog

avrov Trdvra eyevero, kvog ovrog rov Ttarpog Ka)

Si'

Trjv

to
0.

euTtW ef

nvoq yiveaiv
v(f>

of,

to e|

Ktxl iari
ov Se y

dt

ov

li

ov rot irdvra

Se

to ipyakeiov'

7roi'v](Tv,

&' % Se,

jj

ahla.
De Cherubim, vol. I.
p. 161-2. Eusebius, when illus-

John i. 3, says r} A;a npoto vwqpeTiKov cr^f^alvei. Ec-

trating

yXv

decriq

v'Av)'

cles.

Theol.

II. 14. p.

122.

JUSTIN MARTYR, A.D.

58

150.

which according to Mr. Belsham would mean, C that

" all things were made for the sake of Christ," a
position which perhaps he would not be willing to
allow.

The

say,

ov o TraTYjp 7ravra 7re7roiY]Kev,

w$

council of Antioch, speaking of the

7ri<jTYj^y]g

the doctrine of Mr. Belsham.

16.

ra iravra

ov KtioSy)

opara,

eire

e/cTicrOv}

k. t.

n
.

where

Origen quotes Col.

i.

roig ovpavoig kou eni ty)$ yrjs,

Paul wrote

St.

and Origen's substitution of

opyavov, ov$

a>g

m which cannot have anywe adopt either the grammar or

avviroaraTov

possible meaning, if

ov%

Word,

avrcp

ev

h* ov for

ev

shews the meaning which he attached to the words.

We

may

therefore conclude that St. Paul, unless

all

the Ante-Nicene Fathers misunderstood him, meant

to say, that the

gaged

Father and the Son together were en-

in creating the

world

saying in Isaiah xliv. 24.

all things

and yet we

find

lam the Lord that maketh

thai stretcheth forth the heavens alone,

that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself

claration
other,

God

which can

only be

a de-

reconciled with the

by supposing that the Father and the Son are

one.
2.

The second remark which

have to make

is,

that Justin Martyr expressly calls the Son fypiovpyos

toov

okcov,

Creator of the universe

tory, because a Socinian writer

which

is satisfac-

has asserted, that

" the titles of rov 7ravro$ 7toiyjty)$, and t&v okccv ^Yifxiovpyog,
" were such as the writers of the second century
" always distinguished the Father from the Son by."

This

is

an unfounded statement.

Many

of the Ante-

Nicene Fathers, beside Justin Martyr, have applied

m Reliq.
n

Sacr. II. p. 469.

In Jerem. Horn.

III. p.

226.

XV.

c. 6.

Dr. Whitby.

land, II, p. 290.

See Water-


JUSTIN MARTYR,
very

this

the Son.

title to

A. D. 150.

Thus

59

Irenaeus calls our

Maker

Saviour, "the only-begotten Son of God,

of

"all things p," and "Maker of the world i ;" and

" the
ord of God, Framer and Creator and Maker
" of all things r
and he speaks " of the Son creat-

" ing s ." Clement of Alexandria speaks of " the

" Son in the Father, the Creator t ;" and says, that
" the Son has boldness of speech, because he is God
" and Creator

u :"

and again, " Such

the

is

Word

x ."

man
At p. 593.
him " God the Creator y ;" and at p. 654.
" the Word, the cause of Creation z ." Hippolytus
a
and " the
calls him " the Creator of the universe
" Maker of all things b ." Gregory of Neocsesarea
c
calls him " the Creator and Governor of all things ."
Lastly, Dionysius of Alexandria styles him " the
" the Creator of the world and of

he

calls

jr

0ov

Tiov

44.

ttoitjt'^v.

ib.

I. 9.

-KOirjr^v.

KoChkiavn

yiva

'3

KoV/xou

Tov tav navrav Kricnrjv

kou

Xoyov

tov

kou

fyutovpyov

itoirjTYiv

Seov. I. 15. 5. p. 79.

ktio-tvi:,

Christ,

the

person

who

creates matter out of nothing,

in opposition to Tey^hv^, or the

who

person

only employs preDe Incarn. 2.

Aoyoq,

Strom. V.
a

Svj/xioup'ys?

ruv

kou

r,(Aai;,

iv (rayccri.

The term

which is here applied to

is used by Athanasius

express

to

tS

tcuvtcov

[/.ovoyevyj

2. p.

tS

Qea,

ziayyeXia-a-

Strom. IV.
tjt\yiuvpyicic,

8.
cc'iTioq.

3.
oXcov ^y.iovpyoq. c.

ron. et Hel. vol.

Be-

p. 230.
b Tov navrav
ktktt^v. In Theo-

phan.
c

2. vol. I. p.

TS

fiepvqTi).

c.

262.

kocvtuv typiovpyS kou

kv

Orat. Panegyr. in Orig.

This
which

4.

I.

is

the only quota-

I shall

make from

existent matter.

tion

vol. I. p.

11. p. 156.
rov
0

being very doubtthe other works

ful whether
ascribed to him are genuine.
He flourished about the year
240 and this quotation alone
would make it highly improbable that he called Jesus Christ
a creature, made, as Mr. Lind-

kou tov avOpavov Ir^iovpyoq.

sey tells us that he did not he-

Tov

3. p.
1

vlov faijAiovpyovmoq.

IV. 38.

285.

Ayyuovpyov

I. 8. p.

vlov iv <rcaxpL

nappyjcia oe,

ty[Movpyo<;.

Peed.

Toowto?

Koa-jxov

Psed.

142. see also N. 69.

this Father, it

49.

I.

on @eoq

kou

Koyoq

Peed. III. c. ult. p. 310.

sitate to do.

(Apology, p. 204.)

JUSTIN MARTYR, A.D.

60

" uncreated and Creator

" with his Father

A "

150.

and " Creator together

e ."

have perhaps brought more instances than what

were necessary to prove the doctrine of the Fathers

upon this point but since Mr. Belsham f and the
modern Unitarians assert so positively, that the scrip;

by

tures say nothing about the world being created

Christ,

becomes important to see what was the

it

given to scripture by those writers,

interpretation

who were more

likely than

ourselves to preserve

But

the doctrine of the apostles.

may

take Dr. Priestley as

after

all, if

we

speaking the acknow-

ledged sentiments of Unitarians,

it

is

in

vain

to

argue with them upon this point from the writings

of the Fathers, or even of the New Testament for
he says, " I do not see that we are under any obliga" tion to believe it (the doctrine of Christ having
:

"

made the world) merely because

" held by an apostle

s."

it

was an opinion

Surely Dr. Priestle}r ,

when

this sentence, was well convinced that there

was an apostle who had maintained such a doctrine.
J would also remind the followers of Dr. Priestley,

he wrote

that the Arians applied the

title

of Creator to Christ

as unequivocally as their opponents.

The

a creature

true, believed Christ to be

is

Arians,

it

but then

they always added that he was not like the other

creatures

thus in their longer Confession of faith

We

they say, "

" in the same
d

Toy aKTto-Tov

conceive him to have been made, not

manner with the creatures or produc-

kou

hyfuovpyov.

P. 212.
e

244.

2vvhv}[/.iovpyw

t>

mar pi.

P.

Inquiry, p. 177, &c

History of early Opinions,

Calm

s
I. p.

63.

TATIAN,

A. D. 165.

61

" tions which were made by him

for it is impious
" and far removed from the ecclesiastical faith to
" compare the Creator with the works created by
:

" him

h ."

At

the beginning ofthis Confession they

God

applied the same term at/ctt^, Creator to

the

Father.

ad Diognet.

Justin. Epist.

38.

Justin's

11. p. 240.

c.

words are equally strong

for the eternal

duration of the Son, when he speaks of him in this

same Epistle, as " he who was from the beginning
"

who

existeth for ever, in these latter days ac-

" counted a Son

'."

Tatian. A.D. 165.

This writer was a native of Assyria, and
the books of the Old Testament

time of his conversion

was

is

said

but the precise

not known.
says k , that

his contemporary,

disciple of Justin
life his

is

converted to Christianity by reading

to have been

Irenaeus,

who

he had been a

Martyr, and that during Justin's

opinions were perfectly sound

but after the

death of that martyr, (which happened about the

many

year 168,) he adopted

The same

opinions.

is

strange and heretical

him

principal supporters m

is

The

by Epiphanius \

said

sect of the Encratites claimed

and he

one of their

as

supposed

to

have

adopted in part the heresies of Marcion and Valenh

Oi>x

o/Aoicci;

avrov

yevopivoiq Krlo-{xa<riv
yevyjo-6ai

voov^ev'

roiq

St'

avrov

ve)<;

yap

/cat

yioSelq.

nlareuq

rov KTt<rrrjv ro7q

p.

Ath.

741.

de

Ovroq

ye-

St'

ahkoavrov

KKTio-[Aevoiqrj[Aiovpyri [A.a<TiTtccpa(3aAXetf.

nGi'fjjAaoi

aaefteq

eKKXy)Ttao-Ta<vjt;

rptov, to

rj

Synodis. vol.

I.

an

ap%'^,

ovroq b ae),

The

text

Kaivoq (pa-

o-/j[Aepov vlo$

is

Xo-

deficient ID

this place.
k
1

I.

28. p. 107.
VI. vol.

Haer.

XL

m Epiphan.

1.

c.

I.

p.

39 1.

ATHENAGOHAS,

62
tinus n

A. D. 170.

This however does not

affect the authority

of the only work which has come

down

from

to us

him, and which was certainly written before he had

any heretical opinions to which I may add, that

the heresies which he adopted were the very oppo:

of those which maintain the simple humanity of

site

He

Jesus.

in fact

became

by carrying the
and not allowing

heretical,

notion of Christ's divinity too

far,

him to have had a human nature p.

The work which has survived is an Oration

di-

rected against the superstitions of the heathen, and,

according to Lardner, was written about the year

165.

Eusebius informs

books, but

all

<i

us that he wrote

the rest are lost

many

he also says, that

Tatian spoke of Christ as God. V. 28.

Tatian. Orat.

39.

The

c.

Grcecos.

13. p. 255.

c.

which Tatian held concerning the

more plainly
expressed than by his calling the Spirit "the min" ister of God who suffered :" in which passage
God must be referred to Christ, who suffered in
opinion,

divine nature of Christ, could not be

human

his

Tatian. Orat.

40.

Nor

nature.
c.

Grcecos.

c.

21. p. 262.

the following passage less express

is

" We

" are not talking foolishly, nor do

66

tales,

when we

" form of

man s ."

Athenagoras.
Little
n

is

known

Theodoret.

Hser.

A. D. 170.

of this Father, except that he

Fab.

I.

20. vol. IV. p. 208.

Eusebius, in his Chronicle,

that his
heresy began
about the year 172.
P Vid. Theodoret. ut supra.
says,

we relate idle
God was born in the

declare that

IV. 29.

<J

was

Tov

eov.
s

Oi5

yap [Aapafoopev,

ai:ayyeXko^v,

elv

iv

ovhe

Xypovq

avBpuitov

pop^y yeyovevai KatayyiKhwr^.

MELITO, A.D.

63

175.

converted to Christianity by reading the scriptures,

and that he flourished under the reigns of Hadrian
and Antoninus Pius. He is also said to have been
the master of Clement of Alexandria.
Only one of his works has come down to us, an

Apology, or Defence* of Christianity, which, in the

was presented to M. Aur.

Antoninus and L. Aur. Com modus while others
think that it was presented to M. Antoninus and
L. Verus. These two opinions naturally cause a
opinion of some

critics,

Some

difference as to its probable date.

166
177 or 178.

to the year
to

century,

who

left

is

whom Lardner agrees,

no writer in the second

such express declarations of a

belief in a Trinity, as Athenagoras:

shall only

it

others, with

There

has

assign

but at present I

quote from him one passage, which speaks

of the divinity of the Son.

Athenag. JLegat.pro Christianis. c.30. p. 308.

Having before noticed the charge brought against
the Christians of being atheists, Athenagoras uses
these remarkable words " That we are not atheists,
41.

" since we consider as God the Creator of this uni" verse, and the Word, which is of Him, has been
" proved, if not suitably to the subject, at least to
" the utmost of

my power V

By

every rule of

grammar and of sense we must refer the word Qeov,

God, both to the Creator of the universe and to the
Word. Athenagoras says, that Christians believed
in both, but he speaks of them in the singular number, as

God.

Melito.

A.D.

175.

Melito was bishop of Sardes in Asia, and pre*

Sew

n$

[/.ev

ovv

qvk ia-fAev adeoi,

ayovreq tov itoiyTyv rovbe tov

tcclvtoc,

kou

tov

i'kqXeyKTai.

nap

ai/TOv

Aoyov

MELITO,

64

A. D. 175.

sented an Apology to the emperor

him

Cave considers

M. Antoninus.

have flourished about the

to

year 170, Lardner in 177.

catalogue of his works

may be seen in Eusebius u but nothing has come

down to us except a few fragments, which are col:

lected

by Dr. Routh

These

in his Reliquiae Sacrae.

fragments will perhaps be thought to confirm the

impression which they had produced upon the mind
of Eusebius x , who asks, " Who is ignorant of the
66

books of Irenaeus and Melito, which declare Christ

" to be God and man ?"

Jerom

as

well as Eusebius

mention a book

have been written by him, which was entitled,

evaccfxarov Seov.

this

work

to

We

to

lie/?/

might naturally have considered

have treated of the incarnation of

Christ ; but some writers have charged Melito with

heresy in the composition of this book, supposing

him

to

have maintained the notion that God had a

body such as we have. Coteler y, Grabe z and Beausobre a are of this opinion, whose authority I do not
,

venture to question

but

may

it

be mentioned, that

Anastasius Sinaita, a writer of the sixth century, has

given an extract from a work of Melito, called Hepi
vapKooG-eoos

which contains,

Xpiarov,

as will

be seen,

the most unequivocal assertions of the divinity of

The

Christ.

writers above

named

did not however

think that the work entitled Hep) ha^arov Seov, and

that Hep)
42.

"

aapKooa-ecog

Melito ex

We

XpiaTov,

Apol

were the same.

(Bel. Sacr. vol.

" of the only God, who was before

11

y
z

I. p.

112.)

are not worshippers of senseless stones, but

x V. 28.
IV. 26.
Clem. Horn. XVII. p. 738.
Annotatain Bull. Def. II. 5.

p.

all

things,

and

Hist, de Manichee. vol.

474.

is

I.

MELITO,

A. D. 175.

65

" above all things and also of his Christ, who was
" verily God, the Word, before the worlds b ." It
:

may

be

said, that I

have not translated these words

and that Qeov Aoyov means the word of God,

and not God the Word. It is however only neces-

fairly,

sary to read the Fathers, to be convinced that these

words can have but one meaning, which

the appellation of

God

to the

We

Word.

multiplicity of instances Seo$ Aoyog,

to>

to give

is

find in a

@e<o Ao'ya>, tov

where there is no room for a difference of

and though I would not contend
interpretation
that Beov Aoyov cannot signify the word of God, it is
Beov Aoyov,

surely not too

much

to say, that the position of the

Greek words, standing

ticle,

as they do without

requires us to translate

I consider

Word,

them

or the

them

as equivalent to

Word who was

as I

any

have done.

God who was

God,

ar-

for the

the

idiom

of our language compels us to add something to the

simplicity of the

Greek

and, according to our form

of expression, they contain a plainer and fuller asser-

more usual expresChrist the Word of God.

tion of Christ's divinity than the

sion,

It

which
has

calls

often

been shewn, that the Logos, or

Word, was understood by the Jews and

Gentiles, as

well as by Christians, to mean, not something created

by God, and distinct from Him, but a coexistent and

consubstantial emanation from the Deity c so that
;

Ow< ea-^h XiBav ovleplav

aO'/jo-iv

[xivov

BepanevTa,),

at-

aXXa

eov, tov vpo kuvt&qv kou

Trai/T^'V
oi/TGoq

exovrav

e7rt

kou ert tov Xpi<nov ai/rov,

eov Aoyov upb

-ulavav,

l<r^v

Bpr\(TKex>Tal.
c

Philo Judaeus often speaks

of the Logos, or Word, per-

forming those acts of interposition in human affairs, which

iii

the Old Testament are as-

cribed

to

God.

This

is

ob-

served by bishop Bull, Defens.

I. I. 16, &c.
and many instances are given by Townsend
in his Arrangement of the New
:

MELITO, A.D.175.

66

when

Christ was called the

more

pression conveyed a

Word of God,

the ex-

intelligible notion of his

divinity in those early times than

it

does now.

The

Christians of those days had as full a notion of

when they called him 6 Aoyog tov

Beov, the Word of God, as when they called him o
Qeog Aoyog, God the Word, or the Word who was
God: but it is perhaps more satisfactory to us, as
Christ being God,

certainly

it is

more

Fathers

intelligible, to find the

constantly applying to Jesus Christ the above expression

Seog Aoyog,

be remembered

Gospel

itself,

is

God

precisely

where

St.

Word, which
what we read

the

John

says, the

it

in

may
the

Word was

God.
have only one more remark to make upon the
words of Melito, which is, that he expressly says
I

that the Christians worshipped Christ, and yet he

God

which
by our concluding, that the unity of that Godhead which they
worshipped, comprehended the Son as well as the
says that they worshipped only one

two

assertions can only be reconciled

Father.
43.

Melito ex

I.

de Incarn. Christi. (Bel. Sacr.

vol. I. p. 115.)

Whatever doubts may be entertained concerning

the proper translation of the last passage, there can

be no question whatever as to the doctrine which is

contained in the example now to be produced. " To
" those persons, who have any sense, there is no ne" cessity to prove, from the actions performed by
Testament,

I.

p. to.

Tertullian

also tells the heathen, that their

philosophers

had ascribed the

creation of the world to a

gos.

Apol.

c.

21. p. 19.

Lactantius, Instit. IV. 9.

LoSee

MELITO,

A. D. 175.

67

" Christ after his baptism, that he had a real and

" not apparent soul and body, a human nature such

" as ours d For the actions performed by Christ after

" his baptism, and particularly the miracles, shewed
" and demonstrated to the world his divinity which
.

" was hidden in the flesh.

For he, being at once
" perfect God and man, has demonstrated his two
" substances to us
his divinity, by the miracles
;

" worked in the three years which followed his bap" tism and his humanity, in the thirty years which
" preceded his baptism during which period, owing
;

" to the imperfection which he had from the flesh,

" the signs of his divinity were hidden, although he
" was very God existing before the worlds e ."

Melito ex

44.

de Passione. (Rel. Sac?\

I.

vol. I.

p. 116.)

The same

may

be drawn from another

expression of Melito, where he says, that " God suf" fered by the right hand of Israel f."
These words
conclusion

can only allude to the sufferings, which Jesus Christ

experienced from the children of

Israel.

The man-

ner in which they are quoted by Anastasius shews

that Melito was speaking of Christ, and they therefore prove to us that Melito considered Christ to be

God.
d

work

was

written

against Marcion,

who

believed

This

rrjv

Yj[Mv'

rav

[xev

Seoryra avrov dia

pera

(T^[Atuv iv rfj rpieria rfj

that Christ had only an appa-

to

rent body.

avrov, iv ro7q rpiocKovra ^povoiq ro7q

Ta

'Kpitrrov
to.

yap [xera to ^dTiTiT^a

Ttpa^Bevra.

a-fjiAeia,

iv (TotpKi

(TTOVVTQ

rrjv

ifyXovv, kou eVi-

K0<Tp,K.

Qq ydp WV

Ofiov

re kou avOpuiroq reXeioq

raq

Svo

avrov

vtto

[AaKiara

avrov KeKpvfA/Aevqv

Qeoryra
T$j

kou

ovcriaq

avroq,

fiocKT tar^a, rrjv

rov

icpo

(3airri<T[Aaro<;'

avQpaicor'fjra

iv

dreXeq to Kara crdpKa

<TYj[Ae7a

eoq

'leparfkhtboq.

iniTTcoo-aro

F 2

bid to
roc.

ryq avrov OTf\roq' Kaintp

eoq aXydyiq npoaiavioq

f

olq

aTceKpvfi'q

VTtapyjjov.

nenovdev

vtiq

defclaq

IREN/EUS, A.D.

68

Irenaeus.
Irenaeus

is

185.

A. D. 185.

supposed to have been a native of

and he himself tells us p that in his younger

days he had seen Polycarp, who had been appointed
to the bishopric of Smyrna by the apostles, and who
had conversed with many persons who had seen
Christ h Polycarp suffered martyrdom about the year
166. It is probable therefore that Irenaeus was born
about the year 140, though some writers place his
birth many years earlier. We are not informed what
was the cause which brought him from Asia into
Gaul but we know that when Pothinus, bishop of
Lyons, was martyred in the year 177, Irenaeus was
Asia

chosen to succeed him.

death

his

is

the year 202

The

latest date assigned to

and there

is

no reason to

think that he suffered martyrdom.

Some

of his writings are mentioned by Eusebius',

but the only one which has come

Work

down

against Heresies, in five books.

ten in Greek, but

we have

It

was

is

his

writ-

only a translation in ra-

ther barbarous Latin, which

as the second century.

to us

is

supposed to be as old

In a few places fragments

of the original Greek have been preserved.

Some

writers have supposed that these five books against

Heresies were written in the year 176; others bring

down

the composition of them to 192.

Irenaeus having seen Polycarp,

III. 3.

4.

p.

176. Fragm.

P-339h

It

was the opinion of Usher,

was the angel or

who was an im-

8, and he must have been so, if

he was appointed by the apostles, i. e. by some one or more

that Polycarp

of the apostles

bishop of the church of Smyrna,

addressed in the Revelations ii.

vived.
1

V. 20.

who

then sur-

IREN^US,
mediate disciple of

St.

A. D. 185.

69

John, and having

left

work

of such extent, and full of such varied information

on doctrinal points,

we should

that

it

becomes of great importance

ascertain his real sentiments concern-

The

ing our Lord's divinity.

testimonies produced

from hiui are consequently more numerous than

Eu-

those cited from any of the preceding Fathers.

sebius, as already quoted,

mentioned Xrenaeus among

who spoke of Christ as God but a Socinian writer k asserts positively, that " he was cer-

the writers

" tainly ignorant of the two natures in Christ."

truth or falsehood of this assertion

may

The

be tried by

the following quotations.

many

In
that

was customary in his day, as it had been

draw up short creeds or confessions of
He mentions that they were recited at bapand though in some he only expresses the beGod the Father, maker of heaven and earth,

it

before,
faith.

tism

lief in
is

it

passages of his work, Irenaeus has shewn

to

plain from other instances, that these creeds

also contained the

name

of the Son and the

Holy

Ghost.

Thus he speaks of people being driven from the

truth "

who do

not hold firm the belief in one

" the Father Almighty, and in one

God

Lord Jesus Christ

" the Son of God 1 :" and having mentioned " the
" invariable rule of truth which a person received
" at baptism m ," and " the certain truth which was
k

Lindsey, Apology, p. 204.

raq. I. 3, 6. p. 18.

m O
c

note.
1

ariv

rovq [M]
ei?

ehpcciav rvjv

tt/-

eva @eoi/ itarepa, iravroKpu-

Topa, Kai elq eva Kvpiov 'lyo-ovv Xpi<rrov rov vtov

rov Seov

SckKiv^ ev

rov

j3amlo~[AccTo<;

p.

46.

fiicccpv'ka.o-aov-

F 3

Kctvova

rvjq

lavra Kare^ccv,
etXvj^e

....

cWrfieiaq
ov ia
I.

Q,

rov

4.

IRENiEUS, A. D.

70

" preached by the church

"

The

n ,"

185.

he goes on to say,

church, although dispersed through the whole

" world, even to the ends of the earth, has received

" from the apostles 0 and their disciples the belief in

who made

" one God, the Father Almighty,

" heaven and the earth, and the

the

and all things

" therein and in Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who
" was incarnate for our salvation and in the Holy
sea,

" Ghost,

who

proclaimed by the prophets the incar-

" nation p, and the coming, and the birth from a

virgin, and the suffering, and the resurrection

" from the dead, and the incarnate ascension into

" heaven of the beloved Christ Jesus our Lord, and
" his coming from heaven in the glory of the Fa-

~Be[3cx,ia.i>

Kfipv<T<roiA.ivfiv

tvjv vita ttjs

aXyjOeiav.

eKKkfialaq
I.

9>

5*

(History

of

Of

four

Dr. Priestley
Opinions,
early
translates

I.

306.)
churches

p.

the

this

planted by the apostles, which is

a manifest inaccuracy, and would
mislead the English reader, who
might not think that Irenseus
asserted this creed to have been
handed down from the apostles.
p I have translated olKovopiat;
incarnation, which is the sense
in which all the Fathers used
This is fully proved
the word.
by Bull, (Defens. IV. 3, 12.

and Animadv.

in

G. Clerke,)

which he

be Ipsa Christi ivavnaturae humance

assumptio : after which he says
iv. tandem oIkovo^io, non tanturn incarnationis, sed etiam totius redemptions mysterium, et
third

p. 47.

meanings,

gives to the word, he states the

to

dpaiT'/ja-igy

sive

sacramentum
would rather have

passionis

Christi

denotat.

put the fourth signification before the third

very naturally

seems

oiKovofxla

mean

to

redemptionis mysterium,

i.

totius
e.

the

whole economy or scheme pursued by God in perfecting our

redemption : and of this the incarnation of his Son formed a

The word

also by Waterland, (II. p. 296,

part.

&c.) St. Paul himself may have

led the way to this meaning
of the term by his use of it
in Ephes. i. 10.
If any person should still doubt, I would
refer him to the examples col-

be translated incarnation in the

following pages.
See N. 161.
The Benedictine editor of Athanasius has strangely misunderstood and mistranslated the

lected

in

Suicer's

Thesaurus.

words
247.

KO.T

. 6.

will generally

oIkovoimixv

in vol. I. p.

IREN^EUS, A. D. 185.

71

" ther
that to Christ Jesus, our Lord and God
" and Saviour and King, according to the pleasure
" of the invisible Father, every knee may bow V'
&c.

In another place he speaks of "holding the rule

" of the truth, which is, that there is one God, Al" mighty, who created all things by his Word r ." At
p.

176. he speaks of the faith which Clement of

Rome

held, as taught by the apostles, a belief in

" one God, Almighty, maker of heaven and earth

"

who was

the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ

s ."

In the next chapter he speaks of distant nations

" carefully observing the old tradition, believing in
" one God, maker of heaven and earth, and of all
" things therein, by Christ Jesus, the Son of God
" who, from his great love toward his creation, sub-

" mitted to be born of a virgin, himself by himself

" uniting man to God, and suffered under Pontius
" Pilate,
" glory,

and rose again, and was received into

who

is

to

come

glory, the

in

Saviour of

r
Cum teneamus autem nos
regulam veritatis, id est, quia
sit unus Deus Omnipotens, qui

omnia
suum.
s

condidit
I.

per

Verbum

22. p. 98.

annuntiantem unum
Omnipotentem, factorem
Patrem Doet terras

Deum
coeli

mini nostri Jesu Christi. III.

3-

F 4

3,

IREN.EUS, A.D.

72

185.

" those who are saved, and the Judge of those who
" are judged t," &c.
In another place he speaks of
the true belief being " in one God Almighty, of
" whom are all things, and in the Son of God, Jesus

" Christ our Lord, by whom are all things u and

" his incarnation, by which the Son of God became
:

"

man

calls

and in the Holy Ghost," &c. This he

" true knowledge, the doctrine of the apostles,

" and the original form of the church throughout

" the world x ."

After reading these different passages, there can

surely be no doubt but that in the days of Irenaeus,

and, according to him, from the time of the apothe creeds contained the same doctrine with

stles,

we

that which

God

call the Apostles'

Creed, a belief in

the Father Almighty, in Jesus Christ His Son

We

our Lord, and in the Holy Ghost.

may

also

compare the creeds of Irenseus with that of Hippowho was one of his hearers, and in his work
" We
against Noetus has the following passage
" truly acknowledge one God
we acknowledge
" Christ
we acknowledge the Son, who suffered,

lytus,

" &c. who died, &c. and rose on the third day, and
" is on the right hand of the Father, and cometh to

in

unum Deum

dentes fabricatorem
rae,

et

omnium

ere-

coeli et ter-

quae in eis sunt,

per Christum Jesum Dei Filium

qui propter eminentissiraam erga figmentum suum dilectionem, earn quae esset ex
Virgine generationem sustinuit,
ipse per se hominem adunans
Deo, et passus sub Pontio Pi-

vator eorum qui salvantur, et

Judex eorum qui judicantur.
III. 4, 2. p. 178.
11

See

x E<?

ov
i$

tcc

Cor.

IW

viii.

&eov

iravra, ntcniq

Trdvra,,

TOV

kou

KvpiOV
tolc,

neio-iAOi/rj

receptus, in gloria venturus Sal-

TOV 0V

Si'

OV

olKOVO^'iaq avrov,

&v av8pano<; iyevero

lato, et resurgens, et in claritate

Xp<-

'Irjarovv

Tjf^Sv,

(3e(3a,ioc'

6 vloq

K<xi tlq

IV. 33,

tov

efj

kou

oXoKX'/jpot;'

tov vlov tov eov

(TTOV,

6.

TravTOKpctTopcc,

T
St'

eov,

to Hyev^cc
7. p.

272

IREN^US,

A.D.

73

185.

"judge the quick and dead?." This is an evident

allusion to some settled and prescribed form z
The Unitarians, we know, object to the use of
the Apostles' Creed
but I would ask them, does
.

go further in asserting our Lord's

this creed

nity than the creeds of Irenaeus ?

Do

divi-

not the creeds

of Irenaeus expressly say that Jesus Christ was born

of a Virgin

And

do not the Unitarians them-

selves conceive that this miraculous birth proves

more than man

to be

I ask

them

lastly,

him

Will the

Unitarians join in reciting the creeds of Irenaeus?

they do, they confess that Jesus Christ

if

than

man

if

they will not,

how

after
akriBaq. oltob^ev XpicrroV o'feauev tou

is

more

can they say that

having proved that Jesus

was born of a Virgin, he pro-

Ylarpoq, koc) tpyj oy.evov Kp7vai ^avraq

ceeds (III. 22.) to consider another opinion, of those who say,

" that he took nothing from the
" Virgin," [A-fiev elX'/jcpevat e'/c 1%

Kai veKpovq,

irapBevov.

KaQuq

vllv -naQovra,

vqvtoc

The

ccva<na.vrcx,

Kai ovra iv 8eia tov

T?J Tpirrj YjfAepa,

eitccOev, ccicoBa,-

KaOuq stneOavev, Kai

vol. II. p. 6.

reader

may

com-

also

pare the creeds given by Tertullian, N. 133. and by Origen, N. 259.

a
could hardly suppose
Dr. Priestley to be serious when
he says of this expression/' Even
" this might not be intended to
" describe the birth of Christ in
" such a manner as to exclude
" those who thought it natural,
" so much as to assert that he
" was really and properly horny
" in opposition to those Gnos" tics who said that he was not
" properly born, as he took no" thing from his mother." (History of early Opinions. I. p.

We

310.)
Irenaeus
to

would seem as if
had purposely written

It

refute

this

assertion

for,

If the miraculous conception of Christ was not an article of belief in the days of Ire-

Dr. P. would insinuate,

Father could not have
chosen any form of words more
likely to mislead his readers.
In another place Dr. P. would
persuade us, that what Irenaeus
says of the miraculous conception was inserted by himself,
and that it did not form a part
of the creed then used. (IV. p.
This is entirely an as91.)
sumption, and totally inconsistent with the words of Irenaeus.
The twenty-first chapter of the
naeus, as

that

third

book of Irenaeus

sively occupied in

is

exclu-

proving that

Jesus was born of a Virgin, and

not begotten by Joseph.

IREN^EUS, A.D.185.

74

the Fathers of the three

first

centuries were Unita-

rians ?
It is

not the object of the present work to shew

that baptism in the

name

of the Father, the Son,

and the Holy Ghost, or a profession of faith in the

Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, necessarily
implies the divinity of the second and third Persons
as well as of the first.
This subject has ofte*n been
handled by the ablest writers
and the point has
been proved irresistibly by bishop Bull b and Dr.
;

Waterland
any thing

c
.

do not presume to attempt to add

to their demonstrations

but, confining

myself to the testimony which Irenaeus bears to our

Lord's divinity, I have laid before the reader the
creeds which he gives as universally professed in his

time

and

must observe

he ex-

particularly, that

Lord and

pressly calls Jesus Christ our

God and

Sa-

viour and King.

In

many

other places Irenaeus calls Christ God,

without ever hinting that he used the term in an

inferior or figurative sense
finds our Saviour called

from

this Father, I should

mind the following

and whenever the reader

God

in the quotations

made

wish him also to bear in

which Irenaeus exonly one God. " Neither

would his disciples give to any other person the
name of God, or call him Lord, except him, who
was truly God and Lord of all d ." " Neither the
prophets nor apostles have named any other God,
passages, in

plicitly asserts his belief in

"
"
"
"

Judicium Ecclesiae Catho-

Eighth Sermon,

III. p.

72.

eum, qui vere

esset

Dominus omnium.

&c.
d

quemdam Deum nominarent,

Dominum vocarent, prseter

aut

licae.

Neque

discipuli ejus alium

179.

Deus

et

III. 5, 1. p.

IRENiEUS, A.D.
" or called any one

75

185.

Lord, except the true and

else

" only God

Neither the Lord, nor the Holy
" Ghost, nor the apostles, would ever have given to
e ."

66

66

who was

him,

name

not God, the

" tively and absolutely, if he

"

"

God

f ."

"

self,

and

He who

would

God

defini-

really

has any one superior to him-

under the power of another, can nei-

is

" ther be called

I

of

had not been

God nor mighty King

C
how

ask, after these express declarations,

could Irenaeus possibly give to Christ the

title

of

Him substantially and esHim, whom he acknowledges as

God, unless he thought

sentially united to

God ?

the only

expressly says,

I would observe also, that Irenaeus

what indeed appears a self-evident

"what is
may conceive God

truth, that

We

begotten by

God

is

God h ."

to create substances wholly

heterogeneous from Himself

but Irenaeus could not

God to beget a Son, however incomprehenthe mode of generation may be, unless that

conceive
sible

Son

is

when

also

We

God.

should bear this in mind,

in the creeds quoted above, or in any other

part of his writings, Irenaeus speaks of Christ as the

Son

He

of God.

thought that such an expression

necessarily implied the divinity of the Son.

46.

Irencei

1.

2. c. 13. . 8. p.

132.

Speaking of the absurd doctrines of some of the

e

Nunquani neque

neque

prophetse,

Deum
Dominum

apostoli alium

minaverunt, vel

peliaverunt, prseter

lum Deum.

Neque

verum

III. 8. p.

nisi esset vere

Deus.

180.

ap-

s Qui super se habet aliquem

superiorem, et sub alterius potestate est, hie neque Deus, ne-

et so-

182.

Dominus, neque Spiritus Sanctus, neque

apostoli eum, qui non esset

que magnus Rex

IV. 2, 5. p. 229.

Deus,

definitive

I. 8. p.

Deum

nominassent aliquando,

igitur

et

III. 6. p.

no-

absolute

dici

potest,

h To
Ik eo yevvtfev e&s

41.

ia-riv.

IREN^US,

76

A.D. 185.

Gnostics, he says, that yet " they are

u than those
" word which

who transfer
men produce

more decent

the generation
to the eternal

of the

Word

of

" God, making a beginning and creation of the pro" duction, as they do of a word of their own.
But,
"

if so, in

66

Himself, since

what

will the

He

Word
the

is

of God, or rather

Word,

differ

God

from the

" word of men, if he is generated in the same order

" and process ?" This is evidently directed against

those persons
stantially

who

believed Christ not to be a sub-

existing person, but

mere quality or

emanation of the Father.

47.

Irencei

1.

2. c. 25. . S. p.

153.

Having observed that we must not expect to discover the causes of all things, since man must ever
remain inferior to his Maker both in nature and in
knowledge, he breaks out into

mony

this

to the divinity of Christ

remarkable

testi-

" For thou art not

" uncreated, O man, nor didst thou always exist to" gether with God, like His own Word but through
:

" His great goodness thou now receivest the begin

" ning of thy creation, and learnest gradually from
" His Word the ordinances of God, who made thee k ."

The

quotation which precedes

Irenseus called Christ the

this,

shews, that

Word of God,

when

he did not

understand him to be merely an operation of the

Decentiora autem magis
hi, qui generationem pro-

quam
lativi

hominum

verbi

transfe-

runt in Dei seternum Verbum,

et prolationis initium donantes
et

genesin,

quemadmodum

et

Et in quo distabit
Dei Verbum, immo magis ipse
Deus, cum sit Verbum, a verbo
hominum, si eandem habuerit
suo verbo.

ordinationem et emissionem generationis

k

Non enim

infectus es,

homo, neque semper coexistebas Deo, sicut proprium ejus

Verbum sed propter eminentern bonitatem ejus, nunc ini:

tium facturae accipiens sensim

discis a

Verbo

qui te fecit.

dispositiones Dei,

IRENyEUS, A.D.
mind

77

185.

him

or will of God, but he conceived

a personal and substantial existence.

have

to

In the present

passage he shews what sort of existence that was,

viz.

The next

an eternal coexistence with God.

quotation asserts the same thing.

Irencei 1. 2. c. 30. |. ult. p. 163.
48.
" The Son, who always coexisted with the Father,

" in times past and from the beginning, always re" veals the Father both to angels and archangels,
66

and

"

whom

to principalities

and powers, and to

he wishes to reveal
Irencei

49.

1.

."

3. c. 6. . 1. p.

In this chapter Irenaeus

all

to

See also N. 57.

180.

argues, that

whenever

God without any qualifying

or restrictive epithet, they mean the one true God,
and that they speak in this manner only of God the
Father and God the Son, who are therefore the only
the- scriptures

His words are these

one true God.

"

Lord

"

sties,

u
"

"

"
"

speak of

" Neither the

therefore, nor the Holy Ghost, nor the apowould ever have given to him who was not
God, the name of God definitively and absolutely,
unless he were truly God
neither woujd they
have called any one Lord in his own person, except him who is Lord over all, God the Father,
and His Son, who has received from his Father
:

" authority over every creature, as the Psalmist says,

" ex. 1. The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at
"

my

right hand, until

I make

thine enemies thy

For he represents the Father speaking

66
to the Son
who has given him the Gentiles for
" his inheritance, and subjected all his enemies unto

"footstool.

" him.
1

Since therefore the Father

Semper autem coexistens

Filius Patri

olim et

ab

initio

semper
gelis

is

revelat

&c. &c.

truly Lord,
Patrem

et an-

IRENiEUS, A.D.

78

185.

" and the Son truly Lord, the Holy Ghost has

suit-

" ably marked them with the appellation of Lord.

" And again, in the overthrowing of Sodom a the
" scripture says, (Gen. xix. 24.) And the Lord

" rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah fire and

" brimstone from the Lord out of heaven. For it
" signifies in this place, that the Son, who had also
" been conversing with Abraham, had received
" power from the Father to judge the people of

" Sodom on account of their iniquity. That is a

" similar expression, Thy throne, O God, is for
(S
ever : the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right
" sceptre.
Thou hast loved righteousness, and
" hated wickedness ; therefore God, thy God, hath
" anointed- thee m
For the Spirit has marked each
.

" with the appellation of God, both him who

" anointed, i. e. the Son, and Him who anoints, i.
" the Father.

And

again,

God standeth

is
e.

in the con-

; He judgeth among the

" gods n This is spoken of the Father and the Son,
" and of those who have received adoption and
" these^are the church. For this is the congrega-

gregation of the gods

.

" tion of God, which God, i. e. the Son himself, has

" gathered together by himself. Of whom the Psalm" ist says in another place, LI. The God of gods,

Lord hath spoken, and

What God ? He of whom it

" the

"

called the
is

said,

earth.

God

shall

" manifestly come, our God, and shall not keep

" lence, (ver. 3.)
" amongst men,

i.

the Son,

e.

who

says,

who came

Psalm

xlv. 6.

11

Psalm

manifestly

/ have appeared

" unto them which seek me not .

" [does the Psalmist speak,] to

lxxxii. i.

si-

openly

But of what God

whom
0

he says,

Isaiah lxv.

i.

IRENjEUS, A.D.

185.

79

" have said, Ye are gods, and all sons of the Most
" High f lxxxii. 6. to those who have received the
" grace

of adoption, by which we

cry,

Abba, Fa-

" ther p.
No other person therefore, as I said be" fore, receives the name of God, or appellation of
" Lord, except He who is God and Lord of all,
" (who also said to Moses,

AM

hath sent me
" Christ, our Lord,
"

/ am

that

I am

and

children of Israel, I
unto you %) and His Son Jesus

" thus shalt thou say

to the

who makes

those

who

believe

u in his name to be sons of God and in another

" place the Son speaks to Moses, saying, / am come
:

"

down to deliver this people r

" who descended and ascended
:

for it is he himself

for the salvation of

" men.
It is by the Son therefore who is in the
" Father, and has the Father in himself, that he
" who is truly God has been manifested unto us, the

" Father bearing testimony to the Son, and the Son

" announcing the Father s ."
p

Rom.

viii.

Exod.

iii.

lb. 8.

Neque

que

igitur

Spiritus

Deus,

Dominus, ne-

Sanctus,

definitive

non

neque
esset

absolute

et

Deum

nominassent aliquando,
neque
nisi esset vere Deus
Dominum appellassent aliquem
ex sua persona, nisi qui dominatur omnium, Deum Patrem,
:

Filium ejus, qui dominium

omnis conditionis, quemadmodum habet
illud, Dixit Dominus &c.
Patrem enim Filio colloquutum
et

accepit a Patre suo

ostendit, qui dedit ei haeredita-

tem &c.
Pater

sit

sit

ritus

eum, qui

apostoli

Dominus, merito SpiSanctus Domini appellatione signavit eos.

Similiter
habet illud, Sedes tua,
Deus &c. Utrosque enim Dei

vere

15.
14.

Vere igitur cum

Dominus, et Filius

appellatione signavit Spiritus, et

eum, qui

eum
Et

ungitur,

qui ungit, id

iterum,

Deus

Filium,
est,

et

Patrem

De
&c.
de his qui

stetit

Patre, et Filio, et

adoptionem perceperunt, dicit

Hi autem sunt ecclesia. Hsec
enim est synagoga Dei, quam
Deus, hoc est, Filius ipse per
semetipsum collegit. De quo
iterum dixit, Deus deorum &c.
Quis Deus ? de quo dixit, Deus
:

manifeste veniet,

non

Deus

noster, et

hoc est Filius, qui

secundum manifestationem hosilebit

IRENiEUS,

80

A. D. 185.

These words, which I have been obliged to give

no comment. Not only do they
expressly and literally make the Son to be one with
the Father but the whole course of the argument,
of which they form a part, requires us to consider
at length, require

the Son as God, not

his

own

but in

officially or ministerially,

nature, as being the one only God.

Irencei

50.

1.

3. c. 8. . %. p.

183.

It seems impossible that Irenaeus could have be-

lieved Jesus Christ to have been created by God.

The
God

object of this chapter

to prove that

is

no other

mentioned in scripture, but the one true

only God " Nor can any of those things which have
" been made, and are in subjection, be compared to
is

Word

66

the

"

who

of God, by

whom

our Lord Jesus Christ.

is

minibus advenit, qui dicit, Palam apparui &c. Quorum au-

tem deorum

quibus

Nemo

&c.

all things

Ego

dicit,

Deus,

For that
evidently

are

lation of

where

were made,

uv

is

angels,
a

trans-

Ttecpai/epaTczi

eo?,

used in reference

those words in Exodus

igitur

alius,

to

quemadmodum

prsedixi,

Deus

nominatur, aut

Dominus apest omnium

which we translate I AM,

and which the Latins rendered
Qui est. Thus Tertullian mentions Qui est among the titles
of the Father, which are given

dixi

pellator,

qui

nisi

Dominus, qui

Deus

et

dixit,

Ego sum

dices Jiliis Israel,

me ad
sus

vos

Moysi
Et sic

et

qui sum.

Qui

est, misit

et hujus Filius Je-

Christus

Dominus

noster,

Dei facit credentes in

nomen suum. Et iterum loquente Filio ad Moysen, Dequi

filios

scend i,

inquit,

eripere

populum

Ipse est enim qui descendit et ascendit propter saPer Filium

lutem hominum.
itaque, qui est in Patre, et habet in se Patrem, is, Qui est,
manifestatus est Deus, Patre teshunc.

timonium perhibente

Fiiio,

Filio annuntiante Patrem.

words, qui

est,

et

The

manifestatus est

iii.

14.

also to the Son. (adv. Prax.

c.

7.

p. 510.) The Greek expression

0 av is the same as Qui est, and

can hardly be translated

thus
Cierm Alex, speaks of Christ as
c iv tS ovrt av, Very God in very
God. (Cohort, p. 7.) Athanasius
:

uses

it

in a

manner,

(rvvQeroq'

810

iari, k. t. X.

more

eo$

Kcti

peculiar

i<rn, kcu ov

zqvtgv Xoyo^

cov

Gent. 41.
consideration of

Orat.

vol. I. p. 40.

this

still

c.

peculiar use of the words

av may explain the apparent

solecism in Rev. i. 4. ano tqv 0

oov

kou

kou

tpxopevot;.

IREN.EUS,

A. D. 185.

81

" or archangels, or thrones, or dominations, were ap" pointed by Him, who is God over all, and made

" by His Word, John has thus told us

for after

he

" had said of the Word of God, that he was in the

" Father, he added, All things were made by him,

"

and without him was not any thing made "

Before we finish this quotation I must observe,
1

that Irenaeus evidently understood John

creation of

all

things by Jesus Christ.

that yivopou, as used in the

ment, never

signifies to

of the

3.

was not the meaning

rian translators say, that this

of St. John

i.

The Unita-

New

Testa-

be created ; and that the pas-

sage merely means, that all things in the Christian

dispensation were done by Christ.

Irenaeus consi-

dered the passage as equivalent to that in Col.

which

is

ference to
ivhich

i.

16.

by the Unitarians to have no recreation,

the
but to that great change

also said

was introduced

Gospel.

We

into the

may remember,

wrote in Greek

moral world by the

that Irenaeus himself

and the account which has been

would make it almost impossible
that he should so grossly have mistaken the meaning of St. John.
I may add, that all the AnteNicene Fathers interpret the words of St. John in
the same sense as Irenaeus. See N. 229- We cannot wonder that the Unitarians should endeavour to
explain away such texts as John i. 3. Col. i. 16.
given of his

life

Sed nec quidquam ex

quae constituta sunt, et in sub-

qui super omnes est Deus et

constituta sunt et facta per Ver-

jectione sunt, comparabitur Ver-

bum

bo

significavit.

Dei, per

his

quern facta

omnia, qui est

Jesus Christus.

sunt
noster

Dominus
Quoniam enim

sive angeli, sive archangeli, sive

throni, sive dominationes, ab eo

Joannes quidem sic

Cum enim dixisset
de Verbo Dei, quoniam erat in
ejus,

Patre, adjecit, Omnia pe* eum

facta sunt, et sine eo factum est
nihil.

IREN^EUS, A.D.

82

Heb.

2.

i.

185.

That a created being should himself

create matter out of nothing, or even be employed

as an instrument to

ings impossible

if

do

seems to our understand-

so,

therefore the scriptures positively

that the world was created by Christ, his

affirm

divinity follows of course.

The argument

treated by Athanasius, Orat. II.

vol. I. p.

c.

is

well

Arian. 20-2.

487, &c.

This Father continues, after some other observations

" But

may admit

whatever has had a beginning, and

dissolution,

and

is

subject,

and stands

" in need of him who made it, must necessarily be

M called by a different term even by those who have
" only moderate sense in perceiving such things so
" that he who made all things can alone properly
" be called, together with the Word, God and Lord:
:

" but things which are made cannot partake of the

" same term, nor properly bear that appellation,
" which belongs to the Creator

That Christ was not

u ."

created, has been already

proved from Irenaeus at N. 46, 47. pp. 75, 76. and yet
Dr. Priestley makes the strange assertion, that " it
" had been the custom of the orthodox to speak of
" the generation of the Son from the Father, as if
" it had been a proper creation, and as if the Son
" had stood in the very same relation to the Father,
" with that in which other creatures stood to him x ."
u

Quaecunque autem initium

sumpserunt, et dissolutionem
possunt percipere, et subjecta
sunt,
fecit,

indigent ejus qui se

necesse est omnimodo ut
et

vocabulum habeant
apud eos etiam, qui vel modicum sensum in discernendo talia habent: ita ut is quidem,
difFerens

qui

omnia

fecerit,

cum Verbo

suo juste dicatur Deus et I)o-

minus solus ; quse autem facta

non jam ejusdem vocabuli
participabilia esse, neque juste
id vocabulum sumere debere,
quod est Creatoris.
sunt,

x History of
early Opinions,
IV. p. 175.

IREN/EUS, A. D.
51.

Irencei

1.

83

185.

3. c. 9- . 2. p.

184.

Speaking of the offerings of the Magi, he

"
"

They
who it was

says,

shewed by the gifts which they presented,

myrrh, to shew
that was worshipped
was he who died and was buried for mangold, to shew that he was a King, of whose
66
kingdom there is no end; (Luke i. 33.) but in66
cense, that he was God, who in Judah was well
" known, (Psalm lxxvi. 1.) and manifest to those
" that
" kind

"

it

who did not seek him?"

(Isaiah Ixv. 1.)

Similar

may

be found

interpretations of these three offerings

other of the Fathers.

in

says, that " gold

66

Clement of Alexandria

was brought to him when he was

kingdom z ." Origen ob-

born, as a symbol of a

brought gifts, which, if I may so

" say, they offered symbolically to one compounded
serves, that " they

" of God and a mortal man gold, as to a king

" myrrh, as to one who was to die and incense, as
" to a god a ." Peter of Alexandria says, that " they
" presented gold and frankincense and myrrh, as to
;

" a

King and God and Man

52.

Irencei

1.

V
185.

3. c. 9. . ult. p.

Irenaeus having spoken of the descent of the

Holy

Ghost upon Jesus at his baptism, quotes Isaiah

xi. 1.

and

lxi. 1

upon which quotations he remarks, " In-

y Per ea quae obtulerunt munera ostendisse, quis erat qui

adorabatur
myrrham quidem,
quod ipse erat, qui pro mortali
hutuano genere moreretur et
sepeliretur
aurum vero, quoniam Rex &c. thus vero, quoniam Deus, qui et notus in Judaea &c.
:

z
Aeiotq

yoi.

Xcvcroi/

civtS) yevi/riBevn

av^oXov

Bolctl-

irpo<Tt<6[M<ra,v ol

Paed. II. 8. p. 206.

M-

$epovT<; [Atv dupct,

(f>' otrccq

ovofAciace)

avvQerco rivi Ik eov kou

av6pitov

6>'/}tgv

Ttpoa-YjVeyKav,

fiohcc jWev, aq (3a,(7i}.e7

reOv^o.ueya t^v

a-y<vpvav,

u>c,

wq

Contra Cels.

ea? tgv Aifiavarw.

I.

cri^x,-

rov ^pvcTov,

60. p. 375.
b

Ylpoacpepoweq

koli Trpeira'deiTTaTa

AiBavov

ea

kcc)

kou

avrS KoupiutaToc
copa,

autpvav,

avQpur.oo.

%pvaov kou

ccq (3ot<TL\e7 k<x\

Can.

(Rel. Sacr. III. p. 341.)

2.

XIII

IREN.EUS, A.D.

84

" asmuch as the

66

Word

of

185.

God was man,

of the root

of Jesse, and son of Abraham, in this respect the

" Spirit of God rested upon him, and he was anointed

" to preach the Gospel to the humble.

But

inas-

"

much as he was God, he did not judge after the

" sight of his eyes, neither reprove after the hear" ing of his ears : (Isaiah xi. 3.) for he needed not
" that any should
" what was in
53.

The

testify

man T
c

Irencei

of man

(John

1.

3. c.

25.)

ii.

11.

for he knew

. 8. p.

191.

following passage can only be explained on

the hypothesis of the preexistence of Christ " The

" Word of God conversed with the patriarchs before
:

" Moses in his divine and glorious character

to

" those under the law, he fulfilled the office of a

" priest and after this, becoming man, he sent the
" gift of the Holy Ghost into all the earth, covering
:

" us with his

* 53.

own wings d ."

Irencei

1.

3. c. 12. . 9. p.

197.

Having quoted the passage in the Acts, ix. 20.

where it is said that St. Paul after his conversion
preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the
Son of God, Irenaeus observes " This is the mys" tery, which he says was made known to him by
" revelation, that he who suffered under Pontius Pi" late, the same is Lord of all, and King, and God,
:

Nam

secundum

Verbum Dei homo

id

quod

erat, ex ra-

Abrahse, secundum hoc requiescebat Spiritus Dei super eum, et ungebatur ad evangelizandum humilibus.
Secundum autem quod
dice Jesse, et

Deus

filius

non secundum gloriam judicabat, neque secundum

loquelam arguebat : non enim
erat,

opus &c.
d
Ka) avroq

Se o

Koyoq rov cov

npo Mava-eaq varpidpxait;

rotq

Kara, to

Oe'iKov

koI

'ivlo^ov

a^lker

rS vopu UpariK^vrd^iv dtikve^v pera, 8e ravra avroi<;

de

Bpconoq yevoptvoq r\v lapeav rov dylov

Hvevu^aroq
y^v,

GKtTidXpv

itrkpv^v.

naa-av efcTiep^e r\v

^ac,

ra7q

eavrov

IRENJEUS, A.D.
" and Judge
9.

iii.

"

Irenaeus appears to refer to

and other

3.

And

Eph.

i.

places.

Irencei

54.

"

."

85

185.

1.

3. c. 13. . 1. p.

200.

again, in the Epistle to the Corinthians,

when he had mentioned

all

who saw God

after

" his resurrection, he added, Therefore, whether

" it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye
" believed ; (1 Cor. xv. 11.) declaring, that there

" was one and the same preaching of all those who
" saw God after his resurrection from the dead f ."
It

is

needless

to

observe, that

God means

Jesus

Christ.

Irencei

55.

The Gnostic

1.

heretics

3. c. 16. . 2. p.

204.

made Jesus and

Christ

two

According to some of them, Jesus

was the son of Joseph and Mary, a mere man, born
distinct persons.

in the ordinary

way, upon

whom

Christ descended.

was not therefore Christ who suffered, but merely

man Jesus, who was as it were the receptacle of

It

the

Christ.

Irenaeus refutes this notion in the present

who was born

was
truly
God
and
man.
and
Among other arguments he quotes the words of
St. Matthew, i. 18. Now the birth of Christ was on
this wise, and observes, that if Matthew had said,
the birth of Jesus, the Gnostics might have claimed

chapter, and shews that Jesus Christ,

crucified,

this passage as supporting their opinion

Tovrea-Ti to

[Avo-T'fjpiov, o

Xeyei

Kara. airoKaXvTpiv lyvapiaBai airy,

on

outc?

naBuv
Kvpto<;

eTTt

Xel?, kcci eo?,

f

Tlovrlov

HiXcItqv,

rav ndi/Tuv, kou

ki

Et rursus

finer i-

KptTvjs ia-nv.

in

ea Epistola

quse est ad CorinthioSj

cum prse-

but since

omnes qui Deum post

resurrectionem viderunt, intulit,
dixisset

Sive autem &c.

praedicationem

unam

et

eandem
om-

confitens

nium eorum qui

Deum

vide-

runt post resurrectionem a mortuis.

g3

IREN^EUS, A.D.

86

185.

the Evangelist speaks of Christ % being born and

descended from Abraham, the union of the divine

and human natures is proved to which he adds,
" and lest we should chance to think him a mere
" man, he is called Emmanuel, God with us
These Gnostics did not in fact deny the divinity
of Christ they denied the union of the divine and
:

human

was their conwhich made them

decide that he could not become a man, as they
knew Jesus to have been they had therefore recourse to the absurd doctrine, which Irenaeus here
He goes on to shew, that St. Paul expressly
refutes.
natures in one person.

It

viction of the divinity of Christ,

mentioned the two natures of Christ

Rom.
ix. 5.

i.

3, 4.

"

he

quotes

text, Rom.
and of whom as
came, who is over all,

and then the controverted

Whose are

the fathers,

" concerning the flesh Christ

" God blessedfor ever"

These words,

as they are

as they are translated in

quoted by Irenaeus, and

our English Bibles, un-

equivocally assert that Christ

is

God

but since the

Unitarians have tried to elude the force of this evidence,

we

it

will be necessary to

can, their statements

and

examine, as briefly as

their reasoning.

In the Improved Version the passage

is

trans-

and of whom by natural descent Christ

God who is over all be blessed for ever.

lated thus:

came.
&

It

appears that the copies

of St. Matthew
used had only

which Irenaeus
Christ in

this

and not Jesus Christ :

for had he found the word Jesus
also, he would certainly have
brought it forward as strengthplace,

ening his 'argument. Not. in

Ed. Bened. The Vulgate also
reads only Christ.

11
quoniam] hie est
manuel, ne forte tantum
hominem putaremus.

Emeum

IREN^US,

A.D.

87

185.

shall not inquire into the propriety of the

words

by natural descent, nor consider whether the

inter-

evidence

nal

does

not

require

that the sentence

should be read without this division

confine myself to shewing,

but

shall

what properly belongs to

mode of construction

the present work, that this

was entirely unknown to the Ante-Nicene Fathers.

It was in fact never heard of till the time of Erasmus he is the first writer I can meet with, who
suggested such a punctuation and though the Unitarians refer to him as their authority, Erasmus
does not say that he thought this mode of construction right.
The note to the Improved Version
:

adds, " In this sense

it is probable that the early

" Christian writers understood the words, who do
" not apply them to Christ." Mr. Lindsey says *,

and Mr. Belsham k means to assert the same, (for he

quotes his words without qualifying or correcting
them,) " that this clause was read so as not to
" appear to belong to Christ, at least for the first
" three centuries :" and Jones 1 observes, " had the
" original stood as it now does, the early Fathers

" would have cited this clause in proof of the divi" nity of Christ. But neither Justin (I believe) nor
" Irenseus nor Tertullian has quoted

it

with this

" view m ."

This

is

coming

to the point.

We are here

invited

meet our opponents on the ground which we have

to

Sequel, p. 204.
Translation of St. Paul's

Epistles.
1

the

Analysis of the Epistle to

Romans.

m Dr. Priestley only says,

" Paul is supposed to say, that

" Christ was God over all blessed

"for ever." (History of early
Opinions, II. p. 425.) It would
have been more ingenuous, if he
had stated his own sentiments
concerning this text.

G 4

IRENyEUS, A.D.

88

marked out

for ourselves

and precise

sitive

their statements are po-

and

185.

shall

proceed without

comment to shew, in what manner and in

what sense the passage was quoted by the Ante-Nifurther

cene Fathers.
In the

what

place

first

it is difficult

the

fair intention

mentioned:

for since

we can

name

with

to understand,

of Justin Martyr

is

he never quotes the passage

of course infer nothing as to the sense

at

all,

in

which he understood

it.

should be willing to

Mr. Jones meant to say, that if Justin

Martyr had known of a text, which contained such
believe that

a direct assertion of the divinity of Christ, he could

hardly have failed to quote

But

it.

to this I should

assume that the divinity of

answer,
Christ was considered by Justin to be a contro1.

that this is to

vertible point

and

2.

the works which remain to us

of Justin are addressed partly to the heathen, and

partly to a

Jew

neither of

knowledged the authority of

quoted

We

whom would

have ac-

St. Paul, if Justin

had

this passage.

have already seen, that Irenaeus quotes the

text as expressly asserting the divine and

The Latin

natures of Christ.

human

translation of Ire-

which alone remains, and which reads, ex

quibus Christus secundum carnem, qui est Deus
super omnes benedictus in scecula, cannot of course
admit of the punctuation and division which the
Unitarians propose
to which I would add, that

naeus,

Irenaeus

is

to be cited, not only as giving his

opinion, but as the witness to a fact.

He must

own
often

have read the passage himself; he must often have

heard

it

read

to say, that

he

it is

perhaps not assuming too

may have

heard

it

much

read by Poly carp

IREN.EUS, A.D.

89

185.

immediate disciple of St. John. He

must therefore have known the manner in which it
was customary to read the sentence in the churches
and we have seen that he reads it, not so as to make
the doxology at the end a separate and independent
clause
but so as to affirm that Christ, who came of
the Jews according to the flesh, was also God over

himself, the

all,

We

blessed for ever.

may

conclude therefore,

was always read in this way

churches which Irenaeus frequented.

that the text

in the

Tertullian, the third of the Ante-Nicene Fathers

mentioned by Mr. Jones, is the next

whose writings we are to examine.
The first
passage in two places.

in order of time

He
is

quotes the

where he

is

answering those persons, who accused the Christians

of acknowledging more Gods than one

he shews

from the Old Testament, that the term God

is

ap-

more persons than to the Father, and then

"
Not that we ever name with our mouth two
says,
" Gods or two Lords, although the Father is God,
" and the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God,
" and each is God
and if the Father and the Son

plied to

" are to be mentioned together, for

" tinction

we

call

sake of dis-

the Father God, and Jesus Christ

" Lord but yet, speaking of Christ singly, I can

" call him God, as Paul did, of whom is Christ, who,
" he says, is God over all, blessedfor ever n ." The
:

n
Duos tamen Deos et duos
Donrinos nunquam ex ore nostro

proferimus ; non quasi non et

Pater Deus, et Filius Deus, et
Spiritus Sanctus Deus, et Deus
unusquisquesed apostolum
sequar, ut
fuerint

si

pariter

nominandi

Pater et Filius,

Deum

Patrem appellem, et Jesum

Christum Dominium nominem.
Solum autem Christum potero
Deum dicere, sicut idem apostolus,
est,

Ex

inquit,

quibus Christus, qui

Deus super omnia

benedictus in cevum omne. adv.

Prax.

c.

13. p. 507.

IREN/EUS, A. D.

90

same

185.

where he
introduces the text with these remarkable words:
" Paul also himself has called Christ God, Whose
" are the fathers, and of whom according to the
next place

is

in the

"flesh Christ came,

"for ever 0 ."

who

might perhaps be

treatise, c. 15.

over

is

God

all,

blessed

with having shewn

satisfied

the falsehood of the statement, that Irenaeus and

Tertullian do not quote the passage in proof of the

But since Mr. Lindsey and Mr.

Belsham extend the same remark to all the writers
of the three first centuries, we must carry the indivinity of Christ.

vestigation further.

The next
passage,

is

writer in point of time

Hippolytus,

He

year 220.

adopted what

is

who

who

quotes the

flourished about the

wrote a work against Noetus,

called the Patripassian heresy

who
i.

e.

he believed that Christ was actually God the Fa-

and that the Father appeared upon earth, and

One of the means which he used
doctrine,
was to cite all the texts
to support this
which spoke of Christ as God and after quoting
ther,

died on the cross.

many, he
<e

says, " Christ

was God, and

suffered for

our sakes, being himself the Father, that he might

We

" save us.

cannot come to any other conclu" sion for the apostle acknowledges one God, when
;

" he says, Whose are the fathers, of whom as con" cerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all,
" God blessed for ever p."
Thus Noetus evidently
0
(

Christum

Paulas)

Quorum

autem

Deum
patres,

et

et

ex

quibus

Christus secundum carnem,

est super

in (EVum.

ipse

cognominavit,
qui

omnia Deus benedictus

<r%ev

X^crro? yap \v
Si'

r^SLc,

kou a-uaai
frqeiv, ov
o

kou eva-

eo<;,

avroq av Uarrjp,
Biwj07j.

"AKXo

Xva,

Se,

Iwoi^Ba, \eyew, kou yap

aitoa-Tokoq eva

eov opoXoyei, Xe-

ycov, du/ ol noire peq,

e| uv

Xpiaroq

IREN.EUS, A. D.

91

185.

understood the passage as asserting the divinity of

Christ 9.

But

We

heretic.

it

may

be objected that Noetus was a

We

lytus takes of this quotation.

Him

what

will therefore see

in his refutation of

Noetus

notice Hippo-

need not follow

but he begins the

6th chapter thus: "As to the apostle saying, Whose

" are the fathers^ &c. he declares the mystery of
" the truth properly and plainly.
He who is over

"

all is God
for he thus says boldly, All things are
" delivered unto me of the Father, (Matt. xi. 27.)
" He that is God over all is blessed and becoming
:

"

man

is

God

Origen

more

for ever

r ."

the next writer, and nothing can be

is

decisive than his testimony in favour of the

received interpretation;
p. 612.) but

Rom.

(in

forbear

to

wherever the original Greek of Origen

is

too

much

13.

vii.

dwell upon

vol.

4.

because

it,

there

is lost,

reason to suspect that additions and

have been made by his translator

There can be no doubt however that
Origen noticed the passage, because he was writing
a laboured commentary upon the whole Epistle: and
though Rufinus may have added to the original, he
would hardly have altered the whole tenor and spirit

interpolations

Rufinus.

of

it.

to

Kara. adpKa,

eoq (.vXoy^Toq

elq

oov

it)

tcccvtcov

Tovq alavaq.

C.

Noet, C. 2. II. p. J.
1 Epiphanius also observes,
that the followers of Noetus
quoted this text, Haer. LVII.
vol. I. p. 481
and he could not
himself have adopted the punctuation proposed by Erasmus,
since in another place he finishes
it with kit) ndvTw eo?, omitting
;

the remaining words, p. 487.

r

*0

$e

Xeyet

anoTToKoq, uv

oi

narepeq, k.t.X. KaXcoq diyyeTrai kou

Xap-npuq to
ovroq

Xeyet

vv

yap

Tr\q
iiri

akrfidaq

ovtco

/xtTa

tcdvra poi Ttapalelarai

Tpoq' b uv eVi nrdvTuv

yeyevqrcci,

eo$ i<rnv
p. 10.

kcci

elq

[/.va-r^pioV

vdvrccv eoq

tiro

tov

Ha-

eoq evXoyYjToq

avOponoq
robq

ea-TiV,

irappvjo-taq,

yevopevoq

alwvaq.

c. 6.

IRENJEUS, A.D.

92
Cyprian,

who wrote between

185.

the years 247 and

work entitled TestiThe second book is al-

258, quotes the passage in his

monies against the Jews.

most entirely composed of texts, with

prian's own, except the short heads or

The

chapter.

Deus
many

subject of the 6th chapter

That Christ

God

of Cy-

little

titles to
is

each

Quod

and after
other quotations, he says, without any further
observation, " Also Paul to the Romans, / could
" wish, &c. whose are the fathers, and of whom
" as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over
"

all,

Christus,

God

blessed for ever."

Novatian,

had no

p.

is

286.

who was accounted

a heretic, but

who

heretical opinions concerning Christ, quotes

the passage twice in his work upon the Trinity,

which

is

supposed to have been written soon after

the year 257. In

to

"

c.

13. he

is

shewing, by a reference

many texts, that " the substances both of God

and man were united in Christ ;" and after quots

ing this of St. Paul, without any comment, he concludes that " Christ is God."
In c. 30. he argues,
as Hippolytus did, against those

who would

not see

is God and the Son God, yet there

two Gods, but only one and among many
other texts which prove the divine and human nature of Christ, he quotes without any comment the

that the Father

are not

one

now

before us.

Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, died in the year

264, and his works which remain to us were com-

posed not long before.

allude to this passage,

utramque

istam

He may

be supposed to

when speaking

substantiam in

fosderasse concordiam. p. 715.

unam

of Christ he

nativitatis Christi

IREN^US, A.D.
twice

calls

place of the

The

him " God over

New

93

185.

all 1 " for in

no other

Testament do these words occur.

which I shall bring is a quota-

last instance

tion of the passage in a letter written by the council

This council was con-

of Antioch in the year 269.

vened against the heresy of Paul of Samosata

and

the Fathers in their letter assert that the Son of

God

is

prove this by
this of St.

many

Paul u

would now

and

essentially

texts,

They

God.

substantially

and among the

rest

by

ask,

what grounds can Mr. Belsham

or any other person have for saying, " that this text

" was read so as not to appear to belong to Christ,

" at least for the

first

three centuries?" If

ever

it is

quoted by the Ante-Nicene Fathers so as to support

this assertion, I

am

looked carefully for

I

not aware of the passage

it

through

all

have

their writings,

wish the reader to decide, whether there

is

and
any

even the remotest suspicion, of any of these

trace,

Fathers having understood the passage in any other

way, except as plainly declaring that

God

am

Christ

is

x.

sorry that Mr.

Belsham should repeat the

av eVi TcdvTOov eo^. p. 246.

and 248.

In the fourth Dialogue de Trinitate, A th. vol II p. 531. Epi-

LVIL vol. I. p.
LXXIV. 6. p. 894.
Hser. LXXVI. p. 977-8. Theo-

Reliq. Sacr. II. p. 467.

phanius, User.

The

passage is quoted by
the following Post-Nicene Fathers.
Athanas. Orat. IV. c.

487. Hser.

617. Ep. II.

ad Serap. 2. p. 684. Epist. ad
Epict. 10. p. 908. Cont. Apol.
In a doubtful
I. 10. p. 930.
work, vol. II. p. t6. in another,
In the Homily in Nap. 215.

makes the Unitarian punctuation

impossible
he stops at @<-o?,
and says, kou v tS en icpoacoita
tZv $vo (pvtreav to lid(popov ehei^ei/'
vfj^ivov , kou

tivitatem Christi, falsely ascribed

kou

to Athanasius, vol. II. p.

Fab. V. 14.

Arian.

1. vol. I. p.

413.

doret's quotation of the passage

t'f

'lovhalccv

elq

|W6J/

Korea crcipKa yeye-

vavTuv

Se

Seov

d><;

eov,

TOvq ouwvac, evXoy^Tov. Haer.

vol,

IV. p. 287.

IREN/EUS, A. D.

94

185.

exploded and refuted story of the word

God

wanting

and Chrys-

in the copies of Cyprian, Hilary,

ostom, in their quotations of this text.

true

This

being

is

not

any MSS. of these authors do omit

must be by accident, because they all

at least if

the word,

it

introduce the passage where they are expressly ar-

guing that Christ

Mr. Belsham,

God.

is

own

in his

Epistles, adopts another

He

text.

" whose

alters

the

is

God

oov

translation of St. Paul's

method of evading this plain

into uv o and translates it,
9

over

all,

blessed for ever."

am

not concerned with this alteration any further than

to notice,

what indeed the reader

have seen,

will

that none of the Ante-Nicene Fathers countenance

It is in fact arbitrary,

this transposition.

unauthor-

and presumptuous and our astonishment at

it in Mr. Belsham's translation will be increased, when we read in a work, published by himself only five years before, this very strong argument

ized,

finding

against admitting

it

" This conjecture, ingenious

" and even probable as

it is, not being supported by

" a single MS. version or authority, cannot be ad" mitted into the text?:" and yet he has himself

admitted

and

and being aware that the conjunction

the word fathers seemed to denote the

it

after

last clause of the sentence,

position has

added another

whereas

clause,

his

own

trans-

he omits the con-

junction altogether

In the Improved Version it is also stated, that

" the early Christian writers pronounce it to be
" rashness and impiety to say that Christ was God

" over

all."

This statement

Calm

is

probably borrowed

Inquiry, p. 143.

IREN/EUS, A.D.

95

185.

from Wetstein, who brings a great many quotations

from the Fathers, in which
not

em navTuv

amine these quotations,

it is

God

Seo$, the
it

said, that Christ is

over

we

If

all.

appears that they

ex-

refer

all

and that those persons,

called
Christ
eiri
navTcov
o
Seog, intended by
who had
This
the expression that he was God the Father.
of course was denied by the orthodox party, who
contended, that Christ was not over all in this sense,
for the Father is necessarily excluded from being

to the Sabellian controversy,

subject to his Son, as

is

by

said

St. Paul,

Cor.

In this sense, and in this sense only, was

xv. 27.

allowed and even asserted by the catholics, that

it

Christ was not

made

iravruv Seog.

The former

navTcov Beog.

Paul

St.

h)

a distinction between

and we

The

early writers

bit ttolvtw eo$,

is

and

enl

the expression used by

who was

find Athanasius,

not con-

cerned with the Sabellian controversy, expressly

call1

ing Christ, "the Saviour and mighty God over all 7 .'
" The Word of God, who is over all a ."
" God of
" God, and over all blessed for ever b :" and these expressions of Athanasius are
in other places
c

ther

he applies

Eusebius,

who

more remarkable, because

the same to God the Fa-

has been suspected of Arian-

ism, represents the Christian martyrs in Phrygia as

upon Christ the

calling

Toy

eici

I.

a
.

De

Incarn. 55.

p. 95.
Aoyov dvai tov eov tov
.

i^TidvTtovovTa..

AdEpisc. iEgypt.

15. p. 285.
b

Ka) k Seov Sao; iaTi,Ka)

ndvToov i/Aoyrj[Avoq

Or.
c

I. c.

Vol.

elq

p.

eir;

tov; alZvcct;.

Arian. 10. p. 414.

I.

over all A : and he him-

Tov

izdvTuv crwrv/pa kou hv-

varov @eov Xoyov.

Vol.

God

305. 696.

lirl

eTufiooopevovt;.

ttccvtccv

E.

eov Xptcnov

H. VIII.

I.

elv kou
would read
XpicrTov. (Remarks on Eccl. Hist.

Jortin

Dr. Clarke
III. p. 174.)
thinks the words tov im ndvTuv

vol.

eov an interpolation

(Script.

Doctrine of the Trinity ;) and

they are omitted in a MS. at
Florence.

IRENiEUS, A. D.

96
self

speaks of the Son of

Ivvapiv kou Seov ao<f)Lav

e
.

185.

God as hi navi Xp/orov Seov

But when writing against

Marcellus, a Sabellian, he says that Christ

is

not

tov

and he says expressly that the Sabellians taught that "the God who is over all, the
" Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was born of the
" Virgin
I would observe, that our Saviour says,

h)

ttolvtuv

Seov

He

speaking of himself,

above

all,

that cometh

epyo^vog hdvco

avoodev

from above

tiolvtoov

ecrriv.

is

John

31.

iii.

56.

Irencei

1.

3. c. 16. . 7. p.

206.

In the same chapter he says of Christ, "

He

fulfils

" the rich and vast will of his Father, he himself

" being the Saviour of those who are saved, and the
" Lord of those who are under his dominion, and

" the

God

of the things which are made, and the

only-begotten of the Father, and Christ who was

" foretold, and the Word of God, who became in" carnate, when the fulness of time arrived, in which
" the Son of God was to become the Son of man h ."
i(

Irentei 1. 3. c. 18. . 1. p. 209.

57.
" Having clearly proved that the Word which in

" the beginning was with God, by

c<

were made, who

also

whom

all

things

was always present with

" mankind, in these last days, according to the time

" prefixed by the Father, was united unto his own
" creation, and became

Demonst. Evang. V.

212.
f
P.

i.

man
p.

capable of suffering

it

Dominus eorum qui sunt sub

dominio, et Deus eorum quae
constituta

8.

sunt,

et

unigenitus

i. p.

Patris, et Christus qui praedica-

4. p. 107.
h Diviti enim et multae volun-

Verbum Dei, incarnatus cum advenisset plenitudo

temporis, in quo Filium hominis

104

DeEccles. Theol.

II.

tati Patris deservit,

Salvator

eorum qui

cum

sit ipse

salvantur, et

tus est, et

fieri

oportebat Filium Dei.

IREN.EUS, A.D.
" follows, that
"

who

all

contradiction

say, if Christ

is

97

185.

excluded of those

was born at

that time^ there-

For we have proved,

" that the Son of God did not then begin to be, hav" ing always existed with his Father but when he
" became incarnate, and was made man, he summed
" fore he did not exist before.

" up in himself the whole

" salvation
&c.

human

race, giving us

Irencei

58.

He

1.

3. c. 18. . 7. p.

here continues the

Christ being
able words

211.

demonstration of Jesus

God and man, and

" Jesus therefore, as

uses these remark-

we have

said be-

" fore, united man with God.

For if it had not
" been a man who conquered the adversary of man,

" the enemy would not have been rightly conquered.

"

And again, if it had not been God who gave sal" vation, we should not have had it securely.
And
" if man had not been united to God, he could not
" have partaken of immortality.
For it was neces" sary that the mediator between
" his

own

" friendship and unanimity

66

man

God and man, by

relationship to both, should bring both to

to

that he should present

God, and make God known

men k ."

sed quando

incarnatus

principio

homo

longam hominum

Deum,

expositionem in seipso recapitulavit, in compendio nobis salutem praestans, &c. Recapitulavit is probably the translation
of a,veK(.<pa.\ai.u<ra,To, the meaning
of which verb is, to bring many
things under one head. Irenaeus

Ostenso manifeste, quod in

Verbum existens apud

to

per quern omnia facta

semper aderat generi liumano, hunc in novissimis temporibus, secundum prasfinitum tempus a Fatre, unitum
suo plasmati, passibilem hominem factum, exclusa est omnis
contradictio dicentium, Si ergo
tunc natus est, non erat ergo
ante Christus. Ostendimus enim
sunt, qui et

quia

non tunc

existens

factus,

frequently applies

who
man

it

est,

et

to Christ,

represented the whole hurace. V. i Cor. xv, 22.

ccepit Filius Dei,

semper apud Patrem

rov avBpar.ov

tS eS.

Et yap

fx^

IREN^US,

98
Irenseus, with

may

many

A.D.

185.

other Fathers, whose

names

be seen in the note, understood Christ to be

a mediator, because he partook of both

divine and the human.
Irencei

59.

1.

3. c. 19. . 2. p.

natures, the

212.

In this chapter also having said, that those

believed Christ to be a
eternal

of

life

Adam

1
;

is

who

mere man had no chance of

he observes, that no one of

called in the scriptures

all

God

the sons
or Lord,

and adds, that Jesus " above all men that ever lived
" is called God and Lord and Eternal King, and
" only-begotten, and the Incarnate Word, both by
" all the Prophets and the Apostles, and by the
" Holy Spirit himself. But the scriptures would
" not have testified this of him, if he had been merely
" a man, like all other men.
But that he had in
" himself above all men that exalted birth, which is

" of the most high Father, and that he had also

" that exalted birth which is of a Virgin, both these
" points the divine scriptures testify of him
and
:

" that he was a man, with no form nor comeliness,

" subject to suffering, sitting upon the foal of an
av6pa-wo<;

ivUyo-e tov avTtiraXov tov

avOpanov, ovk
i%6poq.

av

YldXiv Te,

dtKaiccq
el

prj<ra,To tt,v <ruTVjplav,

eo-%o/Aev avTYjv.

Ka)

pj

lviK''r\Br\

eo?

e'Sw-

ovk av f3e(3ala$
el

(TvvyveoQYj

The same

is

. 1.

I.

Qui nude tan turn ho-

minem eum

dicunt ex Joseph
generatum
ignorantes autem eum, qui ex Virgine est,
Emmanuel, privantur munere
ejus, quod est vita sterna

compared with the quotation

from Hippolytus at N. 175.
and from Cyprian at N. 283.

said by Clem. Alex.

p. 25 1. Tertull. de
Resur. Carnis, 51. p. 357. Novatian. XVIII. Lactant. Instit.
IV. 13. p. 303. Athanasius,
cont. Apol. 1. 1 1. vol. I. p. 93 1.
Epiphan. Ancor. 44. vol. II. p.

Paed. III.

1.

IRENJEUSj A. D.

185.

99

" ass ; that he had vinegar and gall to drink that

" he was despised by the people, and condescended
" even to death and that he is the holy Lord, and
" wonderful Counsellor, and beautiful in appear;

" ance, and the mighty God, coming on the clouds

" to judge all men
all these things the scriptures
" prophesied concerning him m ." Dr. Priestley endea-

vours

persons

the Gnostics were the only

prove, that

to

who were

considered as heretics for two or

three centuries after Christ

and he says of Ire-

though he mentions the Ebionites, he

naeus, that

takes no notice at

all

remark

object of this

The

of any Gentile Unitarians.

is

to persuade us that Irenaeus

did not consider the Unitarian doctrines as heretical:

and yet we

find Irenaeus saying, as

who believed Christ

had no chance of eternal life.

that those

Unitarian

dered

it

doctrine,

to

man

be a mere

Surely this

and Irenaeus

to be heretical.

quoted above,

as

is

the

surely consi-

It is plain also

from

his

words at N. 57, that he looked upon those persons

as heretics,

which

is

who denied

the preexistence of Christ,

also a doctrine of the

60.

" Again,

Irencei
it

1.

was foretold that

Quoniam auteni ipse proprie praeter omnes qui fuerunt

tunc homines, Deus, et Domi01

Rex

Unigenitus, et Verburn incarnatum

prsedicatur et a prophetis omnibus, et Apostolis, et ab ipso
Spiritu, adest videre, &c.
Heec
autem non testificarentur Scripturse de eo, si similiter ut omnes
homo tantum fuisset. Sed quoniam praeclaram praeter omnes
nus, et

modern Unitarians.

3. c. 20. . ult. p.

aeternus, et

habuit in se earn, quae est ab

altissimo Patre, genituram, pra5-

clara

it

214.

was neither

autem functus

to be

est et ea,

quae est ex Virgine, generatione,

utraque Scripturae divinae de eo

testificantur

et

quoniam homo

indecorus et passibilis, et super

pullum, &c. &c.
et quoniam
Dominus Sanctus, et mirabilis Consiliarius, et decorus specie, et Deus fortis, super nubes
veniens universorum Judex, omnia de eo Scripturae prophetabant.
n History
of early Opinions,
I. p. 237, and 274^ &c.

IRENjEUS, A.D.

100

" a mere
" (Isaiah

man who

185.

saves us, nor yet without flesh,

and that he should begin to be a

" real, visible man, although he was the Word giving
" salvation, (ib. xxxiii. 20.) and that he was not
lxiii. 9-)

and

" merely a man who died for us" Son of God, who is God, was to

that the

come from

that

" part which is to the south-west of the inheritance

" of Judah and that he who was of Bethlehem,
;

" where the Lord was born, should send forth his
" praise into all the world, as the prophet Habakkuk
" says, (ch. iii. 3, 4.) manifestly shewing that he was
" God, and that his advent was in Bethlehem, and

" from

mount Ephrem, which

is

" of the inheritance, and that he

to the south-west

was man

."

nseus had evidently a different version of

Ire-

some of

these texts, but this does not affect the truth of the
doctrine which he

supposed to be deduced from

them.
Irencei

61.

The

divine and

ther proved

1.

3. c. 21. p.

human nature

this chapter

in

215.

of Christ are fur-

by reference

to

the

Ahaz

"

God

prophetic declaration of the Lord to

" therefore became man, and the Lord himself saved

Rursus quoniam neque hotantum erit, qui salvat nos,

neque sine carne, (sine carne
enim Angeli sunt) prsedicavit
enim, dicens, Neque Senior, ne

mo

que Angelus, sed ipse Dominus

quoniam

salvabit eos,
et

parcet

(Esai.
ipse

lxiii.

homo

piet esse,
lutare,

Sion

eis,

diligit eos,

ipse liber abit eos:

quoniam

et

9.)

verus

cum

visibilis

sit

salutare

oculi tui videbunt

inci-

Verbum

rursus Esaias

civitas,

ait,

hie
sa-

Ecce,

nostrum

(xxxiii. 20.)

et

quoniam non solum homo

moriebatur pro nobis,

Esaias ait,
Et quoniam ex
ea parte, quae est secundum
Africum heereditatis Judae, veniet Filius Dei, qui Deus est
sicut ait Habacuc Propheta,
erat, qui

Deus ah Africo

Sanc&c. mani-

veniet et

tus de rnonte Effrem,

quoniam Deus,
Bethleem adventus ejus, et ex monte Effrem,
qui est secundum Africum haereditatis, et quoniam homo.

feste significans,
et

quoniam

in

IREN.EUS, A. D.
"

us, giving us the sign of the

101

185.

Virgin

p :"

and

in $.4.

By the words now quoted, (Isaiah vii. 10.) the

" Holy Ghost has accurately signified his birth,
" which is of a Virgin, and his substance, that he is
" God: (for the name Emmanuel signifies this :) and
<e

" he shews that he was a man, by saying, batter

" and honey shall he eat, and by calling him a
" child, and, before he kneiv to choose good and
" evil: for all these things are tokens of a human
" child.
But that he shall not consent to iniquity
" that he may choose the good, this is peculiar to

"

God

"

God without

butter

to be a

flesh i."

Irencei

62.

The

and honey we
mere
man, nor
him
Emmanuel suspect him to be

that by his eating

" might not suppose

" yet from the name

1.

4. c. 5. . 2. p.

232.

object of this chapter, as of the fourth

in general,

to prove that there

is

is

book

only one true

God, in opposition to the Valentinians, who held

that the God of the Old Testament, the Creator of

heaven and earth, was not the same as the Father

of Christ. He shews, that the Law and the Prophets
spoke only of one true God,

who was

also

preached

by Jesus Christ and his Apostles, and he concludes

" He therefore who was worshipped by the Prophets,
P

eo? ovv

/cat ccvtgi; o Kvpiot;

to

rvjq

KapBevov

ccvQpairoc fyeVero,

nominat eum,

taaaev

gnoscat bonam et malum: haec

enim omnia signa sunt hominis

rji*.oq,

ov<;

trvjf/.e'tov.

Diligenter igitur significavit

Spiritus Sanctus per ea quae dicta sunt generationem ejus, quae
est ex Virgine, et substantiam,
quoniani Deus
(Emmanuel
9

enim nomen hoc significat,) et

manifestat quoniam homo, in eo
quod dicit, Butyrum et rnel manducabit : et in eo quod infantem

infantis.

et

priusquam co-

Quod autem non

sentiet nequitice, ut eligat

con-

bonum,

proprium hoc est Dei. uti non

per hoc, quod manducabit butyrum et mel, nude solummodo

eum hominem

intelligeremus,

neque rursus per nomen Emmanuel sine carne eum Deum

suspicaremur.

IRENiEUS,

102

He

" the living God,

" His

Word, who

the

is

God

God

the

is

of the living,

was revealed

The testimony
Christ is so much

here borne

to

the

of

divinity

is

onhj one

God

mentioned

is

in

God who

the

Testament,

who spake

to the patriarchs 1'."

and since he here argues that

is spoken of in the Old
follows, that he must have believed

the Old Testament

him

also

the stronger, because Irenseus

contending that there

is

who

Christ therefore with

" with Moses, and

Christ

of the living, and

spake with Moses,

also

" refuted the Sadducees

" the Father

D. 185.

it

to be of one substance with the Father, very

and eternal God.

Irencei

63.

1.

4. c. 6. . 7. p.

234-5.

Valentinus and the Gnostics did not deny that

Christ was God, but they said that he

was not the

same with the God of the Old Testament. Irenseus

shews that the God, whom Christ preached, was the
same with the God of the Old Testament, who
hence he argues, from
created heaven and earth
:

the

confession

of

the

Gnostics

themselves,

that

was God, must be the same with

" He was one and
the God of the Old Testament.
Christ, since he

" the same, the Father having subjected all things

" unto him, and he has received testimony from all,

" that he

is

truly

man and

truly God,

from the Fa-

Spirit, from angels, from creation

from men, and from apostate spirits, and
" from devils, and from the enemy, and lastly from

tf<

"

from the

ther,

itself,

" death itself 8 ."

r

Qui

rabatur

igitur a Prophetis

Deus

rum Deus,
et loquutus

Sadducseos

ado-

vivus, hie est vivo-

et

Verbum

est

ejus, qui

Moysi, qui et

redarguit

Ipse

cum Patre vivoDeus, qui loquutus est

qui et Patribus mani-

igitur Christus

rum

est

Moysi,

festatus est.
s

Non

ergo

alius

erat

qu'

IRENiEUS, A. D.

103

185.

64.
Irencei 1. 4. c. 11. . 4. p. 240.
In continuation of the same subject, he says, " If

" therefore the very same God is come, who was

" foretold by the prophets, our Lord Jesus Christy
" and his coming has given a fuller grace and a
" greater distribution of gifts to those who received
" him, it is plain that it is the very same Father

"

who was announced by the prophets and the Son^

when he came, did not spread the knowledge of
" another Father, but of the same who was spoken
;

"

" of from the beginning

V &c. &c.

He

argues from

the mutual testimony which the prophets in the Old

Testament, and Jesus Christ in the New, bore to

each other.
filled in

All that the prophets foretold was ful-

J esus

whatever Jesus said of God

God

his

FaOld

ther, agrees

with what

Testament.

Jesus did not therefore reveal another

God

is

said of

in the

nor are there more Gods than one, but the

Father and the Son,

who

are together one

and the

same God.
65.

Irencei

1.

4. c. 20. . 4. p.

254.

It is the object of this chapter to prove that there

only one God, viz. He, who made the world

he says, " There is therefore one God, who
is

and

made
" and arranged all things by His Word and Wisdom
" but this is the Creator, who also gave this world
" to the human race who in His exceeding great" ness was unknown to all those who were made by
Him
But according to His love is known
:

sed unus et idem,

Deus, a Patre, a Spiritu, &c. &c.

t
Si ergo idem ipse adest, qui
praedicatus est aPropbetis,Deus

jieiente ei Patre, et ab

Dominus

cognoscebatur, et alius qui dicebat,

Nemo

cognoscit Patrem,

omnia subomnibus
accipiens testimonium, quoniam
vere homo, et quoniam vere

noster Jesus Christus,

et adventus ejus pleniorem,

&c.

&c.

IRENjEUS, A.D.185.

104

" always by him, through whom He ordained all

" things. But this is His Word, our Lord Jesus
" Christ, who in these last days was made man
"

among men,

that he might join the end to the

And therefore the

beginning, i. e. man to God.
" prophets, receiving the gift of prophecy from the
" same Word, foretold his coming according to the
" flesh, by whom the conjoining and communion of
i(

"

God and man was made

" the Father, the

" beginning, that

Word
God

of

according to the Will of

God

foretelling

from the

should be seen by men, and

" should live with them upon earth, and should con" verse with them, and be present with His creation,

" saving

it, and capable of being perceived by it,

" and freeing us from the hands of all who hate
" us u ," &c.

In this passage the following points are asserted

who came to save us, who was seen on earth

and conversed with man, was the same who inspired
the prophets that by him God ordained all things,
and that he was himself God and man.

that he

Irentei 1. 4. c. 38. . 1 p. 284.

66.
" For this reason also our Lord in the latter times,
.

u Unus igitur Deus, qui Verbo et Sapientia fecit et aptavit

omnia hie est autem Demiurgus, qui et mundum hunc attribuit humane- generi, qui secundum magnitudinem quidem ignotus est omnibus his, qui ab
secundum
eo facti sunt
autem dilectionem cognoscitur
semper per eum, per quern constituit omnia.
Est autem hie
:

Verbum ejus, Dominus noster

Jesus Christus, qui novissimis
temporibus homo in hominibus
factus est, ut finem conjungeret

principio, id est, hominem Deo.

Et propterea Prophetas ab eodem Verbo propheticum acci-

pientes charisma prsedicaverunt

secundum carnem adventum, per quern commixtio et

communio Dei et hominis seejus

cundum
est,

ab

placitum Patris facta

praenuntiante Ver-

initio

bo Dei, quoniam videbitur Deus

ab hominibus, et conversabitur
cum eis super terram, et coiloqueretur, et adfuturus esset suo
plasmati, sal vans illud, et perceptibilis

ab eo, &c.

IRENiEUS, A.D.

105

185.

" having summed up every thing in himself, came

" unto us, not as he might have come, but as we
" were able to behold him for he might have come
;

but we could
" never have borne the greatness of his glory x ."
" to us in his incorruptible glory

Compare N.

6. p. 7.

Irencei

67.

The

1.

5. c. 17. . 3. p.

314.

following words belong to a different argu-

ment, but they require no introductory remarks to

make them

men, and manifestly shewed himself

" who he was

"

God

" Jesus therefore by remitting

plain.

" sins cured

for if

alone, but the

no one can remit

Lord remitted

sins

these

except

and cured

it is plain that he was the Word of God,

" being made the Son of man, receiving from the
" Father the power of the remission of sins, that he

" men,

" was man, and that he was

" suffered with us as

" us as

God

that like as he

man, he had compassion upon

God y."
Irencei

68.

The

1.

5. c. 19. . 1. p.

316.

expression of Irenaeus, that the Virgin

Mary

" received the glad tidings by the word of the angel,

" that she should conceive God z ," is a very strong

proof of the doctrine which

X

Ai TOVTQ
ecr^arojv

eir'

Aaicoa-dciAevoq

'^XBe

varo,

npoq

est remittere peccata, nisi solus

Deus, remittebat autem haec

Do minus, et curabat homines
manifestum, quoniam ipse erat
Verbum Dei, Filius hominis
factus, a Patre potestatem remissions peccatorum accipiens,

KGtl

elq

Kvpioq

uvtgv

to,

navrcc,

uq avroq

'/][^a,q,
5

v)y.iq

wItov

yap

[/.ev

to^ri itpoq

Ifieiv

-qZv-

ydv-

iv ttj d,(f)8d,p-

r^Aaq iXdeiv 7]v-

varo'

a>X

rj^eiq ovbiizuitore to \A.k-

yeOoq

rrjq

80^5

avrov

fiacrT ccC<eiv

'/jZwduedcz.

Peccata igitur remittens ho

curavit, semetipsum autem manifeste ostendit
y

minem quidem
quis esset.

and

7][J.aV

aXX uq

avTov

are maintaining,

tuv Kaipav avaicecpa-

vd^aBa' avroq
ru)

we

Si

enim nemo pot-

quoniam homo, et quoniam

Deus ut quomodo homo compassus est nobis, tamquam Deus
;

misereatur nostri, &c.

z

Per angelicum sermonem

evangelizata

Deum.

est,

ut

portaret

IREN^EUS, A.D.

106

reminds us of the epithet of

185.

QeoroKog,

Mother of

God, which many of the Fathers have applied

the Virgin Mary.
Socrates indeed

tells

condemned the use of

impossibility, that

being like Mary.

God

us

a
,

this

that Nestorius publicly

word, as involving an

if

human

should be born of a

Nestorius was accused of sepa-

rating the nature of Christ into

sons, as

to

two

distinct per-

one person had performed the actions

and a different person

had suffered, he. as man and it might be supposed,
that he objected to the term Mother of God, because he believed Jesus Christ to be a mere man.
He was in fact charged with this heresy by his enemies b
but Socrates, who was contemporary with
Nestorius, tells us, that the charge was false, and
suitable to the divine nature,
:

that Nestorius did not believe Jesus to have been a

mere man and that it was only the words Mother

of God, to which he objected. We must remember
also, that the dispute about this term was not heard
of till the fifth century, when, as Socrates tells us,
the prohibition issued by Nestorius was received
with the greatest alarm by the clergy and laity,
" who had been taught from ancient times to con" sider Christ as God, and by no means to separate
" him as a man, on account of his incarnation, from
" the Godhead c ."
;

a
b

H, E. VII. 32.
The same charge

is

made

by Tillemont, Mem. torn. I.

but Jortin appears to
p. 123
be correct in saying, " In the
" Nestorian controversy, the
" contending parties seem to
*'
have been all of one opinion
:

"
"

as to the doctrine of the Trinity,

in

opposition

to

the

"
"
"
"
"

Arians, and to have held the

coeternity,

consubstantiality,

and natural coequality of the

three divine Persons or
postases."

Remarks,

vol.

HyIV.

p. 278.
c
'Ho-av yap itaXai &Sa%0eVres
OeoXoyeTv rou Xpiarov, koi p$cux,$

avrov

T$fc

%opt%Etv

oiKovoiMaq,

cc tt}$

0eoT7jTO.

avOptimov,

P. 380.

IREN.EUS, A.D.185.
has been asserted, that the

It

title

Mother of God, was not given

but this

at that council,

of

>otoko$,

to the Virgin

or
till

A. D.

of Ephesus,

the time of the third council

430 d

107

a mistake.

The Fathers convened

who approved

of the use of the term,

is

them did

expressly said, that the holy Fathers before

not hesitate to use

it

who

Evagrius,

agrees with

Socrates in relating the controversy, says

word had been used by many

f
,

that the

celebrated Fathers

and John bishop of Antioch, who wrote to Nestorius upon the subject, asserts the same thing s
Socrates expressly names Eusebius and Origen as having used the term and accordingly we find it in
the Life of Constantine h and in the treatise against
Marcellus \ written by Eusebius and in Origen's
Commentaries upon Deut. xxii. 23 k and upon
Socrates says, that it was used by Origen
Luke
in the first volume of his Commentary upon the
.

Romans but the Latin

Commentary by Rutin us, which

Epistle to the
of this

See

Prsef.

gen. II. p.
e

words

tokgi; (pccvy

npo
-

Kocl

en

elq

fievpo

'

"Ot<

opOfj

ayloiq

<7Ta<ri

KVp'lOV y.'qT6p(Z.

roTq

nccrpucrtv,

dvcc

of

naaav,
airjO'/jv

Ep. ad Regin.

II. 1. p. 32.

H.

p.

39T.

The word does

not appear
the Benedictine edition of
1 740, but the fragment which
is published there, III.
p. 979in

80.

is

also published

by GallanAppend, p. 87
and
the words a-v^cpcova rS vlS

dus, IV.
I.

Concil. Hard. col.

Theodoret's words are

strong
tSj/ nd'Aai

irponaXai

that

all

III. 43.

<Tvv/j8rj$

vii ovpavov, e7v

particularly
Kcti

TOV

is

245-

@eo-

2.

Tom.

1329.

vj

Bavixu^ovTOLi niG-tzi, koci

elfteTv, ttjv

I.

koI

k&i avroiq yeyove

vj[Acov

<7U(TTeVlV T7JV

translation

Hser. Fab. IV. 12. vol. IV. p.

akriQui; aitoffivai.
f

KOM

presided at the council, has

these

enoc

Benedict, in Ori-

ii.

Cyril, bishop of Alexandria,

who

ro7q

i%

opdo^o^ov iztar^ooq

after

we are to supply rj
'EKicrd^r ccva^tav iavTYjV Tvjq nap-

(pdeyyeTai

ovataq

rrj<;

QeoroKOv Xeyovaa, aaitep

KtipvKuv Kara. t;v airo<TTo\iKr}i> itapd-

Kai 0

lodlV &OTOK0V hitjCtiidvTCCV 0V0[Aa%W,

Tcapaa-rda-eat; k. t. A.

'ludvj/vjs

t5js itplq

rov Xpiarov

108

IREN^US,

remains, does

not contain

word m

We

A.D.185.

any indication of the

have another instance of

it

being used in the

time of Constantine by Alexander bishop of Alexandria, in a letter

which he wrote

to his

namesake of

Constantinople

In the Disputation between Archelaus and

Ma-

which was held about the year 277? we find

Dei Genitrice ; and since the
work, now extant, is merely a translation from the

nes

the words Dfaria

Greek,

we may

suppose that the word SeoroKov ex-

Beausobre

isted there.

would have us believe that

Archelaus did not really use this expression, and

that

it is

beyond

an interpolation

own

his

opinion

opinion Beausobre

Dionysius,

247

is

but he assigns no reason

and upon questions of

a dangerous guide.

who was

to 264, in a

bishop of Alexandria from

work which he wrote a

short time

before his death, applies this title to the Virgin several times
V)

[AYJTYjp

<i ;

and

TOV SeOV, p.

in

one place he

265

calls

her literally

r
.

as we have seen, had already used

and even before the time of Origen, there
is reason to think that it had been adopted by Hippolytus, who flourished about the year 220 s

But Origen,

the term

It has

been thought that

existed there in

I.

5.

it

(IV. p.

466.)
n Theodoret. I.
4. p. 20.
0
Published by Dr. Routh in
the Reliquiae Sacrse. IV. p. 219.
p Hist, de Manichee, vol. I.
p.

IT.

P. 2

1 .r, 238, 240, 245, 261,

264, 274.
r
So Athanasius, in a work of
*J

which we have only a Latin

speaks of Deum
paritura Maria. De Trin. et Sp.
Sancto. vol. I. p. 974.
s
It is in a fragment preserved by G. Syncellus, Chronogr. p. 219. Part of this fragment is given in the edition of
Hippolytus referred to in this
work, I. p. 272
but not the
latter part of it, which contains
translation,

IREN/EUS, A.D.185.

109

It is not improbable, that the original

Irenaeus contained this

above, of which

Xoyov evyyyeXOvj

We
much

may

word and the passage quoted

:

we have now

may have been

tion,

observe

only a Latin transla-

kcu avry)

ovt(o$

SeoTOKog

cog

Greek of

ha

that Ignatius,

also,

rov ayyeXiKov

ovcra.

who

lived so

than any of these writers, made use of

an expression equally strong; " Our God Jesus Christ
" was conceived by Mary 1 :" and Tertullian says,
that "

"

earlier

God

womb

be born in his mother's

suffers himself to

u ."

Thus we may

trace the

same words,

perhaps the

same
in

through the following writers

idea,

though not

regular

succession,

Ignatius, Irenaeus,

Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen, Dionysius of Alex-

Alexander of Alexandria, Euseand of these we may observe, that Dionysius

andria, Archelaus,
bius

was pupil of Origen, as Origen was of Hippolytus,

and Hippolytus of Irenaeus so that we might naturally expect to meet with similar expressions in
;

their writings x

The term

SeoroKog, or

have been used by those

Mother of God, could only

who believed in the highest

was God.
That God should have been born of a woman, seems
sense of the doctrine that Jesus Christ

word

the

QeoroKo;.

It

Xpicnot;

Eph.
u

Kvo(popr,0'/i

Maptaci;.

ad

18. p. 15.

Nasci se Deus in utero pa-

titur matris.
p.

vivo

40.

De

may be

seen in Reliquiae Sacrae, II. p.

In vol. II. of Hippoly215.
tus, p 32. there is another fragment, in Latin, which contains
the word Deipara.
1
'O yap Seo<; vjiaZv 'Irjcrovq o

Patientia

c. 3.

Between the time of the

council of Nice and the coun-

of Ephesus, other Fathers

used the term SeoroKoq. e. g.
Athanas. Orat. III. c. Arian. 14.
cil

vol.1, p. 563. ib. 29. p. 579. ib.

r at. IV. 32. p.
33- P- S 8 3-

642. De Incarn. 8. p. 875. 22. p.

889. Cont. Apol. f. 4. p. 924.
12, 13. p. 932. In Psalm lxxxiv.
11. p. 1151.

IREN/EUS, A.D.185.

110

our limited faculties, that

so incomprehensible to

some other form of conveying the same sentiment

would have been chosen, if the early Fathers had
not believed that Jesus was verily and substantially
God.
felt

But being convinced

no offence

of this doctrine, they

word: they did not seek

at the

explain the mystery, but, finding

word

of God, they expressed

plied the mystery in

left

no room

it

to

in the revealed

it

by a term which im-

most inexplicable form, and

its

own

for their

belief to be

called in

question.
I

may

close this discussion

expression itself

is

by observing, that the

almost literally to be found in

the words of Elizabeth to Mary, (Luke

" Whence is this to me, that the mother

i.

43.)

of my
" Lord should come to me ?" The meaning which
Elizabeth attached to the word Lord may be seen
by comparing verses 25 and 45 of this chapter 7.
Having finished the quotations from Irenaeus, I

may

observe, that Dr. Priestley seems entirely to

have forgotten the writings of

says, that Justin Martyr

who adopted

the

is

this Father,
first

when he

Christian writer

of the permanent per7

Logos
:
by which he means, that
of
till that time the Logos was understood to mean
merely the word or power of God. But Irenaeus

sonality

the doctrine

the

evidently interpreted

the

beginning of

St.

John's

same manner that we do he repeatGospel

which proves
edly speaks of Jesus as the Logos
in the

y Athanasius appears to have

understood the words of Elizabeth in this sense, when he says
in the Life of Antony, kcu q 'laoannfit yevQfAevtjq <pyq$ itccpa ttjs

@eo-

tqkgv Mapiaq,

cV/c/o-nja-ei/

iv

ayaX-

36. vol. I. p. 824.

History of early Opinions,

Kicurei. .
z

p. 46.
places.

II.

and

in

many

other

CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS,

A.D.

Ill

194.

that he believed in the personality of the Logos

and though the writings of Irenaeus are of a

later

date than those of Justin Martyr, yet his acquaint-

ance with Polycarp, the disciple of St. John, makes

it

almost certain that the apostle used the term

Logos

in this sense.

Clemens Alexandhinus.
The name

A. D. 194.

of this Father, written at length,

Titus Flavius Clemens.

It is disputed

was a native of Alexandria

or of

was

whether he

Athens

but his

long residence in the former city has given him the

name, by which he

From

Rome.

is

distinguished from Clement of

an expression in Eusebius

a
,

he ap-

pears to have been converted at an early age from

He became

heathenism.
tical

president of the Cateche-

School of Alexandria about the year 190

and

one of his hearers there was the celebrated Origen.

Du

Pin thinks that he did not die before the year

220.

The works which have come

nearly

the

so, as

us

entire, or

the Pcedagogus, or Instructor, in

and eight books of Stromata, or MisThere is also a short treatise, which seems

Gentiles

three books
cellanies.

to

written by him, are, an Exhortation to

;

unquestionably to be

his, entitled,

What

rich

man

can he saved f Dodwell thought that all his works

were written between the years 193 and 195.
dementis Cohort, ad Gentes, c. 1. p. 6, 7.
69.
The object of this work of Clement is nearly
He wrote it, that he might
explained in the title.
persuade the different nations of the world to be-

Prsep.

Evang.

II. 2. p.

6i.

CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS,

112

lieve the

Gospel

treatise a

A.D.

194.

and he accordingly gives

summary

of

in this

that Christians believed

all

concerning the Founder of their religion.

Not

far

from the beginning of the work he has these words

"

The Word

therefore, that

is,

Christ, is the cause

" of our original being, for he was in God and he

" is also the cause of our well-being since this same
;

" Word, who is alone both God and man, hath ap" peared unto men as the cause of all good things to
" us by whom we are instructed in living well, and
:

" conducted to eternal life. For, according to the

" inspired apostle of our Lord, (Tit. ii.ll.) The grace
" of God that bringeth salvation to all men b hath
" appeared, teaching us that, denying ungodliness
"

and

ivorldly lusts,

we should

live soberly, right-

" eously,

and godly, in this present world; looking

"for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing
" of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.
" This is the new song c the appearance, which has
" now shone forth among us, of the Word who was
" in the beginning, and preexisted
the Saviour,
,

"

he hath
who was
who is in Him who is d because he is
Word who was with God the Teacher hath
before, hath appeared lately

" peared,
"

the
ap-

" peared, by
"

ap-

who

whom

also in the

all

things were

beginning gave

made the Word,

when he form;

life

" ed us, as the Creator, hath taught us to live well,

" appearing as a Teacher, that he might afterwards
" give us eternal life, as God e ."
b

I have coupled vaaiv avBpuwith o-uTvjpiot; in the translation, rather than with eVc^avTj.
c
He had before alluded to
the fabulous songs of Orpheus,

noiq

Amphion,

&c

and

invited

men

to listen to the songs of Sion.

d
See p. 80. note,
e
0

Ovjoq

(1.

alrtoq)

yovv

Koyoq

Xpia-Toq kcu tov eivai itaXai VjpSq,

\v

yap

iv

&e$' kou tov

elvar

inecpdw) ocvtipunois avroq ovrog

CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS, A. D.
have translated

194

113

this passage at length, not only

as containing such plain

and repeated

attestations of

the divinity of Christ, but on account of the quota-

from Titus

tion

in these

God as

great

ii.

words of

been

It has often

13.

St. Paul,

Jesus Christ

said, that

called the

is

well as our Saviour, though other in-

terpreters refer the expression of the great

God

The

the Father.

passage

is,

God

to

" looking for the

" glorious appearing of the great God and our

" Saviour Jesus Christ;" irpoa-leyo^voi ryv hufyavaiav
^ofyg rov peyaXov Seov kou crcorypog

rvjS

ly]aov

vjfxcvv

Xp-

In our authorized version, the words certainly

(ttov.

do not necessarily imply that our Saviour Jesus

Christ is the great God; but if we were to translate

we

them, as

are equally authorized in doing

f
,

appearing of our great God and

" Saviour Jesus Christ" it would be obvious to
every reader, that the expression great God re" the glorious

ferred to Jesus Christ

It is

much

surely not too

to say, that the reason

which Clement quotes the passage, as well as his

commentary upon it, leads us to infer, that he gave

for

He

this interpretation to the apostle's words.

who

expressly, that our Saviour,

Aoyoq,

[xovoq

cc^a, @eoq re kou

avOpaMoq, divdvTav
6av'
vqi

nap

elq

yfjuv

amoq

dyoc~

aidiov

Zffiv

e/<SiSaiXKo /x,e-

^ayv itapaTte^Ajno^eBa.

Kara, yap tov Bemeaiov

iKeivov tov

Kvptov 'AttoVtoAoj', y %dpiq tov eov

rovro ecrri to dapa to
K. r. A.
Kaivov,

cra

7}

ev

vpoovToq
o icpoav
ccv,

Aihdo-KaXoq

eTiecpdvrj,

dehrj^iovpyvjTai'

cp

Aoyoq,

to,

inupdveia

v\uuv

rj

vvv

iKhd^a-

tov ev dpy$ ovToq

AoyoV

Kcti

iite^avq he evay^oq

2aT^p* inecpdvy

oti o Aoyoq, oq

vjv

ev

tS

mpoq tov

iv

dpyfi

o-%av,

u>q

[/.era

rov

"b'fipiovpybq,

ha^ev, ini<pc6ve}q

doq

izXdcrai

to ev

is

icdvTa

kou to

ov to ev

says

has appeared,

^rjv

mapd-

Zfiv

diddarKaXoq,

ebl'Ivor.

to ae\ Zfiv vo-Tepov aq eoq xopyjy^o-r}.

f
Dr. Clarke allowed that this
construction is grammatical.
Scripture Doctrine, p. 88. N.
54i-

ovri

Sew'

&c.

See Waterland,
I

III. p. 128,

CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS,

114

God:

that if he

so

Paul to

St.

least calls

Many

call

him

A.D. 194.

did not actually understand

Jesus Christ the great God, he at

so himself.

scholars

and

biblical critics

have contended,

that the words of St. Paul ought to be translated as

and if we follow the rule which they

have given h that " when two or more personal nouns

here proposed

" of the same gender, number, and case, are con" nected by the conjunction and, if the first has the
" definite article, and the second, third, &c. have
" not \ they all relate to the same person :" we shall
be authorized in translating the following passages
of the

New Testament

so as to present the strongest

demonstration of the divinity of Christ.

Eph.

God k

v. 5. in

kingdom of

the

Christ,

who

is

also

12. according to the grace of our

God

2 Thess.

i.

and Lord Jesus Christ l

1 Tim. v. 21. before the God and Lord Jesus
Christ m
.

2 Pet.

i.

1.

through the righteousness of our God

and Saviour Jesus Christ n

h

Home's

Introduction, II.

is

quoted to prove that Christ

P-59-.
This distinction, concerning
the repetition of the definite
article, may be illustrated by a
reference to i Thess. iii. n.
aitoq Se o @eo$ kou iMTrjp ^cov kou

is

God.

Kvpioq v}[auv

'Ivjcrov^ ~Kpi<TTo<;

Kccrev-

Qvvou k. t. X.

k 'Ev
kou Qeov.

T7)

fiocoi'helq.

tov

The Homily

Xpio-Tov

in Nativ.

Christi, falsely ascribed to

Atha-

nasius, gives a various reading

not noticed by Griesbach, paaiXe/a Kvplov kou @eou, and the text

vol. II. p.

Kara,

tvjv

413-4.

yjzpw tov ov

vjfxav

kou Kvpfov 'Iqcrov 'Kpiaro'v.

'EvwTTtOV

'Irjaov

TOV 0OV KOU KvpiOV

XpKTTov.

n 'Ev SlKCtKHTVVYI TOV

@0U

kou aarypaq 'IvjaoZ Xpia-Tov.

VjfAUV

Gries-

bach gives some various readbut he does

not mention that of the Synopsis Scripture?, ascribed to Atha-

ings in this passage

nasiUS,
'I'/jcrov

iv tiKaioavvri tov Kvpiov

rj(Jt,uv

Xpiarov. vol. II. p. 129.

CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS,
Jude

A. D. 194.

115

and denying our only Master, God and

4.

Lord, Jesus Christ .

would observe

that the text, Titus

also,

very like to 2 Tim.

is

iv.

ii.

13.

where we read, " 7

1.

" charge thee therefore before God and the Lord

" Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and dead
" at his appearing?;" or, as we might translate it,

God and Lord

" before the

Jesus Christ" &c.

In this text the word appearing evidently belongs

and so we contend that it does in Titus ii.

and in each case the appearing is coupled with
the mention of God and Jesus Christ.
The word
to Christ,

13.

7ri(f>av6ia,

appearing,

Testament.

is

used

At 2 Tim.

i.

five

10.

ance of Christ in the flesh

instances

it

Ka) TOV

KOU KvplOV

means

[AOVOV

his

^0"KOTVjV

VjfAWV 'lv)<TQVV

@0J>

XptCTTOV Ctp-

where the propriety of

applying these epithets to Jesus
Christ, and not to God the Father, may be confirmed by referring to the Second Epistle of St.
Peter, which, as is well known,
closely resembles the Epistle of
St. Jude ; and in the parallel
passage of St. Peter's Epistle,
I.

Tovq

there

we

find rov ayopuo-avTa av-

Seo-7T0T>jv

can

Secr7roT5}v

be

where
no doubt that

apvovpevoi,

relates to Christ.

Atha-

nasius certainly referred ^ea-wrvyv

eov to Christ,

when he spoke

of the Jews tov leo-noT^v

apvyjcrduevoi,

ivpoa-KAivavTeq

koci

New

but in

all

the other

second appearance to judge

vovpevoi,

ii.

times in the

means the appear-

it

ov

iccvTovq

tS Bapafifip. In Psalm lxxvii. 9.

vol. I. p. 1141.
If the treatise
deCommuni Essentia Patris. Filii
et Spiritus Sancti be genuine,
Athanasius expressly quotes the

text to

prove that the Son is

God. vol. II.
It is quoted with the

the great

called
p. 16.

in the Homily in
Nativitatem Christi, which has
also been ascribed, but without
reason, to Athanasius. Ib. p. 4 13.
Epiphanius quotes the text among many others which prove
the divinity of Christ, Haer.

same intent

LXXIV. 6. vol.1, p. 894. Theodoret also evidently referred the

words great God to Christ, Haer.
Fab. V. 22. vol. IV. p. 298
300. Eusebius might be thought
when he
Speaks of the eitupoLveioiq tov cruTyjto allude to this text,

poq

rj[/.ccv

Praep.
P

Kvpiov

'Iy]<tov

XptcrTOu

^lrjcrov

Kp'iVtiV "^VVTCCq

tov

XpicrTov tov pekAovToq

KOU VKpoiq KOtTOt TT V

tmcpdveiav avTov.

tov 0eov.

Evang. II. 5. p. 69.

hwitiov tqv &eov kou

CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS,

116

the world, and

God
The words

never to

is

A. D. 194.

always applied to Jesus Christ,

the Father.

by one
of the Ante-Nicene Fathers beside Clement of Alexand the first passage rather contains an
andria
allusion to them than an express quotation.
Hippolytus, in his book de Antichristo (c. 64.) says,
66
What is left, but the appearing of our Lord and
" Saviour Jesus Christ who is God from heaven^?"
According to the argument of the Unitarians, we
should refer the word Lord here not to Jesus Christ,
but to God the Father which seems absurd, because
God is mentioned afterwards. If therefore Hippolytus meant the word Lord to refer to Christ, it is
probable that in Titus ii. 13. where the construction
is similar, he would have referred the words great
God to Christ and this probability is increased by
in Titus

ii.

13. are only quoted

his expressly applying the

In the

this place.

last

title

of

God

to Christ in

chapter of the same work he

" looking for that blessed hope

quotes the text thus
" and the appearing of our God and Saviour, at which
:

" he will raise up those of us which are holy, and

" will rejoice with them, glorifying the Father r ;"

which passage he seems undoubtedly to have intended the coming of the Son and not of the Father.

in

At

p.

261. he begins a homily with these words,

All the creations of our God and Saviour are good

" and very good s ." The Unitarians would trans-

66

T/

'lyo-ov

TtepiXeiTrtrai,

Xpi<rrov rov

vav'y vol. I. p.
r

aXV

vj

r\

rov Kvp'tov kou aaryjpoq

<pd,via,

eov

ovpoc-

ry\v

eXw/Sce kou inicpdveiciv rov

rj[Awv, iv

dyiovq "fj^uv <xvv avro7q evcppavd^cre-

tou, ofao>v Uocrepoc. p. 33.

s
Ylavrot y.ev Kizhu, kou

^ouv to. tov ov kou a-aTTipoq

31.

Upoa^xo^evQi;

Ctorrjpoq

air'

nt7][Aav

^aKo^plav

^fAiovpy^jAocra.

eov kou

p.

y dvafrr^aaq rovq

26 1.

KoCka.
r\\t>v

In Theophan.

I.

CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS,

A. D. 194.

117

" All the creations of God and our Saviour," &c.

late,

and according to the analogy of construction in Titus

13. they must refer the term Saviour to Christ

ii.

so that if Hippolytus did not here call our Saviour

God, he must at

least

have ascribed to him

$v){Aiovp-

works of creation, together with God the

would perhaps not be going too far to
say, that, except in passages which affect a point of
doctrine, no person would think of opposing the construction which I am supporting. Who for instance
would hesitate to apply the whole of the following
sentence to one and the same person, rov acoTYjpa km
or

yYjfxaTa,

Father.

Kvptov
rvjpa

It

y][ACtiv

km

'irjcrovv

Xp;orov rov Seov u or

Kvpiov YjfA&v

I.

X.

rov vlov rov

Dr. Routh, in his Reliquiae Sacrse,

has advanced

many

tyjv

Seov

Kara rov

OIKOVOfXiaV

<roo-

u.

(vol. II. p. 26.)

convincing arguments for the

construction here maintained.

dementis Cohort, ad Gentes.

70.

Shortly afterwards he quotes Phil.

c.
ii.

p. 8.

6.

"who

being in the form of God thought it not robbery

"to be equal with God," and instead of adding
66

simply, as St. Paul does, but

made himself of no

reputation, or divested himself, (which would be a

better translation of the original,) he says, " but the

" compassionate

words

it

is

God

divested himself x

said of Christ, or in other

is

;"

plain that Clement applied to

by which

God what

words he considered

Christ to be God.

Since the words in Phil.

plained
there
4

is

away by the

5-11. have been ex-

who contend

that

nothing in the passage which shews the

Euseb. Prsep. Evang.

p. 4.
u lb.

ii.

Unitarians,

I.

I.

x 'EKevooa-ev Se iavrov
{auv eo<j.

3. p. 6.

13

(piXoiKTip-

CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS,

118

A. D. 194.

divinity or preexistence of Christ, I shall bring to-

gether some of the passages in the works of the

Ante-Nicene Fathers, where allusion is made to this

and I shall undertake to prove the following
text
:

points

That they understood the whole passage to speak

of two humiliations of Christ
the first, when he
divested himself of his divinity and assumed the
;

human nature the second, when being in our human nature he became obedient to death.
;

This

With

is

the general meaning of the whole passage.

respect

to

the

several

endeavour to shew,
1
That being in the
.

parts

of

form of God

it,

shall

means, that

he was essentially and substantially God.

2.

with

That he thought

God

it

not robbery to be equal

means, that he did not tenaciously adhere

to his equality

with God

and equality means here

a real equality, not a resemblance.

3.

That he made himself of no reputation means,

that to outward appearance he emptied or divested

himself of his Godhead.

That the two clauses, he took upon him the

form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of
4.

men, should be taken together, as explaining each

other.
They should be translated, he took upon

him the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men : i. e. the form of a servant, which he
assumed, means our human nature.
5. That the exaltation, which followed his humiliation, was merely his returning to the glory which
he had before.
In shewing that the Ante-Nicene Fathers attached
this

meaning

to each of the respective clauses, I shall

CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS,
do

little

A. D. 194.

more than bring quotations from

their writ-

The

ings to establish each point separately.

119

quota-

tions will be arranged chronologically according to

the time in which each writer lived

which will

enable us to see whether the Fathers differed from

one another in their interpretations of

or whether they

same

all

this passage,

agreed in viewing

it

the

in

light.

The words being

1.

applied to Christ,

mean

in

the

form of God,

as

that he was essentially and

substantially God.

This

we have

already seen to be asserted by Cle-

ment of Alexandria, when he

this text, that

says, in allusion to

" the compassionate

God

divested

" himself."

In another place he says, speaking of Christ,

"

Instructor is like to God his Father, whose

" Son he is, without sin, irreprehensible, and with" out passion in his soul
God in the form of man,

Our

undefiled, ministering to his Father's will, God

" the Word, who is in the Father, who is on the
" right hand of the Father, and in form also
" God v."

66

of a servant must
mean that Christ was really a man, because being
in the form of God means that he was really God.
Tertullian argues, that theform

He

is

who

arguing here against the Marcionites,

allowed the divinity of Christ, but denied the reality

" The Marcionites think that
of his human body.
" the apostle supports their opinion about the suby 'Eolkej/ 6 Haidayuyoi; rjjxSv

IlaTpt

avrov

t8>

avafAccpTyjTOt;,

vlo<;

ey, ovnep

aveKihrptTO^ kou

airaOvji; rrjv y^vyflv'

(T

* aTt

7i

rS

icrrtv

apcpaj'TO?,

eo<; iv avOpvirov

TtarpiKS

pari

SiaKovoq,

Harp),
kou

t$

p.

99.

6 e/c

crj^/^a-n

deXvj-

Aoyot; eo$,

iv

rS

Se|<Sv rov Uccrpo^ <rvv

eo'<;.

Pifcd. 1. 2.

CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS,

120

A.D. 194

" stance of Christy that there was merely an appear-

ance of flesh in Christ, when he says, that being in

" the form of God, he thought it not robbery to be
<e

" equal with God, but exhausted himself, taking

" the form of a servant, not the reality : and in the
" likeness of man, not in man : and being found a
" man in figure, not in substance, i. e. not in flesh
:

" as if figure and likeness and form were not also

" parts of substance. But it is well that elsewhere

" (Col. i. 15.) he calls Christ the image of the invi" sible God: and does he here also place him as in
" the form of
<e

God ? In

the same manner Christ will

not be really God, if he was not really man,

when

" in the form of man. For reality must be excluded

" in each place, if the form and likeness and figure
" are to be ascribed to a mere appearance.
But if
" he was declared to be in the form and image, as
" being the Son of the Father, who is really God, he
" was also really found to be a man, in the image

" and form of man, as being the Son of man for he

" used the word found intentionally, i. e. most as;

" suredly a

" to be.

man

So

also

which is found, is proved

he was found to be God by his

for that

" power, as by his flesh to be

man

z ."

That Marcion himself interpreted

z

It is

not necessary to tran-

scribe this long passage in the

original,

member

The

reader will re-

not
here proving the divinity of
Christ but his humanity, and
the argument will be equally
In the
valid if we reverse it.
language of Tertullian, if Christ
is

and truly man, when

the form of man, he was also

were
in

that Tertullian

really

really

the

text of

this

and truly God, when in

adv. Marc,

form of God.

p. 486. Athanasius uses

the same argument (c. Apol.II.

V. 20.

1. vol. I. p. 940.) ao-wep y [Aopffi

tov Seov to t:'h4\pwpa rvjq tov Xoyov

Beor^roq voehcu, ovraq kou y popcpr}

hovXov, ^ voepa, rfo avQpuitwv

rov

ewxaaeas
Karaardcrei

<pv<rt<;,

alv

tSj

ouo'Aoye7ra,t.

opyaviiaj


CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS,
God descending from His

A.D.

divine nature,

121

194.
is

evident

Marwas supe-

from the following remark of Tertullian.

also

two Gods, one of whom

and Tertullian says to him, " If
" God, and indeed the higher God, lowered the
" greatness of His majesty by such humility, that
" he became subject to death, even the death of the

cion believed in

rior to the other

" cross

"

" After that the only-beHippolytus observes

" gotten Word of God, who is God of God, divested
" himself according to the scriptures, lowering him;

" self voluntarily to what he was not, and clothed

L"
" himself with this inglorious flesh

Origen, after having noticed and admired the answer of Abraham to his son, 64 God will provide

" himself a lamb for a burnt-offering" thus continues, " For the Lord himself provided a lamb for
" himself in Christ
and He himself humbled
" himself even unto death

where it is plain that

Origen considered the person who humbled himself
to be the same person who is called God by Abraham.
In another place he says " If any one therefore
;"

" despising the humility of Christ, who for our sakes

" when he was God became man, and humbled him" self even unto death
a

Si

enim Deus,

et

d ,"

quidem

&c. &c.
^w.7reo-%eTo

E Com.

in.

Gen

sublimior, tanta humilitate fasti-

II. p. 29.

gium

c
Ipse namque sibi Dominus
ovem providebat in Christo

niajestatis suae stravit, ut

etiam morti subjieeret,

cruris

b 'E-s-et^

Aoyoq,

ib. II. 27. p.

0

fy,

Kat

395.
Qeov

tov

eo; vivdpy^av ix eov,

nevaKtv eavTov
KaQtit;

[Aovoywri*;

morti

et

ide'AovTYi<;
t>jj/

Kara

ra<;

eavrov

alo^ov

/ce-

ypacpcu;,

tlq cnrep

Tavr'/jv

ovk

<rdpKa

et ipse

se

mortem, in
.

ad
Gen. Horn. VIII.

humiliavit usque

6. p. 82.
d

Si quis igitur Christi

litate

nos

contempta,

qui

humi-

propter

cum Deus esset homo

factus

CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS,

122

A. D. 194.

Speaking of the Transfiguration, he says " You

" will ask whether, when he was transfigured before
;

" those who were taken up by him to the high

" mountain, he was seen by them in the form of
" God in which he existed before since to those
:

"

who were below he had the form of a servant,

who followed him after six days to
" the high mountain, he had not that, but the form
"of God'?
66

but to those

Novatian quotes the whole passage, and has a

upon it
the form of God, he
dissertation

and

at those words, being in

"
says,
If Christ were merely a

"

man in the likeness of God, he would not have

" been spoken of as in the form of God : for we
" know that man is made after the likeness, not
" after the form of God
And he was truly said
" to be in the form of God since he himself is over
" all things, and has divine power over every crea" ture, and is God like his Father, though he ob',

" tained this from his Father, that he should be God

" and Lord of all, and God after the form of God
" the Father, begotten and produced by Him f ."

est,

et humiliavit se

mortem

usque ad
Horn. III.

464.

. i. p.
e

in Jud.
^

ZvjT^creiq Se el oVe [AereuopcpaOvj

eimpoaBev toov
tccv i$

po

vir

iv y-opcpy eov,

Kara

roi<; ,w.V

8e

ro7q

(pr]V)

pera, e

r\

virf\pyjt

ird'Aai'

wq

'l%wv t\v SouXov pop-

avrcp

aKo'kov6'ti<7a<riv

v]y,epa,<;

ovk iKetvrjv,

Matt.

avTOv uvayfiiv-

viprjXov opoq, a(p6rj ainoic,

aXka

to v\prjXov

opoq,

t\j tov &eov.

In

elq

XII.

37.

pag.

homo tantummodo

Chri-

torn.

stus,

Si

nuntiatus est Dei, dum et ipse

super omnia, et omnis creaturae
divinam obtinens potestatem, et

Deus
ipsum

est

exemplo Patris

tarn en

in

imagine

Dei, non

in

hoc

a Patre proprio

omnium et Deus
Dominus esset, et Deus
ad formam Dei patris ex ipso
consecutus, ut
esset, et

genitus atque prolatus.

558..
f

forma Dei relatus fuisset: horn inem enim scimus ad imaginem, non ad formam Dei factum
Et merito in forma pro-

nitate, c. 17. p. 717.

De Tri-

CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS,
Dionysius of Alexandria says

God

"

is

His Word, and

A.D. 194

123

" But the form

of

Wisdom is
God himself,

acknowledged

" to be the Son of God, and

being al" ways one person and one substantial person S."
In another place he says " He that endured the
" cross thought it not robbery to be equal with God,
;

who is the Word of the Father, and our Lord

" God, the Lord of hosts, who was lifted up upon
" the cross h ."
"

This same Father has a long dissertation upon

when we come

length,

more

passage, which will be given

the whole

to

at

He

quote from him.

says at p. 254, " By Christ being in the form of

" God, is meant that the Father is in His Son Christ

" the Word, and Christ in the Father

At p. 260.
" God disfigured himself, and heard the prayer of
" His suppliants, and
bowed the heavens and

He

came down (Psalm xviii. 9.) to free us, being

" as God, and Lord of glory, Jesus Christ k ."
"

The

free,

Antioch (which was

letter of the council of

held A. D. 269.) contains the following passage

" The same God and man Jesus Christ was foretold
" in the Law and the Prophets, and is believed in
:

" the whole church under heaven to be

" divested himself'from being equal with

rov eov

fiopcprj

avroq cofAoXoyqrai, kv
Ka)

de),

[/.ia

Tipocruiiov

iTtoaraaiq

uv

inpoa-uncov.

iv

Yjyvjcraro to el-

vat icra @e> 6 aravpov vTCOjxelvaq'

i<rriv

Ka)

avrov

y.ev

vloq, TjfAuv

aravpov

229.

he

v-fyooBe)q

oq

rov irarpoq Aoyoq,

@eoq Kvpioq,
Kvpioq

in)

aafiaad.

irZq 6

r Harp),

x av

."

rS

Tlarvjp iv

o iv [Aopcpri

Eavrov yap

Ka) inrjKOVcre

avrov'
Karefirj,

av,

vlS

Xpiaroq

eov virdp-

'

Ofy dpnay^ov

11

avrov XpifTToj Aoya, Ka)

209.

p.

p.

Aoyoq

avrov, Ka\ a~0(pia vioq &eov, Kai &eoq

God who

God

ccq

Ka)

Geoq eW&Smjo-e,

rvjq herjaewq

eKhivev

i^eXeadai

ruv iKerav

ovpavovq,
vipaq,

kui

iXevBepoq

eoq, Ka) Kvpioq ryq

hojj'/jq,

'kqaovq Xpiaroq.
1

avroq

Qeoq

Ka)

avdpumoq

CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS,

124

2.

yyeiotiou

three

A. D. 194.

have not met with the phrase ci>x apiray^ov

in the writings of any of the Fathers of the
centuries.

first

But

by

in the letter written

the churches of Vienna and Lyons, in which they

recount their sufferings and persecution m , there

passage which

may

is

explain the sense in which they

Speaking of their brethren,

who had been persecuted, and who though they had
understood the words.

not actually died were called martyrs, they say of

them, " They were so entirely imitators of Christ,
in the form of God thought it not
" robbe?y to be equal with God, that though they
" had attained to that glory, (of martyrdom,) and

"

who being

" not once or twice only but several times had borne
66

witness, (^aprvpYjaavreg,) yet did not call themselves

" martyrs, nor suffer us to address them under that
" name." Now since these men were literally mar-

up

tyrs or witnesses, but gave

title

and

their right to such a

in doing so considered themselves to be

imitators of Christ,

who thought

not robbery, &c.

it

they must have conceived that Christ gave up his

right to something, or laid aside something, which

he was actually in possession

in the

form of God,

of.

This was his being

or being equal with

God.

therefore understand the words he thought

it

not

robbery, he. to mean, he was not ostentatious of

this equality,
aside.

We

he acted as

may

those words of our Saviour,

shall lose

'Ivja-ovi;

kou

it.

iv

ttj

iKKhtpiq,

uev Kevaxrat; eavrov aito rov

(

it

not,

he laid

it

He that findeth his life

A person, who finds a

elvai

Icra,

@e$.

p.

473*
m Euseb. V.

I.

p.

rov ovpavov ndcrrj Treit'vnevTou

T7j vtio

eo<;

(Matt. x. 39.)

X/>7Tos itpoecpiqrevero iv vo^a

irpocpyTait;, Koci

he had

if

perhaps trace the same idea in

292.

Rel. Sacr. II.

I.

&C. Rel. Sacr.

CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS,
treasure, eagerly catches at

but our Saviour

fyaavpo'v

who

person
it

A. D. 194.

apnayplv yyehcu tov

it,

evidently speaking of a

is

clings tenaciously to his

The

even to the gospel.

125

preferring

life.,

expression

perhaps

is

taken from those places in the Old Testament, where

a man's

life

said to be given

is

for a prey:

The Septuagint

Jer. xxxviii. 2. xxxix. 18. xlv. 5.

translates

We

elg evprj^a.

cannot learn

much from

words by the Latin Fathers

der them literally as

pinam

we

the translation of the

for they generally ren-

Tertullian has non ra-

do.

existimavit esse se cequalem

Deo

pariari

e. g.

Cyprian

Non rapinam
But Rufinus,

Deo u and
,

and Novatian

both read,

arbitratus est esse se cequalem Deo.

Com-

of Origen's

in his translation

mentary on the Epistle to the Romans, says that

magni aliquid deputat
quod ipse quidem cequalis Deo, et unum cum Patre
est : i. e. he did not think it any great thing that he
was equal with God. I conceive this to be the true
meaning of the words, which had acquired a sort of
,

the words mean, non sibi

proverbial use

among

with

to

Adv. Prax. c. 7. p. 504.

Adv. Marc. V. 20. p. 486.
et de Resurrect. Carnis. c. 6.
p. 329.
P Test. II. 13. p. 290.
1 DeTrinitate, c. 17. p.
r
3

2.

'Apnaypa.

than

and

717.

Vol. IV. p. 553.

is
oftener used
apnayiMv in this phrase,

V.
c

it

has been contended that

yyeio-dai has not the

dpitayiAov

same meaning
<rQai.
But it
that

St.

as apnccypa,

ij<ye*-

is not probable
Paul would have ob-

served this distinction, and

may compare

his

ancient writers

we

expression

Christ being

"kp^ay^a

the following:

pvfiev iiroi^a-ctTO

t\

Arwhat was

'kpcTaKV}.

sace eagerly caught at

Heliod. iEthiop. VIII. 7.

said.
tov

BdvccTov

tv

hvao-efiSv

apizaypa,

Oe^evoi

poyp-qpia.^

rrj<;

thinking

death a great prize on account

of the savageness of their wicked
enemies. Euseb. H. E. VIII. 12.
olov

apnaypd

crdpevoi,

t\v

thinking

home a great

iitccvofov noir)-

their

prize, ib.

return

de vita

Const. II. 31. ./Elian uses a

milar phrase, iya
yap ryv

crvv

avrotq

t5j$

anpayiAoo-vvyv

^q-vyjiaq epocTa,

kcu

tov

si-

kou dpnda-aiy.1 ewt-

CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS,

126

A. D. 194.

by nature equal with the Father did not think highly

of this, as he would have done, if he had been raised
to such equality

from an

inferior state, but

he divested himself of

he even

which is
and is
an allusion to the pleroma or divine fulness which
St. Paul mentions, Eph. i. 23. Col. i. 19. ii. 9- I shall
therefore proceed to the third point, which was proposed to be proved for Christ's divesting himself
was a consequence of his not thinking it robbery,
i. e. not thinking it any great thing to be equal with
laid

aside

it

the proper translation of the word

it

eKtvcaaev,

God: and

if

we

can ascertain what the Fathers

understood by his divesting himself

it

will also ex-

what they understood by he thought

robbery to be equal with God.
plain

3.

it

not

Irenaeus says, that the apostles of the Gentiles

was one God, " and that

" His Word, who by nature was invisible, became
" palpable and visible among men, and humbled

had

to teach that there

" himself unto death, even the death of the cross

tyccuuv, I should think myself

very lucky if I could share their
ease and tranquillity. V. H. III.
17. Josephus has the expression,
TYjV

iKealctv

eagerly

dpvdrravreq,

catching at this entreaty.

ii.

18, to.

We

may

also

many

dignities at once.

prid. Al. Sev.

places

t.

we may

In

The Pseudo-Athanasius

these

perceive

same sense which Rufinus

the
ex-

ex-

eov kcu Seoq

Kotra^vcti

fiYjdv)

Lam-

all

ewi rrjq

aliquid depu-

plains the phrase thus

B. J.

magni

."

tare.

com-

pare the following expression

non enim aut graviin Latin
tati senatus congruebat omnia
simul deferre, aut bono principi
raptum ire tot simul dignitates.
good prince ought not to shew
a great eagerness to enjoy so
:

presses by

11

yap

<ySj?

fiovhvfieiq

0 vloq

kgu aapKccB^vai, ovk

Kctrczfiyjj/ou

tov

i<f>o-

tov d^ia^aToq'

ov

ei%ev e dpnayrjq t\v BioTt\xa,

waitep riq e%ei ivp<xy(^tx e| dpizayriq,

kcu (pofieiTai ScizoAevai avro. I con-

ceive this writer to have been

certainly mistaken in his allu-

word dpnayph, but

commentary shews that the
preexistence of Christ, as God,
was supposed to be declared in
sion to the
his

this passage.
II

Et hujus Verbum,

naturali-

CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS,
"

A.D.

127

194.

Origen observes, " That which came down among

men was in the form of God, and out of benevo-

" lence divested himself, that he might be compre" hended by men but the change was not to him
" from good to evil, for he did no sin ; nor from
:

" honour to dishonour, for he did not know sin

" from happiness did he come to unhappiness

nor

but
" he humbled himself, and yet was no less happy,
" even when he humbled himself for the benefit of
:

" mankind.
But he who healed the wounds of
" our souls by God the Word that was in him, he
" was incapable of receiving any harm.
But if the
"

Word, the immortal God, by taking a mortal body

" and soul, seems to Celsus to be changed and trans" formed, let him know, that the Word continued
" substantially the Word, nor does it suffer any of
" the things which the body and soul suffer but
" coming down once to that which was not able to
;

" look at the dazzling brightness of his divinity,

" becomes in a manner flesh, speaking corporeally,
" until he, who receives him as such, being shortly

" exalted by the Word,

" own, and

if I

may

so say, his primary form x ."

quidem invisibilem, palpabilem et visibilem in hominibus

factum, et usque ad mortem descendisse, mortem autem crucis.
ter

IV. 24.
x To

2. p.

260.
dq dvBpw-

izovq iv (*op(pfl

&eov

(pihavBpbmlav

lavrov

Xapvjdvjvat

dvBpuituv hvvi^By.

iit

ayaBov

h'

avrS

[AeTaftoXri,

TiotYj(rev'

ov

ovb

kavrov plv irccitdvao-ev, ovlh

toj> fA.aKa.ptoq

VTV(\p%e'

elq

kou hid

eKevuaev,

iva
ov

KaKOV yeyovev

dfAapriav yap ovk

Ik Kakov

yap eyvu df^aptiav'

dq

ovhe

alcry^pov,
i!j

evhai-

(Mviaq rfhQev dq KaKohaiy^oviav' aXX'

y\v>

raq tu yevei
o
Z)[A.v

he KarafiefirjKoq

h'/jirov

able to contemplate his

is

yjpccv

Oepanevuv

Aoyov

dirapdheKToq

did

avroq

&eov,

yjv'

tjt-

eavrov tranuvov.

ipav^ata.

he

kou ore avfjuptpo'v-

ruv

rov

xpv^Sv
avrcp

iv

itdat\q

KaKiaq

au^a

el he ko.)

Ovvj-

tov Kat ipvxyv dvBpaiciwp/ dva\a(3ajv

o

dBdvaroq

eoq

Aoyoq

KeXcp aKkdrieaBai
TeoBai,

ovala

{xavOaveTco

fAevcov

izdcryjei

on

Aoyoq

Aoyoq ovhev y}v

to aru^a,

KaTafiatvuw

hoKe7

h'

t3

kou ^taTikdrz-

v\

rij

Ttdc-yjzi

\pv%fl' <xvy-

eV0' ore t>

hvva-

CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS,

128

A.D.

194.

Dionysius of Alexandria says to the heretic Paul

" How can you say that Christ is
" merely a conspicuous man, and not very God,
" worshipped by every creature together with the
of Samosata

" Father and the Holy Ghost, who became incarnate

" of the blessed Virgin Mary the mother of God ?
" for he submitted for our sakes to be born of a

"

woman

whence

he submitted to suffering

also

and 1mm-

" for our sakes, having divested himself,

" bled himself unto death, even the death of the

" cross, being equal with God?" After which he
thought it not robbery to be equal with
says, "

He

" God, means

that he

was not

like those

who by

" virtue and labour, and trouble and contests, take

" the kingdom of God by force it was not thus that
" the very Christ Jesus, who was not made perfect
:

" by the exercises of virtue, gained his equality with

God but His glory covered the heavens, and
" the earth was full of His praise, and His bright-

"

" ness was as the light: (Hab. iii. 3, 4.) and he him" self who truly existed eternally in the Father bears
" witness, saying, / am the light of the world
" (John viii. IS.) i. e. Lord of the world, having in
u himself the Father and the quickening and Holy
" Spirit.
divested himself: he was not

He

f/.lvu>

avrov rdq papfAapvyaq Ka)

"ha\mpor*qva
olove)

trap!;

Setjapevoi;

r\v
vqv

Xa-

roiovrov avrov irapa-

vvy]6rj

nvpoa-Kvvov^evov

Harp) Ka)
ayiq Ylvevpari, rov crapKecBevra e/c
rvjq

dylaq

crvv

itapBevov,

avrov Ka)

yevecrdai

eK yvvaiKoc,'

uporjyov^e-

ivdOoi;

vnep

rj^oiq

v][aZv

Ka)

QeoroKOv

yap Karele^aro

&*'

Oeda-aaBai. C. Cels. IV.

oBev

Ka)

Kare^e^aro,

to

Kevco-

(raq eavrov, Ka) raneivuvac, eaq

6a-

vdrovy Bavdrov Se crravpov, l<ra Seov

^

(tv

Ka)

Krlcreooq

itaa-'fic,

Maptaq\

.15. p. 510.
y Hu<;

aXrjOwov,

ovra.

itapd

rov Ao~

vi:o

ovrooq ovo^daoo)

(Aopcpriv

rrjv

(3K{btetv t

cra>[^ariKa<;

Kara, fipayj)

[AereaptC,6[/.evoi;

(tv

Oeioryrot;

ywerai,

eaq

"kov [/.evoq,

yov

rr\q

Aeyeiq avBpcoitov

e^afperov rov Xpurrov,

Kar-

Ka) ov @eov

vxdp%i

(1.

vnapxav.) p. 2IO-II.

CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS,

A.D.

129

194.

" contained in us by leaving the Father God for" bid but I will quote to you the words of God
:

" himself, which say, / and the Father will come

" and make our abode with him, (John xiv. 23.)

" that

me.

on

believeth

Christ

who

Jesus,

" divested himself, having

in himself the Head,

" which is the Father, for the head of Christ is
" God, (1 Cor. xi. 3.) hath shewed strength with

his arm, and exalted the humble, (Luke i.

" that the Highest might be contained in them,
" might dwell in us on account of his mercy
" goodness wherewith he loved us.
This is
66

51.)

and
and

the
" divesture of the right hand of the Most High. So
" that the divesture does not imply his change God
" forbid but a renovation to us by his divesture,
:

" which he who divested himself gave to us. The

" Holy Spirit which was poured out on all flesh
" remains full as does the holy and vivifying blood,
:

"

which was shed from the depth of the divine

side

" Jesus Christ who divested himself continues full,

" who poured out the incorruptible blood he con" tinues to live, who poured out his blood which
:

" gives us
z

z ."

life

P. 254- 0^% dpi:ay\Kov k.t.X.

rovro

on

Xeyei,

Kadditep

ov

novav kou

dper^q kou

ot

di'

OXiipecev kou

dyavccv dp-KaCpvai r\v (3acriXeiay rov

eov

ovraq

oz5%

novoiq

ov

'Irjcrovq,

eKephocve

ro

roq

av

Xptaroq

QeS.

dXX'

kou paprvpei av-

del VTtdp%av

dXrfiaq

icra

elvai

KoiXv\pev k. r. X.

dperyq reXeiaBeiq

iv

ra

warpi, Xeyav, iya dpi ro <pwq rov

KocrjAov'

e%wv

iv

X^aoicoiov

oq

i&ri

eavrS)

kou

deo-TroTYjq

rov izarepa

Kvpiov

eavrov iKevacrev

nuv rov narf.pa,

rov Koapov,

kou to

Ylvevpa'
p.

255-

dXX'
ov Xi-

i^copr^Brj iv v)[MV' pv)

dXX*

yevoiro'

avrov

irapao-ryjcro.) cjxovyv,

Kai
p.

o irarrjp

256.

rov

iXevaopeBa

iavrS

k. t. X.

ino'iycre

Kpdroq

avroiq

p'/}6rj

iv

K'/jo-yj

iv v)[mv Sta

ry)v KecpaXrjv

yap

rov irarepa, Kecpa'Ay

vxpio-roq,

v\pl<rrov'
7T7jv
y)f/.Tv

avra

v)

Kevoxnq

Sa-re ovv

koi ivoi-

r\v avrov (piXavr

avry]

yipicrrov 6

k. t. X. Iva

Bpamiav Kai dya6or /jra,

vjfAaq'

o~oi

on iya

Kevao-aq avrov 'Xpiaroq

'Irjaovq, ey^av iv

eoq,

Seov

Xlyovaav,

7)

riydnvjcrev

rv)q detjidq

rov

Kevaaiq ov rpo-

<T'/]paivei, py)

yevoiro, dXX*

avaKaivio~fMV hid ryq Kevacreaq

avrov,

v)q

iyjxp\aaro y)[Mv

Kevaxraq

CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS,

130

A. D. 194.

Peter of Alexandria says, " The Word was made

" flesh by the Will of God, and being found in

"fashion as a man was not bereft of his divinity.

" For this was not done that he who was rich, by
" becoming poor, might give up his power and
" glory but that he might submit to death for us
" sinners a ."
;

After these quotations, I cannot help noticing the

following assertion of Dr. Priestley,

who

tells

us,

" That Christ emptied himself of his former glory

" and power, and did not sustain the world during
" his abode on earth, is quite a modern opinion
" and on that account only can never be received as
" the original and genuine doctrine of Christianity b ."
It would be charitable to think that Dr. Priestley
had never studied the early Fathers but his own
;

repeated assertions forbid us to justify his mistate-

ments on these grounds.

4. We might think that Tatian alluded to this
text, and conceived the form of a servant to mean
the form of man, when he says, as quoted at p. 62.

"
"
"
"

God was born

<s

that

of man"

in the form

Clement of Alexandria says, " The Word himself is a mystery revealed, God in man, and man
God
but since the flesh is a servant, as Paul
bears witness, how can any one with reason adorn
a servant ? For that the flesh is in the form of a
to

Hvevfxa

to

eavTov'

enyjeofievov

ayiov

iracrav crdpKa pevei TvXyjpeq,

kou

alpa

67ri

eKyjtQev
e/c

ayiov koi

fiuBovq Tyjq

//civet TvX^prjq b

~Xpi<TToq

to

9e'tKvjq

^aonoibv

nXevpaq'

Ktvuaaq eavTov

'lyo-cvq

iKyeaq to a<p9apT0V k. t. X.

eA^aTi @eov

yevopevoq,

Aoyoq

rvjq

uq

QeoTy-

yap

ot5Be

ho^'/jq

Ka)

iva' Tyq

hvvdueaq avrov

TeXeiaq airoary

itKovaioq uv

tov

UTayevuaq

tovto iyeveTQ' aXX'

Qdvarov

virep

d[/.apTaXav dvate^YjTai.

Yju.au

Iva.

tuv

Rel. Sacr.

TII. p. 344*
b

<rapl;

Ka) cry^^mxi evpeOe)q

avOpvnoq, ovk aneXt'Kpfr/)

Toq.
tj

I.

History of early Opinions,

p. 59*

CLEMENS ALEX ANDRXNUS,

A.D. 194

31

" servant, the apostle tells us, speaking of the Lord,

" that he divested himself] taking the form of a
" servant : he calls the outward man a servant, be" fore that the Lord became a servant, and bore our

" flesh

but

God hath

" suffered with

it

himself freed the

he hath rescued

flesh,

having

from corrup-

it

" tion, and the deadly and bitter slavery, and clothed
" it with immortality c ."

Hippolytus makes the river Jordan say, in answer

ailed thee 9 O Jordan, that
thou ivast driven back f "
saw the Creator of

What

to the question,

We

"

things in the form

all

of a servant, and not know-

" ing the mystery of the incarnation,

" back through fear d ." Hippolytus

we
is

are driven

treating of

the baptism of Christ in the river Jordan.

In another place he says, that David " wrote pro-

" phetical Psalms upon the true Christ our God, and
" evidently declared all the things which happened
" to him in his suffering from the Jews, how that
" Christ humbled himself and put on the form of
" the servant Adam e 5 " &c. And again, after quoting
c

Aoyoq yap avroq yvuT'^ptov iy-

Seoq iv dvBpaitco, Kai

<paveq,

Bpwnoq
Tvjg

@eo?'

Tvpei,

naq dv

npoayayov

on ydp

dovXov

yop(f)Yjv

in) tov

Kvpiov

(pYja-w

on

eKevaaev
tov

Xafiav'
it poor e

dv-

BepdhiKyv

to crapKiKov,
6

anoaToXoq,

eavTov yopcprjv

dovXov

eKToq

hovXov

m av, icpiv

vj

dvBpccnov

dovXevaai Kai crap-

KOipop^aai tov Kvptov'

Xuitiaya

Se <rv(ATiaBv)c;

nov,

phan.
e
iq

dcpBapcriav

TOVTO

ttj

BavaTYj-

TtepieBrjKev

(TapKi KOI

aiuy,

aitiOTfiToq

ttv

Se ditOKpiBivTa, eliv

yopcprj

c.

Hom.

2. I. p.

in

Theo-

262.

OvToq xpdXXav Tivd

irpocprjTiKvq

tov dXrjByj XpiaTov tov 0eov rjtAuv

il/.zXahrjcrev

Ta

itdvTa

XaTO,

Tvjq

avTa

1.

ndvTuv KTiaTYjv

Xlaq iXavvoyeBa.

Tyq cpBopaq koi tovXelaq

niKpaq ocnaXXd^aq,

25

oiKOvoutaq dyvorjo-avTeq, diro Tyjq dei-

tS

ku)

tov

dBavaalav.

ttjv

i. p.

dovXcv eidoyev, Kai to yv<TT^piov Tyjq

060? avToq rjXevBepacrev t\v <rdpKa'

<popov

TCptBe)q,

Paed. III.

ov<Tr\q

WavXoq yap-

Tiq eiKoTaq t\v

Koayay],

naivav

he

dovXrjq

aapKoq, KaBaq koi

did tov dyiov nvevyaToq,

VTio 'lovdaiccv eiq

avTov iv

ird&et yivoy.eva cra(pq KaT'/jyyeiiv

eavTov

a XpiTToq

Ka)

ttjv

dyiov

'Addy. ivbvadyevoq

KaX-

C. 2. II. p. 2.

yopcpyv

Twneivauaq
tov
COtlt.

dovXov

Jud.

CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS,

132

A.D.

194.

the 69th and other Psalms as spoken in the person

of Christ, he says, " Christ uttered all these prayers
" incarnately as man, being very God.
But, as I

" said before,

it

was the form of the servant, which

" said and suffered these things

Origen quotes the text, Phil.

"

f ."

ii.

6, 7,

and observes,

He

took the form of a servant, and though he was

" of an invisible nature, as being equal to the Fa" ther, he yet took a visible appearance, and was
" found in appearance as a man s." And in another
place he says, " To come, when applied to him,

" does not mean to change his place, but that he

" appeared, who before was not seen for being in" visible, by being the image of the invisible God,
:

" by taking the form of a servant, and being born,

" the Word was seen as flesh, that by appearing

" thus he might lead us by this perception to see

" also his glory, the glory of the only-begotten of
" the Father h ." And again, " The scriptures some" times call him a servant, and sometimes

Son : a
" servant^ on account of the form of a servant, and
" as of the seed of David but Son of God, on ac;

" count of his first-born essence

f

Tavta

vopiKajq

ooq
S

aktfitvoq.

Ttdvia Xpicrroq oIko-

avQpccrcoq 7jL'%eT0.>

AXX' uq (pBdaaq

."

ra

aoparoq,

Seoq av

[Aopcpvjv

elnov,

tj

elvat et/cwv

Aoyoq arap%

ravra Xeyovtra

Xeipayayrjarri

Ka) icda-^ovtra. ib. C. 4. p. 3.

s Formam namque servi ac-

Karavorjaeaq

[Aop<prj

rov tovXov \v

cepit, et

cum

naturae,

utpote

ipse invisibilis sit

sequalis

Patri,

habitum tamen visibilem susce-

Seov aopdrov,

SovXov Xa(3uv, Ka) yevopevoq

U(p9vj,

ovrco (pave)q

'lv

ypaq ia ravrt\q
elq

to

kou

ttj$

do^ay

rvjv

avrov 6edo~a<j8ai t ho^av k. t. X. in

Psalm
1

cxviii. 27. p.

At ayiai

795.

irpocpyreiai

oizov

{/.ev

dovXov, ottov Se vlov avrov dvayopev-

habitu ut

overt'

dovXov y.ev, did ryv hovXov fxop-

homo. In Gen. Horn IV. .5.

(prjv,

Ka)

pit,

et repertus

est

vlov

P- 7*-;

k To yap iX9e7v avrov

e<rr)v

apuipai,

dXX'

wporepov ov% opupevov'

ov totcov

iitupav/jvai,

vndpyjuv yap

tov

avrov dwd^iv.
p. 165.

eK

cncepparot;

Qeov, Kara,

rrjv

AajS/8"

itparoroKov

In Joan. X.

. 4.

CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS,

A. D. 194.

133

Novatian's words are perhaps the most express

"

He was

content to take the form of a servant, i.e.

" to become man and the substance of flesh and
" body
at which time also he divested himself,

" while he did not refuse to take the human weak" ness of our nature. But if he had been merely
" born as a man, he would not by that have divested
" or emptied himself for a man, when he is born,
:

"

is increased, not diminished.

For when he begins
" to be that which he could not have had when he

" was not, he is not made empty, but is rather iti" creased and enriched. But if Christ is made empty
" by being born, by taking the form of a servant,

how is he merely a man ? of whom it would be

" more correct to say, that he became rich when he
" was born, not that he became empty k ."
"

5.

The

may

explain what St.

he said of Christ, that " God

following passages

Paul meant, when

" hath highly exalted him P (Phil. ii. 9.)
Hippolytus says, " The expression grown up \
" signifies the progress of the glory naturally inhe" rent in him, and

Ut formam

contentus

nem

fuit,

ilium

fieri

its

servi susciperet

hoc

homi-

est,

et substantiam

carnis et corporis

quo tem-

pore se etiam exinanivit,

humanam
tem

return to what

dum

conditionis fragilita-

non recusavit.
homo tantummodo

suscipere

Quoniam

si

natus fuisset, per hoc exinanitus

non esset homo enim nascens
augetur, non exinanitur
nam
dum incipit esse quod, cum
non esset, habere non potuit,
ut diximus, non exinanitur, sed
potius augetur atque ditatur.
:

Ac

si

quod

it

was from

Christus exinanitur in eo

formam servi acquomodo homo tan-

nascitur,

cipiendo,

tummodo
dictum

est

fuisset

de quo verius
locupletatum il-

ium esse tunc quum nasceretur,

non exinanitum. De Trinitate,
c. 17. p.

717.
Instead of " Joseph

is a
which we
read at Gen. xlix. 22. Hippolytus translates, Joseph is a son
grown up, which he applies to
1

''fruitful

He

Christ.

bough,''

follows the

LXX.

CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS,

134

" the beginning

" Word of God,

For

who

A.D.

194.

after that the only-begotten

God

of God, divested him" self according to the scriptures, lowering himself

" voluntarily to what he was not, and clothed himis

" self with this inglorious flesh, he is afterwards said

" to be highly exalted, and receives the name which
"

above every name, according to

is

St. Paul's

words,

" as if on account of his human nature he had it

" not, and almost like a favour.
But in real truth
" it was not a gift, as of things which originally did
" not naturally belong to him very far from it it
:

" should rather be considered a returning and recur" rence to what belonged to him originally and sub" stantially, and so as not to be lost.
Therefore he
" said, when he had incarnately submitted to the
" meanness of the human nature, Father, glorify

"

me

with the glory which

I had,

&zc.

(John

xvii. 5.)

66

for he was always in divine glory, existing toge" ther with his own Father before all age and time
" and the foundation of the world m ."

Origen uses the same language in commenting

Now is the Son of man gloriand God is glorified in him" His words
The glory, which followed death for man's

upon John
"Jied,
are, "
m

'Eire&v}

vcokv eavrov Kara,

6e)q iOeXovTyjq

7ro-%T0,

Xomov

\Kolpa,

itav

Xa^dvei
Kara

ovofxa,

YiavXov

'iyjcv

Ka)

to

oil

ovk

adpKa

yjv,

yj^-

did to dv-

ydpnoq

iv

ovo/xa

to

VTcep

tov paKapiov

to)v

hotriq

rav ovk ivovruv avra

Ka-

VTrepvipov&Bou

'AaX'

(ponvrjv.

Kai to dXrfieq

elq oirep

Ka)

povovovy)

&eov KK-

ypa(j)dq,

Tavrrjv

XeyeTat kou aq ovk

Opoo-Kivov

e/c

rdq

eavrov

cctoqov

rvjv

tov eou

^ovoyevvjq

Aoyoq ebq vndpyjzv

Ka)

31. "

xiii.

tjv

to

xprifj-a

aq iv

<pvo~iK&q,

dpyjri

noX-

Xov ye Ka)

de7'

dvacpofr'/jo-iq

iv

apxy Ka)

vooito

Ka)

ovcricchaq

raq virdpyov avra.

<pa<TKev

8'

dv

Toiydproi Ka)

ryq dydpooTror/jToq to

ho^ao-ov /Ae tSj

ra

de)

thiu)

yap

do^-rj

cvvvndpyjccv

navroq aiavoq Ka)

kq<t[aov

p. 29.

iv

r\v

<Tf/.i-

Hdrep,

elyov, Ka)
ho^Tj

rd

Oeoitpeiiei

yevv/jTopi

yjpovov

KaTa(3oXyq.

to

Ka\ avwirofiXi}-

KpoirpeTteq vnohovq oiKOVopiKcoq,

i^yjq'

[/.aXXov

npoq

dvadpofAT]

itpo

Ka) ryq tov

In Gen.

II.

CLEMENS ALEX AN DRIN US,

A.D.

135

194.

" sake, did not belong to the only-begotten Word,

" who by nature cannot die, nor to Wisdom and

" Truth, and all the other divine attributes which

" are in Jesus but to the man, who was also Son
;

" of man, born of the seed of David according to

66
the flesh
It was the same, I imagine, whom

God hath highly exalted when he became obe" dient unto deaths even the death of the cross.
" For the Word, who in the beginning was God
" with God, does not admit of higher exaltation
"

" but the higher exaltation of the Son of man, which

" happened to him when he glorified God in his
" death, was not by his being different from the

" Word, but the same with it

for if he that is
" joined to the Lord is one Spirit, so that it can
;

" no longer be said of such an one and of the Spirit,

two how should we not much ra" ther say, that the human nature of Jesus became
" one with the Word, when the Word, ivho thought
" it not robbery to be equal with God, was highly
" that they are

" exalted, and yet remained in his own exaltation,

" or rather was restored to it, when he was once

God

" more with

"

man
n

?"

HXyv

Qdvarov

of<ss

crocpiaq,

elvai

rov virep avQpuTcyv

ov

rov (M) necpvKoroq

Ka) aX'/jBeiaq, Ka) oara

Xeyerai rSv iv

repav,
vloq

tiia,

^ovoyevovq Aoyov, kcu

duoBv^crKeiv

dXXd

rS

'IrjtTOv

rov avBpaitov, oq

lAaroq Aa/3i to Kara. erapKa

5

olpai koi

yoc, iv

dpyrj upoq rov

inibe-Xfirai
vnepvipooo-H;

to

God

eov eo, ovk

C

vizepvxpccdyjvai.

rov

vlov

rov

dvBpwuov

elvai

ro

Aoyov,

izoic,

rov

avBpar.ivov

vn;epvtl>a[Aevov

ovy)

"'Ivj&ov

ylv rov
ro

riyqcra^evov

e&, ^evovroq

$e iv to?

Ka) anoKaB icrra^evov

Aoyov, ore itdXiv

eat;

rov

rov Aoyov Xeyoipev yeyovevai

l^era,
ev,

avrov

rov avrov avra'

nayiAov

yap Ao-

erepov

Keri

[/.aXXov

kcu

is

avra o%d<ravri rov eov

ra eavrov Bavdru, avr'/j
fATr

Beia-

eoc, vTvepvilace

yevo^evov vh^koov k. r. X.

iv

dXXd

triteo-

ivho

yevofxevy)

dXXa

rjv

rov dvBpuTzov, yevofxevoq iK

rovrov S

Word,

and
His words are equally plain and more
the

Aoyoq

ocv

XXXII.
K 4

Joan.

Yjv

Ka)
.

dp-

lea

elvai

Iticp v-fyei,

iii

tj

avro rov

vpoq rov eov,

dvBpconot;

17. p.

446.

Iil

136

CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS,

A. D. 194.

when he says, thai " He divested

down hither, and having divested

concise

" coming
ce

himself,
himself,

he received again those things from which he

" divested himself, having divested

" tarily ."

Novatian writes thus: "

himself volun-

He received a name which

is above every name, which we understand to be

" no other than the name of God. For since it be66

" longs to God alone to be above all things, it follows,

" that that name is above every thing, which belongs
" to Him who is above all things, i. e. God
For
"

if

Christ were not also God, every knee would not

how at his name, of things in heaven, and things

" in earth, and under the earth, visible and invi-

"

nor would every created thing be subject

sible
" or inferior to a man, since they would have re66

"

membered that he before had been a man. Where" fore since Christ is said to be in the form of God,
" and is proved to have divested himself, so as to
" be born according to the flesh, and is declared to
" have received that

name from

the Father which

and all this is asserted
" to contribute to the glory of God the Father, it
" follows, that he is not only man, because he be-

66

is

above every name

" came obedient to his Father, even to the death of

" the cross; but from these very circumstances,
" which declare the divinity of Christ, he is proved
" to be the Lord Christ Jesus and
0

Kcvao-ai; eavrov

Xiv ravrcc

iKd^ave nd-

atf Sv znkvaaw

sccvtov,

Horn. I. in
Jerem. p. 129.
p Accepit enim nomen quod
est super omne nomen, quod utique non aliud intelligimus esse,
Ikcov Kev&crac, eavrov.

God p."

quam nomen

Dei.

Nam quum

Dei sit solius esse super omnia,

consequens est, ut nomen illud
sit super omne, quod est ejus, qui
super omnia

enim
stus,

est,

Dei.

Neque

non et Deus esset Chriomne se in nomine ejus gesi

CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS,

A. D. 194.

137

Methodius gives his interpretation of the text

thus " The Son of God came from the fulness of
:

" the Godhead into life

for being divested, and
" having taken the form of a servant, he was again
" fully restored to his own perfection and rank. For
:

" being diminished in himself, and dissolved in his

" own parts, he was again restored from his own

" diminution and his own parts to his own fulness
" and magnitude, never having been diminished so
" as not to be perfect

These are some of the passages in which the

Ante-Nicene Fathers allude to the text, Phil. ii. 6.
&c r and when the reader has compared them together, I would ask the simple question, whether
he thinks that the Fathers agreed with the Unita:

that " this text admits of a fair

" interpretation consistent with the proper humanity

rians in saying,

nu

coelestium,

fleeter et,

terre-

infernorum, nec visibilia aut invisibilia, aut rerum

omnium omnis creatura homini
esset subjecta sive substrata,
quse se ante hominem esse me-

strium

et

Ex quo dum

minisset.

in for-

ma Dei esse Christus dicitur, et

dum in nativitatem secundum
carnem

se

dum

exinanisse monstra-

nomen
a Patre quod sit super omne noet hoc ipmen exprimitur,
sum in gloriam Dei Patris suctur, et

id accepisse

currere asseritur,

non ex
quia

illo

rov nrX'/jpcopaToq

Patri factus

est,

est

usque ad mortem, mortem autem crucis, sed ex his etiam redivinitatem

bus superioribus
Christi
sonantibus, Dominus
Christus Jesus et Deus mon-

Tvjq

Tr;v

fAop^qv
tt}v

elq

tov

Ka\

yap

iv

roiq

eavTov

KevccBeiq

elq

yap

tov

koi

dovXov npoo-Xafioov,

kavTov

dve-nX fipaO'fj

6eoTT Toq
t

iXyXvOoToq.

(3!ov

TeXeiorrjTa

itdXiv

d^iav'

uvtos

tvjv

eavTa u^iK^vvOeiq, Ka)

pepeciv

avaXv6e\q,

iv
e/c

iavrov u^iKpoT^Toq koi tuv eav-

Tvjq

tov [AepZv

elq

tt/v

av/jLTtX^puicriv i:a-

Xiv Trjv iavrov Ka) to peyeOoq

kut-

<TT'q,

ovfienoTe tov TeXeioq elvai ueia-

Belq.

Sympos.

consequenter

tantum homo

obediens

stratur. c. 17. p. 717.

(1
elq tov vlov rov &eov, airo

p. 115.

Of thePost-Nicene Fathers,

who

have noticed this text at

any length, see Athanasius,Orat.
c. Arian. 40. vol. I. p. 444.
Epiphan. Ancor. 45. vol. II.
p. 50. Euseb. de Eccles. TheoI.

log. I. p. 94.

CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS,

138

" of Jesus Christ s ?"

text to

mean

The

A.D. 194.

Unitarians understand the

that Jesus Christ being endued with

the power of working miracles, so as to resemble

God, did not lay claim to this power as his own by

right, nor ostentatiously display it for his own advantage

and the

He

but voluntarily submitted to the labours

indignities

appeared like

was

and the punishment of a slave.

any other mortal, and at length

crucified; wherefore

God

has

rior to all former prophets, that all

condition and degree

should be taught by Jesus

Christ the worship of the true

Whether

this

made him supemankind of every

God

was the sense

in

which the Fathers

understood the passage, the quotations given above

may

serve to shew.

The

the two interpretations

is

great difference between

this

The

Unitarians un-

derstand the whole passage to relate to the conduct

of Christ while he was upon earth
that

it

speaks of two humiliations

we

one,

conceive

when

the

Son of God left the bosom of his Father, to take

the second, when,
upon him our human nature
fashion
found
in
as
a
man,
being
he submitted to
In addition to the former quodie upon the cross.
tations, I may adduce Cyprian as conceiving this to
be the general meaning of the passage, when he
;

Belsham's

Calm

Inquiry,

Improved Version

New

Testament.
Calm Inquiry, and

lation

the article to prefixed to

of

of the

Belsham's
his Trans-

St. Paul's

Epistles.

ready

actually

not

to

not chargeable with

The phrase may be
compared with that of Origen,
avBpumo$

did not peremptorily lay claim

elvai Kvpioq b o'<j.

resemblance of God. But

possessed,

which he only
made a claim. The Improved

something

Mr. Belsham's translation of the

Words ofy dpnayiAOV vjy^craTO to
Uvui la-a SeS is unquestionably
wrong. He renders them,
to this

elvai

&$ shews that this equality

was something which he alla-a

P-93-

Version

is

this error.

yeyoi/at;

ovk

aire^aXe

See N. 23

to
I

CLEMENS ALEXAND11XNUS,

A. D. 194.

139

it as one of the testimonies to prove " that

" Christ was to come humble at his first advent u ;"

brings

and

at N. 284. there will be

tion from Cyprian, which, if

found another quotait

does not expressly

allude to the present text, at least contains the

doctrine which

we

Rome

Clement of

it.

St. Paul,

who

is

same

are endeavouring to deduce from

also,

the fellow-labourer of

mentioned under that

in this

title

very Epistle to the Philippians, might be thought

to

have had the

apostle's

words

in view,

when he

" Christ belongs to the

as quoted at N. 6.
" humble minded, who do not exalt themselves over
" his flock.
Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Sceptre of

said,

" the majesty of God, did not come in the pomp of

" splendour or of pride, although he might have

" done
I

so,

but humble."

cannot conclude this long discussion better, than

by giving the meaning of the passage in the words

of Milton, who as an Arian would certainly not have
been overzealous to support the divinity of Christ.
Because thou hast, though throned in highest

Equal

to

Godlike fruition, quitted

A world from utter loss

By

bliss

God, and equally enjoying

all,

to save

and hast been found

merit more than birthright Son of God,

because in thee

Love hath abounded more than glory abounds

Therefore thy humiliation shall exalt

With

thee thy

manhood

also to this throne.

Jc?iees to thee shall bow, of them that bide

In heaven, or earth, or under earth in hell.

All

P. L. III. 305.
u

Testimon.

ret. p.

289.

II. 13.

Quod

humilis in primo adventu suo veni-

CLEMENS ALEXANDIUNUS,

140

A. D. 194.

dementis Cohort, ad Gent. c.

71.
Speaking of John the Baptist, he says,

1. p. 9.
ee

John the
" herald of the Word
exhorted them to prepare
" for the coming of God the Christ x ."
This asser-

tion of the divinity of Christ

is

very plain, since

it

evidently refers to the words spoken by John in the

wilderness

and

also enables us to illustrate

it

New

passages in the

Testament, Matt.

iii.

two
and

3.

xi. 10.

Matthew

as well as

3.

iii.

Mark

i.

and Luke

3.

thus, " Prepare ye the

4. quote Isaiah xl. 3.

way
" of the Lord, make his paths straight." In the
Hebrew it is, " Prepare ye the way of the Lord,

iii.

"
66

make

straight in the desert a

God"

God"

which, though different from the Hebrew,

with the Septuagint.

agrees
Isaiah

it is

prepared
fulfilled

way

Luke also gives the remainder of the

and all flesh shall see the salvation of

St.

quotation, "

"

God, Jehovah, for

is

" send

whom

a way is to be
make John to have
to prepare the

It follows therefore, as Cle-

in the present quotation, that

God.

other passage

is

my messenger

" prepare thy

tion

words of

these

when he came

the prophecy,

for Jesus Christ.

The

In

but the evangelists

ment says expressly

Christ

highway for our

way

from Malachi

Matt.

xi. 10.

" Behold,

before thy face, which shall

before thee."
1.

iii.

This

is

a quota-

which Clement may

also

have had in view, when he said, that " John ex" horted them to prepare for the coming of God the
" Christ."

'O

jw,ev

Aoyov ravrr}

In Malachi

^ladvvfjq

Krjpvi;

mapeKukei

it is,

rov

kroiy.ovc,

"

/ will

yivto-Qai elq

alav.

my

mes-

'Kpia'rov

napov-

send

eov rov

CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS,
" senger,
" me :" i.
before

and he

A.D.

141

194.

prepare the way before

shall

way

the messenger was to prepare the

e.

God:

for

it

God, Jehovah, who speaks,

is

All the three evangelists agree in saying

(ver. 6.)

who

shall prepare thy

before Christ

the

so that

way

before thee,

i.

e.

evangelists considered

Christ to be the same with God.

have been perplexed to account

Commentators

for the difference

between the original prophecy, as delivered by Malachi, and the words given by the three evangelists
but there seems no occasion for our trying to reconcile them. The evangelists probably quoted from
memory in this case, as they certainly did sometimes and if they had no other notion of Christ,
but that he was God, it would be indifferent to
:

them whether they represented God

as saying, be-

as speaking of himself, or before thee, as

fore me,

They

speaking of Christ.

did not intend to

make

any alteration in the words, and they knew that

they were making no alteration in the sense. Thus
the evangelists, as well as Clement,
the person, before

whom John

tell

was sent

us,

that

to prepare

a way, was God, our Saviour Jesus Christ.

72. dementis Cohort, ad Gent. c. 9. p. 72.
Having mentioned some of the exhortations in
the New Testament, by which Christ and his apostles

invited

men

to

receive the Gospel, he adds

these remarkable words

" Are you so secure, or

" rather so incredulous, and will you not be per" suaded either by the Lord himself, or by Paul,
" even when he entreats you for Christ's sake, and
" taste and see that Christ
y
Kvpla),

pjre acvra
pyre

rep

7rei8o^evoi

tS

Hav\q>, kou rain a.

is

God

y ?"

This

testi-

iwep Xpia-rov leo^vcc, yevaecrGe, kou

\dtre

on

XpicrTO

Seoq;

CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS,

142

mony

A.D.

194.

valuable, not only as giving the sentiments

is

of Clement himself concerning the divinity of Christ,

but as conveying to us the important

his opinion St.

fact, that in

Paul openly exhorted men to believe

in Christ as God.

The
xxxiv.

latter

8.

words are an evident allusion

to

Psalm

Lord

is

good

taste

and

see that the

yevuaaOe kou USere on xpvjVTOg

referred to in 1 Peter

is

ii.

3.

which passage
and we must not supKvpiog

pose that, in Clement's quotation,

Xpio-ros,

Christ,

In two other
xpv]o-To$, good, by mistake.
Clement quotes the same words, and in

put for

is

places

z
,

each he says, taste

The

and

early Christians

Lord is

see that the

were fond of

Christ.

this play

upon

the words, and of remarking, that Christus (Christ)

and Chrestus (good or meek) so nearly resembled

each other. Justin Martyr says, " As far as appears
66
from the name which is objected against us, we
" are most meek :" (y^^crroTaToi a :) and again, " we
66

are accused of being Christians but it is not right

" that what is meek should be hated h ." Tertullian
" The word Chrisalludes to the resemblance thus
:

" tian

is

derived from anointing

" pronounce the

word improperly,

" suavity or benignity

c ."

that I

"

is

"

(jtos)

am

when you

derived from

it is

d
,

" I acknowledge

a Christian, and I bear this

name which

beloved by God, hoping to be serviceable

to God."

It is probable, that

Chrestus differed very

V.

but

Theophilus makes use of

a different resemblance, and says

6e

Psed.
10. p.

Apol.

lb.

I.

6.

p.

124. Strom.

from each other as proc

tant.

685.
I. 4. p.

little

45.

(evxpvj-

Christus and

d
still

Apol. c. 3. p. 4. see LacIV. 7. p. 287,

Ad

Autol.

more

I. i. p. 338.
at length p. 345.

and

CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS,

A.D.

143

194.

nounced by the ancients and Suetonius certainly

speaks of direst us when he meant to name our Sa;

viour

e
.

Clement is Cohort, ad Gent. c. 10. p. 84.

Equally, or even more forcible, is the following
exhortation " Believe, O man, in him who is man
" and God
believe, O man, in him who suffered,
" and is worshipped, the living God
believe, ye
" that are enslaved, in him who was dead all ye
73.

"
"

men
God

who

him,

believe in

of which words

;"

it

alone of

all

men

is

only necessary to re-

is

mark, that they exclude every other interpretation

be verily and substantially

makes Jesus Christ to

God he who was man,

who

to be

or inference, but that which

and

suffered

living

died,

is

worshipped as the

God.

In the next quotation Clement again speaks of

Christ as being worshipped

and

at p. 311.

he ad-

a prayer to the Word, as to God s.

At
"
are commanded, that we
p. 851. he says,
" ought to worship and honour him, convinced that
dresses

We

" he is the Word and Saviour and Governor, and

" by him the Father, " &c. When we find Clement
11

thus expressly asserting that Christ

we

shipped,

should remember, that in

he protests against
e

Claud.

C.

25.

all

Disserta-

upon the words Christus

and ChrestUS was published by

Michael Rossal. See also Huetius Demonstr. Evang. Prop.

Kortholt. in Pagano

Y\.i<rrevaov,

ea'

nadovTi,

ccvOpuire,

nta-reva-ov,

kcu

many places
At p. 59.

5*n.

i^iarevcrare,

ol

hov'Aoi,

Tffl

veKpw' icdvreq avQpuiroi, izta-reva-ocre

fAOva
e
11

rS

'nd.vruv a>0pa>iruv eat.

Paed. III. c. ult.

'Zifieiv he heiv

eyKehevopeQa. kou

Tippv rbv airly, kou Aoyov

ccorvipd.

re avrov kou yyeuovoi elvai neurBtv-

Obtrectatore, p. 713.
kou

wor-

creature-worship.

tion

III. . 20.

to be

is

ctvOpaiza

avOpaire,

TcpocKwav^evu)

ru

ea

req,

kou

hi

Strom. VII.

avrov
J.

rov Tlarepa-

CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS,

144

A.D.194.

condemning the idolatry of the heathen, he

after

says, " I long for the Lord of the spirits, I seek after
" the Lord of the fire, the Creator of the world, God

"

who gave

sun

to the

not after the works

its light,

" of God ."

At p. 809. he says, that " the first
" commandment taught the Jews to abstain from
" the idolatry of created things, placing all their
i

" hope in

Him who was

God :" and that the

second commandment taught them " not to give the
" name of God to things that were created k ." If
Clement really held these sentiments, how could he
truly

worship Christ, and yet believe him to have been a

man

created by

We

God

have already seen,

p. 65, that

Melito also

spoke of Christ as an object of worship.

Tertullian

must

also

says, "

"

have held the same doctrine, when he

This patience of the body recommends us

when we

are praying, strengthens us

when we

" are deprecating it opens the ears of Christ our

" God 1 ." In another place he says, " The kingdom
;

and name of Christ is extended every where, is

" believed every where, is had in reverence by all
" the nations enumerated above, reigns every where,

46

"

worshipped every where m ."

is

that the cave was

still

shewn

" which Jesus was born, who

'

Toy Kvpiov

toov irvevpaTav itoQa

ra epya.
ad Gent. c. 6.
ov

tZv ye-

vvj<;

elhaXoXocrpiccq

(pepeiv to

Cohort,

jtxij&e

ivt-

peyoLh&ov Kparoq rov Qeov,

ia-Ti to ovopa.

liii

tu yevyra

Ka\ ixuraiac. Strom. VI.

6.

Haec patientia corporis precationes comniendat, depreca1

Bethlehem, " in

worshipped and ad-

tiones affirmat, haec aures Christi

Dei

aperit.

De

Patientia

c.

13. p. 147.

acpia-Tavrai

vvjTuv

oTvep

tov eov.

is

Origen observes,
at

Christi

regnum

et

nomen

ubique porrigitur, ubique creditur, ab omnibus gentibus supra

enumeratis colitur, ubique regnat, ubique adoratur. adv. Judeeos, c. 7. p. 189.


CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS,
" mired by the Christians

He

n ."

A. D. 194.

145

also asserts, that

<c

the Christians abhor worshipping any thing else

" than God who is over all, and the firstborn of
(e

who

Word

and God 0 :"

and again, " Christ is to be worshipped on account
" of the Word of God that is in him p." Cyprian
tells us, that " God the Father has commanded that
" His Son should be worshipped
Dionysius of
every creature,

is

His

Alexandria uses the very strong expressions, that

" Christ is to be worshipped by every creature with
M the Father and the Holy Spirit r :" and " that the
" multitude of the blessed spirits above worship
" Christ

s ."

fact, that

Lastly, Arnobius informs us of the

Christ " was worshipped with daily sup-

" plications V' and u worshipped in the highest de-

" gree
n 'Ej>

u ."

Tw

rovr/p

aTTTjXala

vtto

Xpieriavcov Ttpoa-Kwov/xevot; kou Bccv-

{Aa^o^voq yeyivvqrou

'lyicrovq.

Cont.

(3eiv

eKxpeito^ivccv ccKko

itapoc

rov

eiti

tqv TtpoororoKOV

<xcL<ti

Ttd<T'/]t;

ae-

eov, kou

KTiaeaq Aoyov

c. ult. p. 744.
P 'O Xp<C7T0 IZpOtTKVVYjTOi;

avrS Aoyov eov.

See also another passage from Origen at

205.
Pater Deus praecepit Filium

suum

p.

780.

"Christ:" from which he

gues, that

"in

his

ar-

time peti-

w:pocrKVVQvy.Vov

Tlov

Se

He

p.

419

npoa-Kwe?

ov

itvevfAocrav

vj

n'kyiQvq.

represents the heathens

objecting

"
"
"
"

et

Christians

the

to

Deum

fuisse

et superesse

contenditis,

adhuc

quotidianis

creditis, et

supplicationibus

adoratis." I. p. 20.
u Inficiaturos

may add

37. see also III.

This negative argu-

nddyla

nocpa.

kou

P. 244.

Opinions,

'

Aeyei,

tv dva dylav

esse,

JJocrpl,

crvv

P. 2 11.

nvev[/.a,Ti.
s

Pati-

255.

KTicrecoq

" tions to Christ were unknown

" in the public assemblies of
" Christians.
(History of early
I. p.

De bono

adorari.

entise, p.

In Ps. XC1X.

Notwithstanding
these expressions, Dr. Priestley
tells us, that " Origen, in a
" large treatise on the subject
" of prayer, urges very forcibly
" the propriety of praying to
" the Father only, and not to
5.

!)

(TYiq

TQV

by

himself.

avrov kou @eov. Contra Cels. VII.

iv

surely overthrown

is

Cels. I. 51. p. 367.

0

ment

the positive evidence of Origen

arbitramini nos

quam maxime

ilium a no-

bis coli, et praesidem nostri cor-

poris nuncupari?

I. p.

24.

We

the words of Athanasius, in a work written before

CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS,

146

A.D.

194.

These are some of the places in which the AnteNicene Fathers speak of religious worship being
paid to Christ and they surely are sufficient to de:

however
some persons may question the propriety of paying
cide the fact of such worship being paid,

We

it.

the fact

cuse

all

are at present concerned in investigating

:

and we

shall

perhaps pause before

the Fathers of the three

either not understanding the

first

centuries, of

first

Though Eu-

sebius wrote rather later than the period,

have prescribed

for this

able, as that of a

ism

is

valu-

suspected of Arian-

says, " that all nations

and he

which

work, his testimony

man who was

ac-

principles of their

them.

religion, or wilfully perverting

we

had become

dis-

" ciples of Christ, who is God, the Word, and ac" knowledge that they worship him as God x :" and
again, " wherefore we have learnt to honour, and re-

" verence, and worship him alone, as Lord, and Sa" viour, and God y. M Dr. Priestley urges it as a very
strong argument against the divinity of Christ, that he

was not worshipped by the early Christians whereas

if they had believed
z
If the examples given above have
him to be God
any weight, we may turn Dr. Priestley's argument
against himself, and conclude, that the early Chris;

they must have worshipped him,

.

tians did believe Christ to be God, because they paid

x

eov Aoyou our a rh

^^aBriKore^ aq eou npoo--

the Arian controversy arose,

probably about the year 319:
r\u [A,ev ray elftaXau heKTihaiyouiav

KvueiuavrovoiAoXoyovurai.DemOllSt,

KocTaki^Ttdvova-iv

Evang. VIII.

ol

auQpconoi,

iic)

8e

tov Xpt<rrou Karacpevyovui, kou eof

avrov npoGKvvovvreq.

46. vol.
e

I.

p.

88

De

In earn.

and again,

i^Xeva^ou itrravpayiuou,

upoa-Kvi/ova-i

"koyovureq.

rovrou

XptTrw, eov avrh

Ib. 53. p. 93-4.

%u

o[aq-

O'lnueq

Xpio-rlu

^ A<o

tea)

I. p.

377-

riy.au kcu aefitw koi

npoaKvusiu youou avrou, ola Kvpiou Kai

Toorvjpa Kai eov,

Eccles. Theol.
z

I. p.

yeyaO^Kayeu.

De

IO. p. 69.
History of early Opinions,

40, &C.

I.

CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS,
him

A.I). 194.

If the testimonies of the

religious worship.

Fathers upon this point are not thought

we have

sufficient,

the evidence even of a heathen, that the

Christians worshipped Jesus Christ.

cian,

147

who

Lu-

I allude to

lived in the second century, about the time

of Clement of Alexandria

and he says of the Chris"

tians, that they
denied the gods of the Greeks,
" and worshipped their crucified teacher, and lived
" according to his laws

a ."

Porphyry

also,

who was

such a violent opponent of Christianity, at the end

of the third century, in a

work which

is

now

lost,

quoted some oracles which had spoken favourably

of Christ, and makes this remark upon one of them
" Here it was said that he was a very religious man,
;

" and that his soul, like that of other persons, be"

came immortal after his death

" tians in their folly worship b ."

own

and

this the Chris-

We

may form

our

opinions concerning these oracles, which were

received

genuine by Porphyry

as

but that the

Christians of his day were conceived by

ship Christ,

a fact

is

him

to

wor-

which cannot be denied.

dementis Cohort, ad Gent. c. 10. p. 86.

Having appealed to the astonishing progress which
the gospel had then made in the world, as a proof
of its divine origin, he says, 66 For the Lord could
" not have accomplished so vast a work in so short
74.

" a time without divine Providence

" who in person was depised, though

" worshipped

he who was truly a

'Enedav anal TTapa^ccvreq

oi

Xpia-Tuzvoi 60vs [AV tov<; 'EkMjviKOvq

anapvyo-uvTcct,

rlv

cr^ivQv eKeTvov aocpiarTYjV

KvvuvTi, kou

Kara

fiiaari.
.

Xpiartavovc

avrav

Evange

npocr-

Peregini.

Apild

III. 6. p.

L 2

reality

%v aefieiv dvoovvraq

auao-KoXovi-

rovq iKeivov vopovq

in

Purifier, a Sa-

De Morte

the Lord,

Eus.

134*

rohq

Dem.

148

CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS,

A.D.

194.

" viour, and Placable c the divine Word, who was

" truly and most manifestly God, who was equal to
" the Lord of the universe, because he was His Son,
" and the Word was in God d ."
The expression of
;

Christ being truly God, ovtu$ Beog,

markable, because
ral places

it is

applies to

the only real God,

all

him

6eoV-

p. 112.

I. c. 5.

1.

to shew, that

is

God

as children, both in providing for us,

in teaching us.

Clement

said to be

called

is

child}

where the child that

particularly that of Isaiah ix. 6.

is

produces those

also

passages in which Jesus himself

was to be born

the more re-

the Father, styling

object of this chapter

considers us

and

God

fxovog ovrug

dementis Peedagog.

75.

The

is

one which Clement in seve-

Wonderful, Counsellor,

mighty God, the everlasting Father: after

which magnificent prophecy, 'Clement very justly
O the perfect
exclaims, " O the mighty God
" Child the Son in the Father, and the Father in
" the Son
John bears witness to this child,
" JBehold the Lamb of God! For since the scripthe

6t

ture calls infant children lambs,

Word, who was made man

it

for us,

calls God the

who was will-

" ing in all things to be like unto us, the Lamb of

" God, the Son of God, the Child of the Father f ."
c

These were three epithets

and I have endeavoured to give the meaning of
Clement, which is, that they
applied much more properly to
of Jupiter

Jesus Christ.
06 yap av
cl

vop

ovTooq iv ohlycp %po-

i%y)vvaev b

(f)povov[Avoq,

Kvpioq,

spy

oxpei

Kara-

itpocrKWOviAevoq,

KaBapo-ioq Ka) ScoTypioq Ka) MetX/-

Aoyoq,

6e7oq

ovTaq Seoq,

Aoyoq \v
e

(pavepuraroq

rS Leo-nory tuv

on \v vloq
iv tS 0eS.

okcov

avTov, koi b

i^io-a6e)q,

tq(tqvtov epyov avev Oelaq K'fiepo-

viae,

%ioq,

P. 45, 55, 60, 8i, 92, 150.

tov peyaXov ov' a tov

*Cl

TeXelov icaiblov'
iraTYjp

iv

bvo[/.a^i

vyitlovq,

Yj

via

vloq

ypa(prj

warp), Ka)

iv

ine)
Toi/q

ydp apvaq

TraThaq Tovq

tov eov tov Aoyovf tov

vjj^aq avBpcoirov

yevoptvov,

di'

Kara icdvTOt,

CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS, A.D.

dementis Pcedagog.

76.

1.

I. c. 6.

149

194.

113.

p.

In order to introduce the next example,

we may

manner in which
Clement gives

give a remarkable instance of the

the Fathers quoted from memory.

the words which were spoken from heaven at the

baptism of J esus in the following manner " Thou
;

" art

my

" thee."
(iii.

"

beloved Son, this day have

Matthew,

22.) all

Thou

art

"pleased."

(iii.

17.)

Mark,

my

begotten

11.)

and Luke

little

variation,

(i.

give the words with

beloved Son, in thee

I am

well

Clement
supplies the words of Psalm ii. 7.
Perhaps we
ought not to say in this instance that he quoted
from memory. There is good reason to suppose,
that in some MSS. the passage was read in this
way, and the Cambridge MS. actually contains this
Instead of the last clause,

Justin Martyr,

reading.

who

lived before Clement,

h

and Lactantius
Augustin expressly says, that some copies of
St. Luke read, " Thou art my Son, this day have I
66
begotten thee" though the words were not in the
older Greek MSS.
He seems to have thought it
not improbable, that the latter words were actually
spoken k
Epiphanius gives an extract from the
Gospel of the Ebionites, in which the words are said
to have been, " Thou art my beloved Son, in whom
" I am well pleased
this day have I begotten
quotes

it

so twice

as

do Methodius

*.

" thee 1 ."

Clement follows up the quotation with

rj/MV aiteiKa^ecrOai fiovXouevov,

apvov

Sympos.

these

p. 112.

KeKXvjKe tov eov, tov vlov tov ov,

tov yqiriov tov Ylc&Tpoq.

Dial,

cum Tryph.

c.

88.

De

Cons. Evang.

Hser.

p. 186. et 103. p. 198.

L 3

XXX.

II. 14.

vol. I. p.

138,

CLEMENS A LE X AN Dill NU 8,

150

words

" Let

" Christ,

who

" perfect,

or,

then

us
is

ask

A.D.

these wise

194.

people,

is

begotten again this day, already

which

is

most absurd,

is

he deficient

" if the latter, there must be something which he

" has yet to learn

<e

t(

but

it is

unreasonable that there

should be a single thing for him yet to learn, since

he is God m ." Clement accordingly concludes, that

Christ

"fect

" perfect, born of the Father

is

n :"

and yet

who

is

per-

at p. 129. he says, that he has

proved " that the Father alone

which
two statements can only be reconciled by our beand this
lieving the Father and the Son to be one
is asserted by Clement in the very next sentence,
" for the Son is in Him, and the Father in the
perfect

is

;"

Son."

Clementis Pcedagog.

77.

It is well

1.

I. c. 6. p.

118.

known, however, that the Fathers often

quoted passages of scripture from memory.

We

must not therefore always found a various reading

upon the mere authority of such quotations, if it is
not supported by other evidence.

mention

this,

because the following example contains a quotation

from

Paul, in which Clement makes a remark-

St.

able variation

from the received

he gives

thus

text.
In quoting
" Wherefore thou art

Gal.

iv. 7.

" no

more a servant, but a son ; and if a

it

son, then

an heir through God." Our received version says,

" an heir of God through Christ," Kk^povo^og Seov
Xpio-Tov, though Griesbach would merely read
66

KXv)povo(j.o$ 9

m
rov eiKoq
n

without the other words.

aXkcc itpoa^aOeiv (Av auoz5

ey,

eov ovra.

-tov Aoyov reXeiov

Ketov (pvvra rov Uarpoi;.

re-

do not wish
povov

A7re8t/|a/xev

Tehetov
e/c

avrS yap
Ylaryp.

Harepcx.

top
o

vlog,

Paed.

I.

not iv
J.

elvai

tSv oXav'

rS

vlqi

iv
6

CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS,
to contend that the copies

tained

ha

KXy}povofj.og

MSS. and some

Seov,

A. D. 194.

151

which Clement used conthough two of the best

later Fathers, support the reading

he perhaps quoted from memory

but the

way

in

which he writes the words surely proves, that he

was in the habit of considering Christ as God, and
that he thought it indifferent which term he used.
When he said, an heir through God, he certainly

mean God

did not

the Father,, for such a form of

never to be met with in the

expression

is

tament or

in the Fathers

Christ

we

New

Tes-

are heirs through

and Clement, whether he quoted from me-

mory, or made his choice between different read-

saw nothing unscriptural or extraordinary in substituting the term God for Christ.
dementis Pcsdagog. 1. 1, c. 7- p. 131.
78.
In this chapter he names some of the most celebrated tutors and instructors who are mentioned in
ancient history, and shews how defective they were
ings, certainly

many points. He then says of Jesus Christ, " But

" our Instructor, the holy God Jesus, the Word, who
" is the Leader of the whole human race, the mer-

in

" ciful

God

himself,

is

our Instructor

Clementis Pcedagog.

79.

Every page of

1.

p."

1, c. 7- p.

131.

Clement
intended Jesus Christ by the Pcedagogus, or Instructor
and yet it is equally certain, that he attributes to this Instructor many sayings and actions,
which in the Old Testament are ascribed to God.
Thus, immediately after the last quotation, he says,
this treatise shews, that

that the passage in Deut. xxxii. 10-12.

is

spoken of

him, i.e. the Instructor, or Jesus Christ, though

p

'O

Be

/][AeTpo$

ayioc, eo<j 'lycrovs, 6

Ylcutayaybq,

Trcctr^q

t%

av-

OpcoTror'/jroi; Ka,8r}y[Aoov

Koyoq, avrbq

(piXdv$pamQ<; &eo<; e<7Ti Tlaihuyayoc,

L 4

152

CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS,

A. D. 194.

He continues
is expressly spoken of Jehovah.
" Again, when he speaks in his own person, he con" fesses himself to be an Instructor, / am the Lord
" thy God, who brought thee out of the land of

it

Egypt. (Exod. xx. 2.) Who then hath power to

" lead in and out ? Is it not the Instructor ? He
" was seen by Abraham, and said to him, / am
6(
thy God, walk before me. (Gen. xvii. 1.)
But
"

"

it is Jacob.,

of

whom

" be the Instructor

66

"

he appears most evidently to

he says to him. Behold,

I am

and will keep thee in all places whither

thou goest, and will bring thee again into this

with thee,

" land ;for I will not leave thee, until I have done
" that which I have spoken to thee of. (Gen. xxviii.
" 15.) It is with him also that he is said to wrestle:
"

and Jacob was

"

man

left alone,

and

there wrestled

with him, the Instructor, until the breaking

" of the day. (Gen. xxxii. 24.)

But to shew that
" it was the Word who wrestled with Jacob, and
" the Instructor of mankind, it says, he asked him,

and said unto him, Tell me thy name : and he

" said, Wherefore is it that thou dost ask after
" my name ? (v. 29.) for he kept the new name for

"

" the
*'

new

As

people, his children.

yet

God

the

Lord was without a name % not yet having beStill further, Jacob called the name

" come man.

66

of the place, the face of God, (Penuel;) for, he

" said, / have seen God face to face, and my life
i Clement in another place
mentions it as one of the peculiar distinctions of God, that
He is avcovo[A.a<xroq, without a
name : he couples this with His

other attributes of immensity,

infinity, &c. ; and in this place

he gives the same attribute to

Christ, whom he calls God, the
Lord. Lactantius quotes a saying of Hermes Trismegistus,
eart yap
6. p. 23.

ay

a,va>vv[Aoq.

Instit. I.

CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS,
is

"

whom God

"

"

"

153

The face of God is the Word, by

made manifest and known. Then
also he was called Israel, when he saw God, the
Lord. This is God, the Word, the Instructor,
who said to him again afterwards, Fear not to go
down to Egijpt. (Gen. xlvi. 3.) r "

"

"

A. D. 194,

preserved.

is

There are two things which can hardly be de30. is speaking

nied, that Moses in Gen. xxxii. 24
of God, (Hosea says, that it was the Lord God of
Hosts, xii. 5.) and that Clement refers the same

He

transaction to Jesus Christ.

seems in fact to

have had the identity of God and Christ so firmly

impressed upon his mind, that he considered the

two terms

to be convertible,

and that whatever was

predicated of the one, belonged also to the other.

We

may

observe further, that Clement quotes the

words in Exod. xx.

own person, which

2.

as

spoken by Christ in his

refutes the

argument of the Uni-

Christ spoke in the person of God.

has been stated to be " the unanimous opin-

tarians, that

Thus

it

" ion of
66

all

antiquity, that Christ appeared

in the person of

we

see

God

from Clement,

UdXiv

trav

Xeyrj

dayuyov' 'Eyw Kvpioq

e%w,

cctyQ'/}

'Eya

tS 'Aftpadp
ei/Ai

eya

[ATo,

KCCl

Xeyei
crov

re

ovToq

eilCeV CtVTCC)

Tov

k. t. X.

evapyecrTccTct

(paiverca.

Tlq

elcrco

Uaidayuyoq ;

ov"i o

Uai-

K. T. X.

ovv eyjn e^ovalav rov dyeiv

kcci

did tov

npoo-unov, eavTov o^oXoyei

Ititov

the Father
is

'Ia-

Ylatbayooyoq elvai

yovv

k. t. X.

avra *ldov,
Tovra Se

Kai avfAitaXai'eiv Xeyerai' viteXettpBrj

he,
o

<p'/}o~}v,

Aoyoq

'fjv

ku(3, Ka)

'laKajS k. t. A.
6

dXeiTtTvjq dy.a

Uaihayayoq

T-rjq

^Oti Se

If

T'/jroq, y]paT7}<T,

and spake

But

."

not true.

we

this, as

believed

(pyah, avTov k. t. X.

yap to ovopa to kccivov tS

vea Xaa, Ta vqitia. eTi he Ka) dvoer/jpei

vopa<TToq

vjy

yeyev/jfxevoq
he tov

@eov

@eoq

Kvpioq //.vjSeW

dvBpamq
6

Aoyoq,

Ttpoaanov
o)

(pccTi^eTui o

eoq, Kai yvupl^erai. tot Ka) 'l<rparjX eTtuvopao-Tai, ore elde tov

rov Kvpiov.

Aoyoq,

Oi/Toq eo-Tiv 6

Ylaidayayoq,

Qeov

eoq, 6

(pqcraq

ainS

izdXiv varepov, [Ay (pofiov KaTaffivai

elq A'l'yvTTTOV.

'Ia-

dvBpaizo-

&c.

tcc

See Waterland,

II.

p. 24.

154

CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS,

to be so,

it

we must

A.D.

194.

necessarily allow the preexist-

we might say that he was

Father but it may be clearly proved,

ence of Christ, though

inferior to the

same words, which are ascribed in the Old

Testament to God the Father, are quoted by many
that the

early writers as spoken by Christ in his

Thus Tertullian

own

person.

words in Isaiah i. 18.

were spoken "in the person of the Lord himself 1 ;"
and he explains by the context that the Lord means
says, that the

Christ. Irenaeus also, as quoted at p. 102. says, that

" Christ with the Father spoke to Moses ;" and in
the same chapter he says, that " Christ manifested
" himself to be the God of the Fathers u ." So far

therefore from

it

being said that Christ spoke in

the person of the Father,

we

we must

conclude, unless

hold the union of the Father and the Son, that

the Father spoke in the person of the Son.

For

the writers of the Old Testament say, that

God

spake : the Ante-Nicene Fathers say, that the same

words were spoken by Christ in his own person.
80.
dementis Pcedagog. 1. 1, c. 8. p. 135.
The manner in which Clement quotes Psalm ciii.
14.

shews that he conceived the Godhead of the

Father to comprehend that of the Son.

There can

be no doubt that this Fsalm is addressed to God

Almighty every verse of it shews this and the
name Jehovah leaves no doubt and yet Clement
He says, " Here some rise up
refers it to Christ.
" and say, that the Lord is not good on account of
" his rod, and his threats, and his terror
forget:

" ting the greatness of his mercy, that for our sakes
" he became man
and indeed the prophet prays
:

Adv. Marc. IV. io.

Et

minifestavit

p.

se

420.
esse

Deum Patrum

IV.

5. 2. p.

232.

::

CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS,

A. D. 194.

155

" to him in a more familiar manner in these words,

" Remember us, that we are but dust : i. e. Have
" a fellow-feeling for us, because by thy own suffer" ings thou hast experienced the weakness of the
" flesh

Whether Clement was

com-

right or no, in thus

menting upon the Psalmist's words, is a different

question
but it seems undeniable that Clement
considered Jehovah and Christ to be one God: in:

same page, " Nohated by God, nor yet by the

" Word, for both are one, God for he says, In the
" beginning the Word was in God, and the
ord

deed he expressly says so in

" thing therefore

this

is

"

was God?"
dementis Pcedagog.
81.

1.

I. c.

In this chapter he shews that

discharged his

office

it

11. p. 155.

was Jesus who

Law and

of Instructor by the

the Prophets and at the end he says, " The divine

" Instructor is worthy to be believed, being adorned
:

" with three of the noblest things, knowledge, good" will, boldness of speech 2 with knowledge, because
;

Wisdom of the Father all Wisdom is

from the Lord, and is with Him for ever with
" boldness of speech, because he is God and Creator
" for all things were made by him, and without him
" he

the

is

66

11

'EvravOa emtpvovTal

Tiveq, ovk

ScyaOov elvai (papevoi tov Kvpiov hia

tov

tov

pa/SSoy,

jicttov
hi

Kai

airetAyv,

iKAa6o(/,evoi Se to

avTOV

ypaq

t\v

ko.)

<po(3ov

Tyjq

ccvdpccnroq

koi

St/

oiKtiortpov avTtf 6 npotp'fjTYjq itpoutv-

%eTa;,

ha

tovtuv, MvYjcrOyTi yjpZv,

oti y/Jvq ivyJv'

tovtIgti, ^vumoS'q-

<rov yfAiv, oti tt,v

aarQeveiav

Tyjq

crap-

Koq avToitaBccq li:elpacraq.

y

Oi/hev

apa

piaeiTai

vitb

aW

a[A,(pCL\

cipxfi o

tov

ovde
6

Aoyoq

f/,e-

(piXavdpconiaq, oti

iyeveTO.

@eov'

yap

v7ro

&eoq'

tov Aoyov'
oti

elntv,

ev

'Ey

k. r. A.

These three requisites are

probably borrowed from Aristotle, who names (ppwrjcriq, apeTvj
and evvoia as necessary to make
an orator believed. Rhet. II. i.
a
These words are not to be
found in the Old Testament
there is something like them in
Prov.

ii.

6.

CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS,

156
"

was not any thing made b

A.D.194.

and with good-will,

" because he alone gave himself as a sacrifice for

" us
b

We

."

must observe, that

Clement read

this passage
other of the Fathers
he put a stop after oile ev, and
like

many

coupled

many

with what folquotes it thus in so

yeyovev

He

lows.

passages, that

to specify

less

it

them

is

use-

but

in

Peed. II. 9. p. 218. he expressly

quotes 0 yeyovev ev avzS tpy yv,
as do Irenseus (I. 8, 5. p. 41.)
and the fragments of Theodotus. (ad fin. Clem. Alex. p. 968,
973.) Origen also has 0 yeyovev
iv

tS5 Aoycj

"Cfii\

(c. Cels.

Tjv.

VI.

632. and in Joan. II. 6.

The quotation in Cyprian, p. 285, might be pointed
in either way.
Epiphanius in
the fourth century objected to
the division being made after
ov %v, and proposed one which
differed from both the others
5.

p.

p. 64.)

ovtie

ev

k.t.X.

yeyoyev iv

(Ancorat.

ccvtS).

Zccy

c.

74, 75.
p. 80.) and yet in different parts
of his works he uses both the

yjv

other

modes

of

punctuation.

Chrysostom (A. D. 398.) con-

demns the ancient

heretical,

we

and

division as

expressly

says

avrw fyy
rjv. (Horn. V. in Joan. vol. VIII.
p. 35.) so that it appears to have
been between the time of Athanasius and Chrysostom that the
difference came to be noticed.
Amelius, the celebrated Platonist, who lived in the third
century, divided the passage as
the early Fathers. (Eus. Preep.
Evang. XI. 19.) Eusebius did
the same. Dem. Ev. p. 150. EcI
cles. Theol. II. 14. p. 123.
that

are to read

iv

in this passage Cle-

have not met with one excep-

mode of dividing
the sentence in any undoubted
writing of the three first cention to this

turies

and

it

may be mention-

ed, as an additional proof, that

the

work " De

recta in

is

modern

division

that

vero ovbev ev

to

the

contains

it

ainov eye-

%cop\q

yeyovev. I. p.

The same may be

Synopsis

Deum

ascribed

falsely

"fide"
Origen,

85 O.

said of the

which

Scripturce,

is

ascribed to Athanasius, and contains the

text;

modern

vol.

II.

division of this

p. 129.

whereas

Athanasius appears always to

have divided it otherwise and
also of the Sermo contra omnes
Hcereses p. 230, though in the
same treatise the words are
twice quoted without 0 yeyovev.
The Homily in Nativitatem
Christi is generally considered
spurious, and it contains the
modern division of the text
ib. p. 41 2.
Griesbach mentions
three of the oldest MSS. as connecting 0 yeyovev with what follows he might have added the
Alexandrian MS. which has a
point after ev. Wiclif s translation certainly agreed with this,
though in the edition of 18 10
it ought
it is pointed otherwise
and withouten him
to be "
:

" was maad no thing.

" thing that was maad
" was lyf. ..."
c

'A^ioTTiarToq 0 deioq

rpicri

toI?

iivKTT^ixrj,
!7T7JjW.7}

KctKhltnou;
evvolctf

in

Yla&ayooybq,
K.eK.00 [A'/j^evo^

itapprjaioc.

fteVy QTl tTGCplct

That
him

<7Ti

iiti-

TtOUT piK"1\'

CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS,

A. D. 194.

157

ment calls Jesus Christ God and the Creator : he

was not a ministering spirit, by whom the Father
created all things but he created them by himself
;

God.

as

dementis P&dagog. L

82.

This chapter

II. c. 3. p.

190.

directed against the use of costly

is

and luxurious furniture and Clement enforces his

arguments by the example of our blessed Saviour
" He ate out of a homely dish, and made his disci:

" pies
6(

the
sit down on the ground upon the grass
unpresuming God and Lord of the world washed
:

" their feet, having girded himself with a towel

Clementis Pcedagog.

83.

II. c. 8. p.

1.

d ."

214.

In pursuance of the same subject he condemns

the use of crowns, or garlands, which were generally

worn

at feasts

and

He

sacrifices.

prohibits

them

as

being an appendage to luxury or superstition, and

unworthy of

therefore

Christians.

This leads him

mention the crown of thorns which the Jews put

upon Jesus, meaning it as an insult, but in fact
to

crowning him as a King. " The people being in

" error knew not the Lord they were not circum" cised in their understanding their darkness was
:

" not enlightened

6i

the

Lord

they

they saw not

God

they denied

lost the true character of Israel

" they persecuted

" Word and him

God

e
:

they hoped to insult the

whom they crucified as a male" factor, they crowned as a king.

For this reason
:

" the Lord,

" shall

know

napp'qaiq,
[Atovpyoc,
'/][a>v

he,

they did not believe as man, they

as the merciful

on

Qelt; kou

evvolqc Se,

lepeiov

Ka*

whom

on

fjiovot;

Stj-

vTcep

lavTov iitib&uKev,

-rots

n6ccq

tvvntev avrav

and just Lord God f ."

cafidvu

Trepi^cca-d^evot; o a,TV(poq Seoi;

kcu Kvptot; rav oXav.

e
f

i.

e.

Ovk

seeing God.
eyvco tov

Kvpiov

Kobe, 6

CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS,

158

A.D. 194.

dementis Pcedagog. 1. III. c. I. p. 251.

At page 130 I have given an extract from this
chapter, which begins thus " The Word himself is
" a mystery revealed, God in man, and man God^:"
and T quote the words again, because they seem to
give some support to the received reading in 1 Tim.
84.

In our English version the passage is thus

16.
" Without controversy great is the mystery of god" liness : God was manifest in the flesh."
In the

iii.

Greek

it is o u.oXoyov[xevcog fxeya lor/

t%

to

evo-efteiag [xv-

eo$

<JTYjpioV

ecfxxvepdoQy] ev

meaning of these words

original, there can

manifested in the
it

known

is

With

aapKi.

respect to the

in the translation or in the

be no doubt.

flesh, is

who was

Jesus,

expressly called God.

But

to all biblical scholars, that there is a

difference of opinion concerning the true reading of

Instead of Seog

this passage.

manifest, some
manifest, or
If

we

sage

MSS. read
e<t>av&pwBvi,

God was

ecpavepooOy,

he who was
was manifest.

og tyavepudvj,

that which

adopt either of the latter readings, the pas-

merely

is

he who was manifest in the

this,

flesh was justified in the Spirit, he. which, though

makes an intelligible sense, certainly does not conany great mystery, which the words of St. Paul
would lead us to expect.
The question however is one altogether of testi-

it

tain

mony

we have recourse to any other

we must inquire what is the reading of
MSS. Griesbach is decisive upon this

at least before

arguments,
the oldest

ovk

uvukavfipivoc,
tov Kvpiov

^]pv'f\<xaTo'

ei'Sfv

tov 6ov.

6vj3pt^etv

rfkniae
olq

tov

eov imyvuaovTai

nov

@eoV KaAoyoV Ka) ov

ViKaiov.

elvai ^lo-parfh' idla^ev tov

io-Tavpaarev

iiziaTevcrav avQpumov, tov (pikavQpoo-

ccnokaXeKev to

KaKovpyov, ave&Teipev

uq {3a<ri\ea' ia tovto toi

elc,

''ov

ovk

8 Koyoc,
<paveq'

yap avToq

Seoq

Opuito; @eo'?.

Kvpiov,

\fJVQ-T-r\piov

iv avdpuiru),

koi

Ka)

euav-

CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS,
point

he observes, that though

read Beoc, yet

or

ingly he excludes eo$ from the text

all

159

194.

the later

all

the older read

A.D.

MSS.

and accord-

I shall

not

say any thing more as to this decision, except to

one MS. in the Bodleian library, of the

state, that

eleventh century, of which Griesbach had no notice,

confirms the reading Seo$

the

MS. which he

calls

74 Wakii 2, and which is in the library at Christ

Church, reads eo$. Griesbach had a very imperfect

MS. and states it to be of the thirThe same reading of Qelg is found

collation of this

teenth century.
in another

bishop

MS.

Wake

of the same library, which arch-

considered to be 700 years old; and

three others which appear

in

also

to

be of the

eleventh century.

The

work

object of the present

immediately to consider, what

is

leads

me more

the evidence fur-

nished by quotations of the passage in the writings

of the

Fathers.

Upon

this

part of the question

((

is not supported by
document older than the end of the
" fourth century," and that " all the Latin Fathers
" read quod." I must observe here, that in proving
the latter point, he quotes no Father who wrote
As to the Greek Faprior to the council of Nice.
"
of them very seldom
that
the
oldest
says,
thers, he

Griesbach observes, that Qeog

" any ancient

66

quote the passage

most strange, when he

God

of "

the word

but his reasoning

:"

being manifest in

God

but that

See a Critical Dissertation upon

741.

surely

because they thought that the pas-

sage applied to Christ;

is

few who speak

the flesh," may have used

says, that the

Canonici

we

this text

MS.

cannot infer

by Berriraan, Lonci.

CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS,

160

A. D. 194.

from hence, that they found eo$ in their copies

Mr. Belsham tells us k , that Beo$ is not cited by any
early Greek writer, nor by any Latin writer whatever and Dr. Clarke is quoted by him as saying,
" that all the ancient Fathers, though the copies of
" many of them have now 0eo<r, yet from the tenor
:

" of their comments must always have read

o$

or

o."

Such are the statements of those who wish to exclude Beo$ from the text the accuracy of which we
;

will

now

proceed to examine.

In conducting the investigation,

I shall

note

down

some of the places where the Ante-Nicene

Fathers have spoken of " God or Christ being ma" nifest in the flesh." In some instances we perhaps cannot decide whether they had the words of
wherever the expression is
St. Paul in view or no
in order

coupled with the mention of a mystery, the probability is increased, that

passage

they intended to quote the

God may

and though the word

not be

mentioned, yet the authority will be of value,

if

the

context shews, that Christ's coming in the flesh implied that he

had

also another

and a higher nature.

under the character of Jo"

shua Jesus was typically manifested in the flesh,
" not as the Son of man, but the Son of God \"

Barnabas

See also

work, N. 3. Ignatius speaks

born in theflesh m :" and of " God

p. 4. of this

of Jesus as "
66

says, that

God

being manifested humanly," which he reckons as

one of three mysteries, the two others being the

death of Jesus, and the virginity of his mother
k
1

Calm

Irj<rovq oz5% 6 vloq

o vloq tov
<f)a.vepo>6e(<;.

m Ev

Inquiry, p. 144.

avQpaicov

sov rvTta kou

C. 12. p.

41.

iv

oc'a'a'

crapKi

Eph.
n

C.

crapta yevo^evoq
*] .

@eov

ecq.

n.

ad

p. 13.
avBpanrtvcix;

Ib. C. 19. p. 16.

(pccvepofAevov.

CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS,

We

A.

161

194.

13.

Word

have seen that Clement speaks of " the

as

manifest, God in man :" and at

p. 812. he says, that Christ " was manifested God

" a mystery

made

es

in the flesh

"

when he came

66

God

as

."

Hippolytus observes of Christ, that

into the world, he

and man

:"

and "

when he came

God

U world, he was manifested

The

Commentary on the

(I. 4. p.

p."

Epistle to the

Dionysius of Alexandria

says, that Christ was " invisible as

visible

This

Romans,

465.) but he merely quotes manifestatus est

without any nominative.

we

into the

the body

in

passage itself appears in Rufinus' translation of

Origen's

"

was manifested

for

last

God was

God and became

manifest in the flesh

seems to be the only instance in which

can say with certainty, that the words of

Paul are expressly quoted

nor shall

pronounce whether the allusion

is

St.

venture to

sufficiently strong

in the other passages to lead us to the conclusion,

that the Fathers found Beo$- in their copies.

I must
however make two observations: 1. that when Griesbach says, that all the Latin Fathers of every century read quod, the remark is incorrectly, if not
for no Latin Father of the first
unfairly, expressed
three centuries quotes the text at all and Mr. Belsham is surely not warranted in saying, that though
some of the ancient Fathers quote the passage with
Seog, yet it appears from their comments, that they
:

(jjccvy

iv

&eo<;

o-apKia.

Strom. VI. 16.

P Ovroq

irpoeXOuv dq

rh

KoafAov

In

sion

eo<; iv era-

Oeiaq

elq kou avOpuizoq i<pavepa6rj.

Psalm
uari
I

ii.

I.

p. 268.

iifxzvepwd'/j

7. II. p. 19.

c.

he says, that St. Paul " has

" well explained the mystery of
" truth ." for the Ethiopic ver-

ix. 5.

Noetum,

He may

c.

also have

had the controverted text in

view, when, after noticing Rom.

to

instead

Tim.
9

c.

seems
iii.

have read ahrr

of evosfielaq at

16.

eo? yap

i(pccvepa6v)

Paul. Samos. p. 2

1 1.

Iv

aapA.

162

CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS,

always read

og

or

o.

A.D.194.

have no hesitation

in saying,

that in no single instance do their comments lead

2. I must observe, that
to any such conclusion.

whether the passages quoted above do or do not

allude to 1 Tim. iii. 16. it is certain that the AnteNicene Fathers, when they spoke of Jesus being
manifested in the flesh, did not merely mean that
he was really a man, but that he who was invisible
as

God became visible and manifest as man.

I may mention, that there is another variation

though unconnected with the controvert-

this place,

ed reading Beog

which

is

in

Our

efavepwdv].

the church

and ground of

translators wrote

of the living God, the pillar

And

the truth.

without contro-

Griesbach, after some commentators r,

" which is the church
divides the passage thus
" of the living God. The pillar and ground of
versy, &c.

" the truth, and without controversy great, is the

" mystery," &c.
I can see no reason for this new
punctuation

nor does the sense seem so good.

Ori-

gen quotes the words five times and in each case

he connects the pillar and ground of the truth with
This seems decisive
the church of the living God.
and Athanasius may
as to the practice of Origen
be supposed to have read the passage in the same
s

way, when he says 1

r

arvkot

Camero, Crocius, Schmidius,

H. Ursinus, &c.

This punc-

tuation was adopted in the edition of the

Greek Testament

t%

'hpovo-ahvjfjt. ol

aytoi amo-

s
C. Cels. V. 33. p. 602. in
Cant. Cant, vol. III. p. 69, 85.
in Joan. torn. X. 16. p. 184.

XXVIII.
1

4. p. 373.
lxxiv. 4. vol. I. p.

In Psalm

printed at Basle in 1540. See

a dissertation upon this subject
by Imm. Weber, in the Thesaurus Theol. Philol. attached
to the Critici Sacri, torn. II. p.

words

653.

has been ascribed

35.

may mention,

that the

are
expressly cited in the tract De
Incarnatione Verbi Dei, which
@eo<;

i(pavepa6vj k. t. X.

to

Athana-

CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS,
(jtoXoi,

Kara to

Belag.

Epiphanius

eipYjfjLevov,

and

kou e^paioofxa Trjg akff

cttv\o$

III.

1.

277.

c. 7. p.

directed against domestic luxury,

is

me

not necessary for

it is

163

194.

also divided it so u .

dementis Pcedagog.

85.

This chapter

A.D.

much

to quote

in order to explain the following

words

of

it

He who

"

" hath the Almighty God, the Word, is in want of

" nothing x ."
There is perhaps no passage in the
writings of the Fathers, where the expression Al-

mighty God, the attribute of Jehovah

is

more

We

may
At

alone,

unequivocally referred to Jesus Christ.

add other passages from Clement himself.

he speaks of Christ, as " the Almighty and

also

p. 148.

Word

" paternal
xi. 2.

At p. 547. in
for I have espoused you

I may

that

>

."

allusion to 2 Cor.

one husband,

to

present you as a chaste virgin

to

name of Christ, he
the
Almighty Godz.
husband
by
explains the one
At p. 624. he quotes Eph. iv. 11, 12. He gave some,
apostles, &c. where He evidently means Christ, who
but it is remarkable that Cleis named just before
ment begins the quotation thus " The Almighty
" God hath given
&c.
At p. 646-7. he speaks of
Christ; instead of using the

sius,

and which was

vol. II. p.

34

and

ill

vol. II.

p. 575.) there appears a plain

allusion to this text in the words,
7)

Haer.

XL.
%q

vol. I.

p.

i(pavepco8rj.

298.
Heer.

but he
6. p. 894
quotes the passage as proving
the divinity of Christ.
x 'Avei/$e7js yap 0 tov itavroKpa.Topa,

eov Aoyov

rcov

tocc,

neiOovTav,

alpeaaq [Aeriovruv,

Strom.
a

III. 12.

'Eirei

21.

Cor.

that St.
it

to

Seo<;

Strom. IV.
iv.

11.

appears
Paul himself considered
xii.

28.

it

be indifferent whether he

attributed the

or Christ.

tyj*>v.

TcavroKparcop

k. t. X.

we compare Eph.

If

with

ccvcc-

tov navTOKpccTopoi; &eov.

avToq eSc/cey

iv opcopevYj (pavepcoOyvou crapKi.

u

kou nopveveiv ccko tov evoq avtpoq

%upi$ eS/Sa|e elv dopccrov

He read
LXXIV.

Tov navTOKparopoq kgu na.rpiKQv

Aoyov. Psed. I. 9.

an anony-

mOUS work (apud Ath.

V][jt,%,$

certainly

written in the fourth century.

same

act to

God

CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS,

164

A. D. 194.

the Word as " the Almighty power and omnipotent

" WillV

These instances may answer the question proposed

by G. Clerke in his Antenicenismus, as to where it
can he found that any ancient doctor ever called
Christ by the name of God Almighty c
Dr. Clarke
rather
inclined
"Almighty
also was
to argue, that
.

6i

was by the Ancients taken

We

Father d ."

for the

have seen that the quotations from Clement contraTertullian also says, " The
dict these statements.
" names of the Father,

God Almighty, most

" &c. these

high,

Hipwe say belong also to the Son

upon those words of St. John, (Rev. i. 8.)
which is, and which was, and which is to come,
God, the Almighty, observes, " he properly calls
" Christ Almighty f :" and Cyprian applies to Christ
the words of the same book, (xix. 6.) The Lord
e ."

polytus,

God

omnipotent reigneth

Gods, that " none of

" which is the true

deed

Lactantius very pro-

s.

when arguing

perly observes,

against a plurality of

them can be
title

of

called omnipotent,

God h

he saw, as in-

:"

plain to every one, that if the Father

is

and

the Son are both omnipotent, they must be one in

mind and

ii.

kou

crcxpla,

tov Seov,

rS

8, 9-

may

ecrriv 6

oXcov

npixpopiKot;,

^pyjcrrorvji; (pavepaTccTr)

^vvan'ic,

ovti

Qela,'

tc ah itayKpar^,
ovhe

Koyovcnv a/ca-ovovjTo?,

to7<; (Art

Ql'kri^a,

opo-

nav-

Strom. V. 1.
c
See Bishop Bull's Answer
to G. Clerke, . 9. vol. VI. p.
378.
d
Scripture Doctrine of the
Trinity p. 63. and the author
TOKparopiKov.

add, that Eusebius argues

(where the

yap tov Uarpoq xav

Aoyoq, ov% cvroq

i<ai

will.

from Zech.

LXX

read Kvpios nav-

of the Modest Plea asserted the

same thing see Waterland, II.
p. 320. III. p. 1 36-8. 1 68.
:

e
Sed et nomina Patris, Deus
Omnipotens, Altissimus, Dominus Virtutum, Rex Israelis, &c.

hsec dicimus et in Filium

com-

petisse. adv. Prax. c. 17. p. 5 10.

f

a-Tov.

Kot'Aaq elnev ivavroKpdropa, Xpic.

Noet.

c. 6. II. p.

10.

Test. II. 19. p. 293.

h Epit.
Instit. c. 2. II. p 3.

CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS,
roKparoopy)

that the Father

86.

In this part of his

194.

165

and the Son are both

Almighty \
dementis Strom.

called

A.D.

II. c. 4. p.

1.

436.

Clement discourses

treatise,

very deeply and philosophically upon the nature of

He

faith.

shews that

faith,

e.

i.

a firm conviction,

goes beyond knowledge or scientific demonstration

and that we never proceed from knowledge to action,

we believe fully what has been demonstrated.
Christian faith therefore must lead to Christian obedience and if we obey Christ, it is the strongest
proof that we believe in him.
Clement's words are

unless

" To be obedient to the Word is to believe

" in him, opposing him in nothing for how is it
" possible to set ourselves against God k ?"

these

Clementis Strom.

87.

Clement quotes

and

it

is

c. 7- p.

at full length 1 Pet.

iii.

584.

14

17

remarkable, that instead of the words,

Sanctify the

Lord God

Qeov dyido-are,

tov

IV.

1.

Kvpiov tov Xpto-Tov

former instance,

in

your hearts,

Kvpiov

he has, Sanctify the Lord Christ,

dyidvaTe.
As I have observed in a
I

would not contend that the

which Clement used, actually read Xpiarov

copies,

for 0eov,

though some of the best MSS. support the reading.

If he only quoted from

memory,

Lord God

it is

evident that

and conwhich term he used. No

writer would substitute Christ for God, unless he
considered the two terms to be identical and con-

he applied the words

sidered

it

to Christ,

indifferent

vertible.
It

may

be mentioned, that the passage from St.

Dem. Evang. VI.

To

5e netdecrOai

t6. p. 281.
ra Aoya, avia

ccvTifiuivov-cci'

Tacr9a.

irac,

yap

olov

re avr-

CLEMENS ALEXANDMNUS,

166

A. D. 194.

quoted with the same alteration in another

work which is ascribed to Clement. This is a short
Commentary upon the first Epistle of St. Peter

Peter

is

which, together with Commentaries upon 1 and 2

John, and

St.

Jude,

works of Clement,

We

1007.

p.

Dominum

we

there

vero Christum sanctificate.

dementis Strom.

88.

have only a Latin

of these Commentaries, and

translation

read,

published at the end of the

is

IV.

1.

593.

c. 8. p.

In order to understand the following quotation,

is

only necessary to

who

that the God,

know

it

that Marcion maintained

created the world, was not the

same with the God who was the Father of Christ.

He considered the Demiurgus, or Creator, not to be
a good Principle.
length Coloss.

iii.

Clement, having quoted at full

12 15. which ends with- and

be ye thankful, says, " There is no reason why we

" should not often quote the same scripture, to put
44

Marcion to shame, if he can possibly be persuaded

" to change, having learnt that a believer ought to
44

be thankful to God, the Creator,

44

us,

and preached the Gospel

"body

who

has called

to us in a

[human]

1 ."

89.

Clementis Strom.

1.

IV.

c.

26. p, 640.

We have already seen, that the alterations which

Clement makes in quoting from the New Testament
shewed his own conviction of the divinity of Christ.
It is in vain to

must be

set

argue that this part of his testimony

aside, because

scripture erroneously.
as

it

We
1

goes

may

i.

e.

he

cites the

His testimony

is

words of

valid as far

with respect to his own opinions.

not be authorized, as was observed above,

'Ev^dpitrrov %e7v (/.a6ccv

rov

iti-

Kahecrai/ri

vjy.a<;,

kou

$.vot,yyzhi<Ta.y,kvcp

CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS,
in correcting the received text
tions

A.D.

194.

167

from these quota-

but he certainly believed the doctrine, which

was contained

in

the

quotations,

as he himself

memory, and
was thereby led to use expressions which differed
from those of the apostles themselves, he must have
used the expressions, because the doctrines which
they conveyed were impressed upon his own mind.
A person who quotes from memory, though he may
not give the original words exactly, will hardly
make them differ from what he considers to be the
meaning and spirit of his author and if he quote
them in support of any argument of his own, he will
If he trusted to

quotes them.

his

certainly not alter them, so as to contradict his

Though

opinions.

St.

own

Paul therefore may not have

words which Clement quotes,

Clement himself must assuredly have held the doc-

written

the

exact

which those words convey.

These remarks may be illustrated by the follow-

trine

ing example.

St. Paul, in 2 Cor. v. 8

10. has these

We

are confident, and willing rather to

be absent from the body, and to be present with

words

Lord: wherefore we labour, that, whether

present or absent, we may be accepted of him
for we must all appear before the judgment seat
the

of

Christ.

In

which passage there can be no

Lord means to

doubt, that to be present with the

be present with Christ ; and

we may be accepted of

him means, we may be accepted of

Christ.

Clement

"We

quotes the passage thus

are willing rather to
" be absent from the body, and to be present with
" God: wherefore we labour, that whether present
:

" or absent, we may be accepted of him that is, the

" one God, whose work and creation all things are,
;

CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS,

168

A.D. 194.

" the world, and the things above the world m ."

The

Codex Bezse, and another MS., and some versions

God instead of Lord.
dementis Strom. 1. V. c. 12. p. 695.
90.
The next quotation is perhaps more closely con-

read

nected with the subject of various readings.

quoting John

In

Clement makes a very remarkable variation.

Instead of, No man hath seen
God at any time: the only-begotten Son, which
is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared
Him, Clement reads, " the only-begotten God."
i.

Here, as in the

18.

last instance,

we may

observe, that

Clement, before he could have made such a substitution, must fully have believed Christ to be God.
But there has certainly been a diversity of readings
in this text from very early times
and it is not im;

probable, that Clement did not quote the only-begotten

God

merely from memory, but that he found

MSS.

it

At

p. 956. he evidently alludes to the

same text, and unites both readings, " And then

in his

bosom of the Father, whom

God the only -begotten Son hath alone declared n ."
The reading of Beo$, God, is preserved in another
work, which some have ascribed to Clement, but
which seems to have been abridged, if not written,
" shalt thou behold the

"

by Theodotus.

He

words

Beo$, the only-begotten

o fjiovoyevYjc,-

expressly says, p. 968, that the

God,

are in

the Gospel, and the context shews that he really

meant Beo$, God. Irenaeus also preserves both readIn one place
ings, and even in the same chapter .
m

evccpecrroi elvai

hA

S'/jXoj/ot;

re

Ka)

Sea,

kt'ktii;, o

ov rcc

avra, rS

navra

epyov

re Kocrpoq kou

vnepKovfJua.
n Ka) rore
em-nrevcen; rov ko'a-

nov rov

Ylctrpoi;, ov

@ec<j povot; itjyjy/jo-ciro.

(Aovoyevrji;

vtoq

Quis Dives

Salvetur? C. 37.
0
IV. 20. p. 255 and 256.

CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS,

A.D.

169

194.

he has unigenitus Filius, the only-begotten Son

and

in a third place

he quotes

difference, unigenitus Filius

Son of God

We

p.

with

it

in

God

the other, unigenitus Deus, the only-begotten

a further

still

Dei, the only-begotten

could hardly suppose that Ire-

naeus could have been so inaccurate even in the

same chapter, and the variations may perhaps have

arisen from the circumstance of the Latin translation being alone preserved.

The

works of Origen present a great

variety of readings.
In two places ^ he reads Seog,
God, and in another r some copies have Seog, some
vlog.
In vol. IV. p. 102 s Huet printed vlog Seog,
different

God

the Son, but the Benedictines give

vlog tov

Seov,

Son of God. If Rutin us translated him accurately,

he had also vlog Seov, Son qf God, in another place 1
and we also find him writing [Aovoyevyg Seog vlog tov
Seov, the only -hegotten God, Son of God
:

11

Tertullian, Hippolytus, the letter of the council

of Antioch, and the disputation of Archelaus

and

Manes, read vlog, Son. The Syriac version has Seog,

God. Of Post-Nicene writers, Eusebius appears to
have known of both readings

whole passage he writes,

Seog x

and

(xovoyevvjg

in another place

but he also quotes only

[xovoyevvjg

Seog,

vlog

et

612.

At

z
.

p.

III. ii. 6. p. 189.

In Joan. torn.

*
1

vj

^ovoyevrig
Seo'g y

Epiphanius quotes

13. p.

Haer.

LXV.

614, he speaks of Seog

vlog

fxovoyevYjg

but he appears by his commentary to

XXXII.

vlog

have united both readings.

p.

for in quoting the

II. 29. p.

4 38

89.

C. Cels. II. 71. p. 440.

In Joan. torn. VI. 2.
In Cant. Cant. IV. p. 9 1

5.

vol. I.

vlog fAovoyevyg.

u C. Cels. VII.
43. p. 725.
x
Eccles.

De

p. 67.
y P.
7

Theol.

175.

P. 86.

I.

9.

CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS,

170

At

p.

818, he expressly quotes

at vol. II. p. 7,

kitov riva

Xeyei

aXrfivov Geov.

aviov

irep)

o 'Icoavvyg,

Seog,

words

his

though

are,

Seov Hpiarov

'Iyjo-ovv

el

[xovoyevYjg, o oov k. t. A.

'lYjaovv,

next page he expressly says that

in the

194.

GeoV and

fxovoyevyg

he seems to have read

not in the present copies

it is

A.D.

St.

&g

and
John

called Christ povoyevY] Seov.

dementis Strom. 1. VI. c. 16. p. 812.

section Clement makes some rather absurd

91.

In this

remarks upon certain numbers, such as

am

and the example, which

scure from other trifling

To make

by a

intelligible

it

almost impossible.

about to give,

which

allusions

literal

I shall therefore

give the meaning of

it,

6, 7, 8,

leaving out

same sense

ob-

is

contains.

it

translation

is

only attempt to

what

unneces-

is

sary for our present subject, or paraphrasing

to give the

&c.

it

so as

He

in different words.

has

been speaking of the number 8, and adds, 44 There

H are three persons beside our Lord, when he goes
44

up into the mount

44

then

to be transfigured

there are

him, and he becomes surrounded

five beside

" with a spiritual light, having displayed his ma44

jesty to view, as far as

" by those
44

it

was

who were chosen

possible to be beheld

to see

proclaimed to be the Son of

" which makes the seventh person

44

might have

rest,

being

44

him

44

proclaimed, becoming a

44

might appear

44

his majesty,

44

who he
a

and that

Tavrri

ava^ai;

dc,

to

really
roi
opo<;

now

it

God by
;

he

is

then

the voice,

that his disciples

convinced concerning

by the birth which had been

new person, i. e. an eighth,
God in the flesh, having revealed

he,

as

reckoned as a man, but concealing

was

Kvpioq

a ."

i^TCtproc,

e/cTo? ylverai,

Kai

(pan

%piAa,[A7i:erat itvev^ocTiKS, t/jv

SiW/x^v

rvji>

aii ccvrov Tvupayv^va-

CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS,
The

A.D.194.

passage, as I observed before,

allusions

puerile in

its

Clement's

belief, as

but

much

judicious dissertation.

it

171

is sufficiently

shews the nature of

and most

as the gravest

It not only expressly says,

was God manifest in the flesh, but by

reckoning him twice over, both as number 6 and
number 8, it marks his divine and human nature
and by counting the voice as number 7, it also shews
the Father and the Son to be two persons.
dementis Strom. 1. VII. c. 2. p. 831.
92.
Having remarked that obedience should always

that Christ

follow faith, he says, that a religious

of

all

man

is

the best

earthly things, as angels are the best of

things in heaven

all

u But the most perfect, and most

" holy, the highest and most commanding, the most

" royal and beneficent nature is that of the Son,
" which is most closely connected with Him who is

" alone Almighty.

This is the greatest supremacy,
" which arranges all things according to the Will of
" the Father, and directs every thing in the best
" manner, performing every thing with an unwearied

" and inexhaustible power it is thus that it acts,

" contemplating its own hidden counsels for the
" Son of God never departs from his own watch:

" tower not divided, not separated, not changing

" from place to place, but every where at all times,
" and circumscribed nowhere, wholly intelligence,
;

" wholly paternal light, wholly eye, seeing

" hearing all things, knowing all things

all

" the whole host of angels and gods

crag,

elq

oaov

olov

opav iKXeyi7ai' cV
croy.Voq

rTjq

'iva hv> at [A6v

re

r\v

efiftofA'/jq

(pccvvjq

vloq

l$e7v

roiq

avaK'tjpvcr-

thou eov'

ctvuiravo-avTcci -neiaBiv-

Tq %ep\ avTQVs

$icc ytvicreooq, tpt

eh'qXaa-ev

7j

s^ccq

is

jxev
r\v.

coq

to

him

subject, to

iiticr^fjioq,

vitdp^av, (pavy Seoq

hvvctij.iv

things,

iv

iv^eiKVvfAevoq'

oy^oaq

aapKiu,

rrjv

apiQy.ovit.zvoc,

avBpaTtoq, Kpvinoy,evoq

8e e$

CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS,

172

A.D. 194.

" the paternal Word, who has undertaken the holy

" dispensation on account of Him, who subjected
them to him

This passage

is

rather mystical, but

ciently intelligible to

suffi-

is

it

shew the exalted notion which

the writer conceived of the divinity of the Son.

It

effectually excludes the idea of Christ being a cor-

with the essence of the Father, and ascribes to

him
him

those attributes which can only belong to God.

If

poreal or even an angelic being

identifies

it

any person should doubt what was Clement's meanwhen he spoke of Christ as the Son of God, I
would refer him to the following passage, which

ing,

shews that he understood him to be Son, not by

adoption, but by nature, begotten of the substance
"
are not as the Lord for we
of the Father.

We

" wish to be
" his master

so,

but cannot

but

it is

for

enough,

no

if

disciple is

we

above

can become as

" the master not in substance, (or essence,) for that

" which is by adoption cannot possibly be equal in
" its existence to that which is by nature ; but it is
;

" possible for us to become eternal, and to under" stand the contemplation of things, and to be called
" sons, and to see the Father only from his essential

" attributes

c ."

b TeXeiurdrvj

Kvpiardrvj

kou

kou

hrj

Kai

fiat? iXiKwr dry,

toItyi

vj

vlov (pv<riq,

kou dyiardry,

rov @eoE' ov

r\ye\^oviK(nrdrt\^

l^vo^evoq, ov {/.erafiaivuv

Kcci
vj

ra

evepyeriKa[/.ova

itavro-

Kpdropi 7r^oo-e%ecrTaTj. avrvj y /xeyia-cv) VTtepoy}}, 7) roc ndvra hiardcr<rerai

Kara

toVov,

f/.epi^o/A,evoq,

he

irdvrrj

cov

ovk diroree/c to'ttoii

itdvrore,

lUf^aiK^ nepieyfiiAevoq, oXoq vovq, oXoq

fpaq narpaov, oXoq o<p6aX[M>q, irdvra
opai/,

irdvra

aKovav,

itdvra

eihcoq

rovru viacra vnvoreraKrai crrpa-

to BeXf\\A,a rov Ylarpoq,

kou to ndv upicrra oIockI^i, aKaif.dra

rid dyyeXav re koi Beav, rS

kou arpvrcp hvvdpei ntdvra epyaCp-

rS> TtarpiKO) rr\v

//.eV/j,

hi

ivepyeT rdq dftOKpvcpovq

Ivvolaq eitifiXenvovcra. ov

ral

7tot

ryjg

avrov

yap i^iara-

nepicoizyjq o vloq

elq

Kai

Aoya

ayiav olKOVo^lav dva-

heheyfAevcp hid rov virord^avra.

c

Ovk

(3ovX6[Ae9a

eV|W,ev
jtAej/,

aq

Kvpioq,

ov hvvdy.e6a

ineihy)
'

ov-

CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS,
dementis Strom.

93.

1.

VII.

A.D.

c. 2. p.

The arguments, by which Clement

173

194.

832.

proves the

providence of God, shew also that he believed Jesus

"

The Lord either does not care

" for all men
and if not, it must be either from
" want of power, (which we cannot believe, for it
Christ to be God.
:

6f

would be a sign of weakness,) or from want of

" will, though he has the power but this would not
;

" be the case with a good being he cannot there" fore be negligent from laziness, who for our sakes
:

" took upon him flesh, which exposed him to suffer" ing or else he does care for all men which pro:

" perly belongs to him, who was made Lord of all

" things for he is the Saviour of all men, not of a
" part
Neither does envy affect the Lord, who
;

" without beginning has been free from passion

" neither can we say, that the Lord had no wish to

" save man owing to ignorance, because he did not

" know how to provide for each for ignorance does

" not affect God, who shared his Father's counsels
:

" before the foundation of the world for this was

" the Wisdom in which the Almighty God rejoiced:
" for the Son is the Power of God, being the su;

" preme Word of the Father, and His Wisdom, be" fore all existing things d ."
Se<?

yap

ixaByjTTjq

imp

tov hifido-KaXov'

apKerov e, lav yevapeOa

(TKa'Aoq, ov tear
elvcci

irpoq

cpvcrei'

to

Ictov

tw
Kai

TTjv

ocq o

$i$d-

ovalav, afivvarov

ryv vnap^tv to
Se

yap

Becrei

aiViovq ytyovevai,

tu>v ovtccv

Beapiav eyvccKe-

toV daBevtiaq yap

To ndBoq' ovkovv
0

Si'

Ti^aq

OTiep

UaTepa a%b tv

(xev, tcov '

vov.

Strorn.il. 17. p. 469.

"Htoi yap ov <ppovTi^i navToov

dvBpuitav
(A.v)

Kvpioq, Ka) tovto,

tj

tS

ZvvaaBai ndBoi av' onep ov Be^i-

TvaOyjTyv

TTjv

dva\a(3wv

% KvfieTai tuv trvpnavTccv,

Kai KaQy\Kei tS Kvpta ndvTcov

yevopeva'

//.o-

ovk dyaBov Se

into Tpvcpyjq pdBv\f.oc

adpKa'

vai, Kai vlovq irpoo-yyoptia-Bai, Ka) tov

oiKslav KaBopav

ar^K^iov' \ too

fiovXeaBai, dvvdj/.evoq'

crccTyjp
oil,

yap

itTTiv ovy)

aW

tuv

ovhe aitTt-

Tai tov Kvptov aTtaBovc, dvdpyjuc, yevotAevov (pdovoq

dyvoiaq eo"T<v
trw^eiv

Tvji/

Kai
elireTv

(avjv

fxy

ovB^ vttq

ftovXtvBai

dvBpwnoTrjTa tov Kvpiov,

CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS,

174

A.D.194.

These are the usual arguments by which the providence of God is shewn from His attributes of omniscience and omnipotence
but they are applied
:

The God, who cannot be

here to the Son.

limited

power or will, took upon him our flesh : God is

assumed to have a care for His creation, but it is the
God who shared His Father's counsels before the
foundation of the world. We may observe also, that
Clement calls the Son the Wisdom of God. This is
a common expression with the Fathers.
Clement
in

says in another place, " He is called Wisdom by all

" the prophets e ."
Irenaeus speaks of " God making

"

by the Word and by

Wisdom
Tertullian also having used the
word Wisdom explains it to mean, " the Son who
" is Christ, the Wisdom and Power of God
It
things by Himself,

all

" His

i.

e.

f ."

seems natural to suppose, that

rowed
i.

all

those writers bor-

from St. Paul, who

Power of God and

this expression

24. calls Christ the

dom of God:

in 1 Cor.

the

Wis-

Athanasius appeals to this text as prov-

Wisdom

ing Christ to be the

Syn. Nic. 15.

vol. I. p.

220

of God. (De Decret.

and the apostle seems

:)

have attached the same mysterious idea to the

word, when he says, In him are hid all the treato

sures of Wisdom and knowledge. (Col. ii. 3.) It may

be remarked also, that our Saviour says in Matt.

<a to

[Avj

elhevai

(xeX'/jTeov,

tov eov, tov vpo

cv[a^ovXov
avTri

yap \v
6

crotyia

vllq,

are

tov

irpo

ap%iKaTa,Toq

UaTpoq Ka\

crocpia

2o<^/a

Se

Uarpoc.

$ %po<rexa,ipev
'bvi/a^iq

yevopevoov

im-

Ka.Ta[3oAy)<; ko(j[aov

yevopevov

<xa,VTOKpccTojp Seoq'

eov

Ko,<ttov

oirojq

ayvola yap ov% anTerau

yap tov

navTuv tuv
Aoyoq

tov

avTov.

ovToq

eip'^rat

npoq

attavTuv ti/

Ttpocp'/jTuv.

Strom. VI.

J. p.

769
qui

i
fecit ea per semetipsum, hoc est, per Verbum et
per Sapientiam suam. II. 30. 9.

p.

63.
Prceter

Sophiam autem, praeFiiium dicit, qui est Christus,

Sophia et Virtus Dei. adv. Prax.

ter

C. 1 9. p.

5 11

CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS,

A.D.

175

194.

send unto you 'prophets, &c.

but St. Luke reports him to have said, Therefore
also said the Wisdom of God, I will send them proBehold,

xxiii. 34.

The

phets, &c. xi. 49.

passage, in which St. Paul

appears most plainly to personify Wisdom, and to

identify
I

it

with Christ,

is

perhaps 1 Cor.

8.

p. 47. that

God

to be in-

the Fathers understood the Son of

when

tended,
(iii.

ii.

have already had occasion to remark,

it

Wisdom hath founded

me in the beginHis works of old. (viii.

that lie possessed

ning of His way, before

Though

22.)

the correctness of this interpretation

might be doubted,

is

it

quite clear, that

Fathers called Christ the

meant

to express his

when

Wisdom of God,

the

they

union and con substantiality

In the same manner that the

with the Father.

Wisdom

book of Proverbs,

Lo?rl by

19.) that the

the earth

said in the

is

man

man

and yet is
not separated from him, so they meant that the Son
is not the Father, and yet is inseparable from the
It was the same idea which caused the
Father.
application of the term Logos, Reason, or Word, to
of a

is

not the

himself,

All attempts to explain the coexistence

the Son.

of the Father and the Son in

necessarily fail

no

human language must

illustration of such

hensible union can be perfect in

all its

when

is

the Fathers say that Christ

God, and that the

we
lief,

Wisdom

of

God

incompreparts

but

Wisdom of
God Himself

the

is

are at no loss to understand their religious be-

though we may find ourselves equally unable

express

pages

it

The

to

object of these

what was the belief of the early

and no one, who reads the present ex-

to prove

is

Fathers

in suitable terms.

ample, can doubt, but that they held the Father and

CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS,

176

A. D. 194.

the Son to be as inseparably connected as the soul

of

man

is

with the wisdom or intelligence which

emanates from

The

it.

reader will observe, that in

the above quotation Christ

is

said to be without be-

ginning; and in another place Clement speaks of

the Son as " the beginning and first-fruits of existing
" things, without time and without beginning

h ."

dementis Strom. 1. VII. c. 10. p. 866.

94.
Clement having described the progress of a Christian from faith to knowledge, and from knowledge
to charity, by which he means the practical exercise
of

Christian graces, quotes a passage from the

all

24th Psalm to support his observation.

The quo-

Hebrew, but agrees with the

shall ascend unto the
Who
version.
Septuagint
hill of the Lord, or who shall stand in his holy
place ? He that hath clean hands and a pure
tation differs from the

heart;

who hath

nor sworn

nity,

not lifted
to

up

his soul unto va-

deceive his neighbour.

shall receive blessing from the Lord,

from God

He

and mercy

This is the generation

of them that seek the Lord, that seek the face of
6.
Upon which words
the God of Jacob, ver. 3
Clement makes the following observations " The
his Saviour.

" prophet has given a brief description of the

" of knowledge.

David has shewn

man

to us cursorily,

" as it appears, that the Saviour is God, calling him

" the face of the God of Jacob, who has given us
" glad tidings and instructions concerning the Spi" rit wherefore also the apostle has called the Son
1

re

TV

i<a)

axpovov Kol avapxov ap%vjv

Snrapxyv rav ovroov tov

Strom. VII.
1

He

i. p.

vlov.

829.

alludes to the Epistle to

the Hebrews,

i.

3.

and we may

observe, that

Clement expressly

quotes this Epistle as the work

of St. Paul, Strom. VI. 8. p. 771.
Eusebius tells us, (H. E. VI.
14.) that

Clement conceived

it

CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS,

A. D. 194.

177

" the express image of his Father's glory, who

" hath taught us the truth concerning God; and ex-

" pressly declared that God the Father is one and

" alone, the Almighty, whom no man knoweth, save

and he

" the Son,

"

Him.

to

(Matt. xi. 27.)

whom the Son will reveal

He signifies that God is one

" by the expression, them that seek the face of the

" God of Jacob, whom our Saviour and God de" scribes as being alone good, God the Father k ."

This passage becomes more intelligible, when we

remember, that Clement calls Christ the face of the

was

was of all the

early Fathers, that whenever God was said in the
Old Testament to he seen, as he was by Jacob (Gen.
xxxii. 30.) and by Moses, (Exod. xxxiii. \\^)face to
face, it was not God the Father, but God the Son,
who appeared and thus they called the Son the
face of the Father, or that form under which he
Father.

It

his opinion, as it

chose to reveal himself to

man

Thus

]
.

in the pas-

sage already quoted, at p. 153. he says, " The face

" of God is the Word, by whom God is made mani" fest and known :" and in another place, " The Son

to have
in

been written by

St.

Paul

Hebrew, and translated by

Luke. According to Photius,

(Cod. i2i.) Irenseus did not
think that it was written by St.
but
Paul; nor did Hippolytus
we find no such observation in
the works of those Fathers now
St.

Tertullian says that

extant.

it

not ascribe
phan. Hser.

LXIX.

2w/T0|C/,6>,

ifA'fjvvaev

hpo^rjv,

&q eoiKev,

20.

The

Arians did

vjfMV

yVCCCTTlKOV

Seov

elvai rov

A/3i, irpoauntov

avrbv eiTC&v

eov

'laKcofi,

rov

evayyehiaa^evov Kai ^ihd^avra

irep)

rov

&QV

p,

I.

Kara, napa-

<ruTYipa a7reetey

rov itvev^aroi;

vol. I.

0l[ACtl, TOJ/

Hpo<p'/}TVj<;'

Pudicitia, c. 20. p. 572.) Origen

quotes it as the work of St= Paul,

Epi-

37. vol.

p. 760.

was written by Barnabas, (de

and wrote a treatise to prove that

it was so
see Epist. ad Afric.

to St. Paul.

it

eW

elvai rov

TlSv ^'/JTClWTWV TO TtpOVCCTlOV

Side,

rov eov 'laKafi fAe^vvrai' ov po-

ovra qv rraripa dyaOov yapa-

vov

Krypt^i
1

0 (Tccrvjp

See

Cor.

^uv

Kat

iv. 6.

eo<;.

CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS,

178

"

A. D. 194.

Word who

called the face of the Father, the

is

" took our flesh, and revealed that which belongs

" peculiarly to the Father m ." Origen also has used
the same expression

upon those words, Ps. lxxx. 7.

Cause thy face to shine, and we shall be saved,
he says, " he here calls Christ the face : for he is
" the image of the invisible God n :" and upon Ps.
cxix. 58. which he translates, " / entreated thyface
6C

with

my

heart" he

ivhole

says, "

The

God

face of

"

is the express image of His substance, as I have

" often observed 0 ."

Clement therefore conceived David

to

have

in-

tended Christ, when he speaks of the face of the

God of Jacob ; and, according to this interpreta-

David makes our Saviour to be God, as Clement observes and yet he also says, that there is
only one God, in proof of which he quotes the declaration of our Saviour who is himself God.
Unless we believe Clement to have considered the Son
to be united in the Godhead with the Father, the
whole of this passage is unintelligible but if we
admit the idea of two persons in one Godhead, the
meaning of it is perfectly plain, though we may pertion,

haps not think the reasoning altogether judicious.

dementis Qiiis Dives Salvetur f c. 6. p. 939Beside the works from which I have already

95.

made many

quotations, Clement also wrote a short

treatise, entitled,

Hpo<reo%ov elp^rai tov Ylarpoq

Tlbq,
o

What

crapKOcfiopoq

tov

-zaTpojov

yevopevoq

rich

[ArjvvTvtf

l^ia^a,Toq.

665.

Athana-

Strom. V. 6.

p.

sius has

same expression,

npoa-uixov

Psalm

the
tov

naTpoc,

xxi. 6. p.

vloq.

1035-6.

In

can be saved?

n Ylpi<ra<sov ivTav8a. tov Xpto-Tov

Koyoq

Man

covo^aaev,

p.

gIkccv

yccp

k.

t.

X.

II.

77 2,
0 Tipo<ruizov

eov

yjxpa.KT\p

ty}<;

vnoeTuGeooq avTov, uq itoXXaKiq etpyjTai. p.

803.

CLEMENS ALEXANDRXNUS,
and not

far

from the beginning of

A.D.

379

194.

he gives a long

it

extract from St. Mark's Gospel, x. 1 7, &c.

Among

other remarks which he makes upon the question

put to our Saviour, he says, that Jesus " knew be" forehand, as God, what questions were about to
" be put to him, and what answers were about to
" be made.
For who could know it better than the
" Prophet of prophets, and the Lord of every prow phetic spirit p ?" Thus it was Jesus who inspired

men

the prophets, and he

knew

forehand

which powers must prove,

either of

the thoughts of

bein

the opinion at least of Clement, that he considered

Christ to be God, even

him

if

he had not expressly called

so.

Clementls Fragmentum.

96.

We

may

finish the quotations

p.

1014.

from Clement of

Alexandria with two fragments preserved from

works.

lost

In the

first is

his

a commentary upon the

Gospel of St. Matthew. 44 The pearl is the resplen" dent and most pure Jesus, whom the Virgin bore
" from the heavenly illumination for as a pearl,
:

44

when

44

seems to be a liquid and transparent body

in flesh

and

in the shell

" light and spirit, so also

God

the

and

in the water,

Word

full

of

having be-

44

come flesh, is an intellectual light, shining through

" light and a pure body %"
P ITpoei'Se Ze

cbq

eoq kou a ueXXet

avrS anoKplveaQou.

a peXXei nq
T{q yap kou

[AciXXov

npocprjTwv, kou

diepaTfj6-rj<7cr6ai,

Kvpioq
toq

r]

kou

irpocp'fjTYiq

itavToq

nveupa-

npocpYjTiKov

SietSe?

ovra

(pcoroq

kou

eKXdpxpaq

<rev'

<rapKi

ucrirep

Qelaq

yap

vj

aapKcc6e)q

ha

o~u[AaToq.

&oq

Aoyoq

(paToq kou vypov

The word

i a-

TtapQevoq lykvvv\-

are formed by lightning, in the

KaSapararoq 'l^aovq,
rrjq

etvai vypov kou

passage may be
illustrated by an absurd account
of the manner in which pearls

i 'Ea-rt [AapyapiTYjq kou

arpanriq

eoiKev

kou ttvev^aroq yi^ov,

<pcoq ecrr* voepov,

acnpa-nYj

koi

au^a

vopevoq

ov

diavyrjq

papyaphriq

kou offTpe/y Ka\

iv

vypo7q ye-

in this

19th Question of the PseudoAthanasius. vol. II. p. 341-2.

180

TERTULLIANUS,

97.

dementis Fragmentum,

A. D. 200.

Hippo-

(in editione

lyti 9 vol. II. p. 73.)

This
written

from a work of Clement

" Solomon,

said to be taken

is

against Judaizing Christians.

" the son of David, in the Book of Kings, under" standing, that the building of the true temple was
" not only heavenly and spiritual, but also related
" to the flesh [the fleshly tabernacle] which the Son
" and Lord of David was about to build, and to his

" coming, where he intended to establish himself

" like a kind of animated statue r , and to the church
" which was to be raised according to the agree-

" ment of
66

with

faith,

man

God indeed

speaks thus, Will

on the earth

Kings

dwell

But

27.

viii.

" he dwells on the earth, being clothed with flesh,

" and his dwelling is with men in the agreement

u and harmony among the righteous

" body, which the Lord consecrated
" holy place confined by limits, he

in his

Destroy

says,

I will

" this temple, and in three days

*
John ii. 19 s ."

Tertullian.

But

to himself as a

raise

it

up.

A. D. 200.

Quintus Septimius Florens Tertuliianus was born

Irenaeus speaks of to tov Xpic-rov
era pet

KaBapov

/cat

Fragm.

hotvyeq.

The heathen temples had

lifeless statues in

was

in the

TTjv

them

Christ

Jewish temple as a
he was the very

living statue

God

tov
ov

tov Aa/3iS vloq re koi Kvpioq,

re

avrov

rrjv

enl

Tvjq

yiverai

tov Aa/SiS <uaiq

dX^Btvov
u.ovov

nveviAaTiKrjv,

ti

e^v^ov, bteyvuKei
'AYjBojq
dpa KaToiKYj<rei
dvBpunav

Tyq

eiii

yrjq

evBa

icapova-'iav,

KaBdnep

yvjq

ayaX[/.a

Xeyei, el

eoq

d-

[/.era

KaroiKeT Be

crdpKa irepi^aXXo^evoq,

avrS KaToiK'f\aiq
Kara Tovq tiKalovq

Ka) [xerd dvBpuncav

himself.
1,o\o(aZv

tjvvelq

elq

KaBibpveaBai,

p. 342.
r

pe7v

be

ijby)

crupxa hiacpepeiv

vea

Ka.Ta<TKevv)v

eitovpdviov elvai Kai

rjv

Kai

eiq

Tyv

e^eXkev oiKobo-

iv

ttj

evvBeaei Te Ka)
he

tov <Ta[/,aToq

Toitov evBeov

dpixovla.
o

Kara

iavra KaBiepaaev e%\

oKvpioq, Aria-are,

elite,

'Err!

7reptypa<prjV
yr\q

tov vaov k.t.X.

TERTULLIANUS,

A. D. 200.

181

Carthage about the middle of the second century.

at

He

appears at

first

to

have been a heathen, and

is

supposed to have been converted about the year 185,

and to have been ordained in 192. There is no
doubt, that after a time he

into the heresy of

fell

Montanus, who fancied himself the Paraclete, and

down rules of great rigour and austerity. The

laid

works which Tertullian wrote were very volumimany of which have come down to us. Some
of them appear to have been written after he be-

nous,

came a Montanist

but there

that his peculiar opinions at

no reason to think,

is

affected his belief

all

concerning the divinity of Christ, or any vital tenets

of Christianity.
that

by Epiphanius %

It is expressly said

Montanus himself agreed with

the

catholic

church in his opinions concerning the Trinity.

same

is

also asserted

by Theodoret

The

concerning the

Montanists generally, though he adds that some of

them adopted Sabellianism.
He is supposed to have become a Montanist about
the year 200, and to have died either in 230, as
Cave thinks, or, according to Tillemont, in 245.

In the course of the following quotations Tertullian will be

found often to

call

Jesus Christ God:

and since doubts have been raised as to the sense

in which this title was referred to Christ by the Fathers, the following passages may explain the meaning which Tertullian attached to the word.
44
What we worship is one God, who formed this
" universe out of nothing

Hser.

XLVIII.

vol. I.

p.

p.

402.
u

est,

Hser. Fab. III.

227.

2.

vol.

IV.

Quod colimus Deus unus

molem istam

qui totam

de nihilo expressit. Apol.

p.

6.

c.

17.

TERTULLIANUS,

182

A.D. 200

" God is a name of the very substance, i. e. of

" divinity
Lord does not imply substance, but
" shews, that the substance of power always existed
:

" together with his own name, which

" afterwards Lord y,"

is

God, and

" No person must be called God, because none

" can be believed to be so, except the Supreme
"

Say that he

" inferior

" I

God

is

not

God

at

all, if

you

him an

call

z ."

am commanded

not to call any one else God

" not to make any other God even in speech, not
" by my tongue any more than by my hand not to
" worship any other, or pay any kind of homage,
:

" except to that only God,

(t

mands

who

gives these com-

a ."

98.

Tertull

Apol

c.

21. p. 19.

Tertullian published his Apology, or Defence of

Christianity, in the reign of Septimius Severus, in

what

is

generally called the

the year 198.

fifth

Having alluded

persecution, about

to the generally pre-

were merely a
of the Jews, and that they paid religious wor-

vailing opinions, that the Christians

sect

human being, he says, " It is necessary

" therefore, that I should say a few words concern" ing Christ, as being God b ."
He then mentions,
ship to a

Deus

men,

substantias ipsius no-

id est, divinitatis

Domi-

nus vero non substantias, sed

potestatis substantiam semper
fuisse cum suo nomine, quod
est Deus, postea Dominus. adv.

Hermog. c. 3. p. 234,
z
Deus non erit dicendus,
quia nee credendus, nisi sum-

mum magnumNegaDeum,
quern

dicis

deteriorem.

adv.

Marc.
a

I. 6. p. 368.
Prtescribitur mihi

ne quern
alium Deum dicam ; ne vel dicendo, non minus lingua quam
manu Deum fingam ne quern
alium adorem, aut quoquo mo;

do venerer, praeter unicum ilScorp.

ita mandat.
c. 4. p. 490.
b Necesse est igitur pauca de
Christo, ut Deo. Apol. c. 21.

lum qui

TERTULLIANUS,

183

A. D. 200.

that even the heathen writers had conceived an idea

of the Logos as a creative Spirit

after

which he

explains the Christian notion of the Logos, and says,

"

We

believe

to

it

have been produced from God,

" and to be begotten by production, and therefore

" called the Son of God, and God from the unity of
" substance c :" and when he has finished, he says,
" Inquire therefore, whether this divinity of Christ
" is true d ."
99-

He

TertuTt. de Patientia,

c. 3. p.

begins this treatise by inculcating the duty of

patience from the example of

rain upon the just

God

and upon

himself, ivho sends

the unjust,

bears to punish idolatrous nations, and

such a variety of wickedness.

earth,

whom we

call

God

who

who

for-

tolerates

In this he evidently

alludes to the one true God, the

and

140.

Lord of heaven
and yet

the Father

he goes on to say, " These are the examples of di" vine patience, of which we may form some notion
as being at a distance and above us
but what
" shall we say of that which has appeared openly
" upon earth among men, and been as it were han-

66

them ? God permits himself to be born in

" the womb of his mother, and waits, and when he
" is born endures to grow to manhood, and when
" died by

"

grown up takes no pleasure

" &c. &c. e "

In this passage Tertullian not only

c
Hunc ex Deo prolatum didicimus, et prolatione generaturn, et idcirco Filium Dei, et
Deum dictum ex imitate sub-

stantiae.
d

Quaerite ergo,

Et

haec

quo, fors ut de supernis aestime-

Quid ilia autem quae inter

tur.
homines palam in terris quo-

dammodo manu apprehensa est?

Nasci se Deus

Ib.

ista divinitas Christi.

e

in being recognized,

quidem

tientisa species,

si

vera est
Ib. p. 21.

divinae pa-

matris,

et

in utero patitur

expeetat,

et

natus

adolescere sustinet, et adultus

non gestit agnosci,

quasi de longin-

4}

TERTULLIANUS, A.D.

184
calls

200.

Christ God, but he clearly shews, that he con-

him

one with the Father. The God

who forbears to punish the wicked, is the same who

sidered

to be

was born of the Virgin Mary.

So also at c. 4. he gives to Christ by implication
the title of living God.
Having enumerated several instances of Christ's great patience, which he
exhibited while on earth, he draws the conclusion,
that we,

who

are his servants, ought to imitate our

" If we see good and ho" nest servants form their conduct according to the
" temper of their masters, how much more ought

Master in

this respect.

"

we to be found to mould ourselves after the pat" tern of the Lord

we, who are servants of the
" living God, who will reward his servants, not with
!

" the chain or the cap f, but with an eternity of

" punishment or of salvation
The title living

God must

be applied to Christ in this passage, or

the reasoning

fails.

We

are servants of the living

God, and are therefore to imitate him

and Tertulhim in patience but

the examples of patience which he gives are
:

lian here exhorts us to imitate

all

taken from the

life

of Christ

that Christ, whose servants

are to imitate,

is

the living

it

we

follows therefore,

are,

and

whom we

God.

The sentence with which he finishes this part of

" Who then can
the argument is equally strong
" treat at sufficient length of the advantage of that
;

In allusion to the custom

upon bad serand rewarding good ones

of putting fetters
vants,

with the cap of liberty, i. e.

emancipating them.
g Igitur si probos quosque
servos et bonse mentis pro ingenio dominico conversari vide-

quanto magis nos

mus
cundum Dominum moratos

sein-

venire oportet? Servos scilicet

Dei vivi, cujus judicium in suos,

non

in

compede aut

pileo ver-

sed in seternitate aut pcense aut salutis.

titur,

TERTULLIANUS,

A. D. 200.

185

" patience, which God, the

"
"

who
own

Lord of all good men,

and accepts them, carried about in his
person h ?" The Lord God is here evidently

tries

Jesus Christ.
Tertull. de Virg. Velandis, init. p. 172.

100.

Tertullian wrote this treatise to enforce the pro-

young women having their heads covered,

and to condemn them for having broken the rule.
He says, that Truth, by which he seems to mean

priety of

the eternal fitness of things, required this rule to be

Truth cannot be altered by

lapse of time, nor by any prescription of person or
country or custom. He adds, 66 Christ our Lord has
observed

and that

this

" called himself Truth, (John xiv. 6.) not custom.

" If Christ has been always and is before all things,
" Truth

is

equally eternal and ancient

i ."

This pas-

sage compels us to believe in the eternal existence

of Jesus Christ, at least according to Tertullian's
creed.

For

let

us suppose him to have had no ex-

istence previous to his birth from the Virgin

there never

was a time when Truth did not

still

exist,

according to Tertullian's idea of Truth, and indeed

according to any sense of the word Truth.

But

Tertullian proves the eternity of Truth, from Christ

having given that name to himself. Tertullian there-

must have believed that Christ was

fore

as eternal

as Truth.

Tertull. adv. Judceos,

101.

Among
h

Quam

Dominus om-

ergo

nem

ejus late retractet

qua

Dominus

189.

se non consuetudicognominavit.
Si semper
Christus, et prior omnibus, aeque Veritas sempiterna et anti-

veritatem

demonstrator et acceptator Deus in semetipso circumtulit, quis de bono

nium bonorum

c. 7- p.

other arguments, by which he proves Je-

et

noster

Christus

res.

TERTULLIANUS,

186

A. D. 200.

sus to be the Messiah, he appeals to the prophets

who

foretold his universal empire

and he shews,

that these predictions were completed by the Gentiles

believing in Jesus, and

by Christianity being

spread over the whole world.

remember

passage, which I

the Gospel

is

have seen, in which

expressly said to have been preached

the third century

" tain, which the

now

to

the earliest

is

Tertullian wrote this treatise early in

in Britain.

"

This

says, that " parts of Bri-

and he

Romans had never

reached, were

This testimony of Ter-

subject to Christ."

tullian concerning the conversion of Britain is ques-

tioned by Mosheim, (Com. de Reb. ante Const, cent.

but apparently without reason.

II. init.)

of the wide diffusion of the Gospel

nations

may

Assertions

among barbarous
cum

be found in Justin Martyr, Dial,

Tryph. 117.

p. 210-1.

and

Tertullian shews, that

all

Irenseus,

I.

10, 2. p. 49.

the other empires of the

world had been limited, " but the kingdom and name
" of Christ is extended every where,
" every where, is had in reverence by

believed

is

all the na" tions enumerated above, reigns every where, is

" worshipped every where

" to

all

a Judge, to

all

he

Tertull. adv. Judceos,

102.

is

to all a King,

God and Lord k ."

c. 9. p.

192.

Jews had objected to the

Christians, that whereas Isaiah had predicted that
the Messiah should be called Emmanuel, Jesus had
never borne that name, and therefore could not be
It

appears, that the

Tertullian answers this objection in

the Messiah.

Christi

autem regnum

nomen ubique
que

porrigitur,

creditur, ab

et

ubi-

omnibus gen-

tibus supra enumeratis colitur,

ubique regnat, ubique adoratur

omnibus Rex, omnibus Judex,
est.

omnibus Deus

et

Dominus

TERTULLIANUS,

work

the Jews, and again in his

against Marcion,

In each place he uses almost the same

III. 12.

words

187

which was written expressly against

treatise,

this

A.D.200.

and since they contain a very strong

tion of Christ's divinity, I shall refer to

in giving a

says, that

summary

where

this

asser-

them both

He

of Tertullian's argument.

prophecy

is

claimed as being

added an interpretation of
the word Emmanuel, viz. God ivith us : so that we
are to consider not merely the sound of the word,
there

fulfilled in Jesus,

but

is

all

God

may

e. it

with us,

be expressed in corresponding words in

We are therefore

languages.

idea which

is

Emma-

own nation but the

common to all nations,

peculiar to Isaiah's

meaning,
i.

For the Hebrew word

its signification.

nuel

is

is

contained in

plied to Christ

i.

e.

whether the
these words has been apto see,

whether by us who believe in

Jesus he has really been called and considered

with us.

Tertullian then appeals to those

had been converted

that

God

when they

to Christianity;

said in their

God

Jews who

and he observes,

own language Jesus

is

with us, they did actually pronounce the very

word Emmanuel ;
terally fulfilled

so that Isaiah's

prophecy was

li-

by the Jews themselves.

The followers of Marcion also used the Hebrew

word Emmanuel, when speaking of Jesus but all
:

nations whatever fulfilled the

phecy,

when each

meaning of the pro-

in their respective language called

" But if Emmanuel means

Jesus God ivith us.
" God with us, but the God, who is with us, is
" Christ, who is also in us, (for as many of ijou
66

as have been baptized unto Christ have put on

iii. 27.) it as much belongs to Christ

" in the signification of the name, which is God

" Christ, Gal.

TERTULLIANUS,

188

A.D. 200.

" with us, as in the sound of the name, which is

" Emmanuel. And thus it is evident, that he is
" already come, who was prophesied of as Emma" nuel

Emmanuel

because that which

signifies is

" come, viz. God with us

In a few words, Tertullian's argument

is

this

Isaiah foretold that the Messiah should be called

Go d

with us

called

God by

Jesus was always considered and

the Christians

Jesus

Messiah foretold by Isaiah. But we

is

therefore the

may draw some

Not

other important conclusions from this passage.

the Christians only, but the Jews, applied this pro-

phecy of Isaiah to the Messiah so that if Jesus was

born of a virgin, and worshipped as God, we have
the authority even of the Jews themselves for believing him to be the Messiah.
Again, Tertullian
:

not only

us in express words, that Jesus was

tells

worshipped as

from

God by

the Christians, but

Isaiah's

plain

Jews were aware of

his words, that the

being so worshipped.

it is

The Jews

his

did not say, that

prophecy was inapplicable to Jesus, because

he was not considered as God, but merely because

Hebrew word Emmanuel was not

the very

By

to him.

applied

the same arguments they might con-

tend, that Jesus cannot be the Messiah, because he

does not bear the

Hebrew name, which

Lord our Righteousness

might

say, that

Quod
cum Deus
1

si

nobis-

Deus autem no-

biscum Christus

est, qui etiam

quotquot enim &c.
tam proprius est Christus in
significatione nominis, quod est

in nobis est

(Jer. xxiii. 6.) or

we do not worship

Emmanuel

est,

nobiscum Deus, quam

in

sono

signifies the

they

the one true God,

nominis, quod est Emmanuel,

ita constat venisse jam
ilium qui prsedicabatur Eramanuel, quia quod significat Em-

Atque

manuel venit, id est, nobiscum

Deus. adv. Marc. III. 12. p.
403.

TERTULLI ANUS,

A. D. 200.

189

we do not pronounce His name with those

Hebrew sounds, which express His title I AM.
But Tertullian's own testimony is particularly valuable, since he tells us, that whatever name might
because

be given to Christ, he was in fact worshipped as

and we may introduce here a passage somefrom his treatise upon the Resurrection
of the Flesh, c. 20. where he is censuring those per-

God

what

similar

who

sons

interpret

all

the prophecies figuratively

and he observes very properly, that there cannot be

a figure without a reality, as there cannot be a reflection

without a body to be reflected, nor a shadow

He

then says, speaking of the

"
same prophecy of Isaiah, the Virgin conceived in

without a substance.

" the
"

womb

not

Emmanuel,

figuratively

Jesus,

who

is

and brought forth

God with

us

not

me-

" taphorically m ."

Tertull. adv. Judceos.

103.

c.

12. p. 198.

In this same treatise he again appeals to the universal diffusion of Christianity as a completion of

prophecy, and an evidence of Jesus being the Messiah.

word

The same
for

word

His words

passage

in the

are, "

is

work

Behold

also to be

found nearly

against Marcion, III. 20.

all

nations emerging from

" the gulf of human error to the Lord

" Creator, and to God His Christ n ."

104.

Tertull.

Be

Prescript. H<zret.

I give the following quotation, as

c.

God

the

20. p. 208.

shewing, that

even many heretics did not deny the divinity of

Jesus, but only disputed

m Nam
utero,

non

et

Virgo concepit

figurate

in

et peperit

Emmanuelem, nobiscum Deum

Jesum, non oblique, p. 337.
n
Aspice universas nationes

upon certain modifications

de voragine erroris humani exinde emergentes ad Dominum

Deum

Creatorem,
Christum ejus.

et

ad

Deum

TERTULLIANUS,

190

of the doctrine.

A. D. 200.

Tertullian wrote this treatise pur-

and having
mentioned the corruptions of scripture which certain sects had introduced, he proposes to consider
the whole history of the evangelical and apostolical
writings, that he might discover what persons were
most likely to have preserved the Christian doctrine
pure and genuine. He begins thus " Christ Jesus
" our Lord, whoever he be, if he will allow me to
" speak thus of him, of whatever God he is the
" Son man and God, of whatever matter of what66
ever faith he be the teacher of whatever reward
posely to convict the heretics of error

" he be the pro miser

himself declared, while he
" was upon earth, either openly to the people, or
;

" separately to his disciples, what he was, what he

" had been, what Will of his Father he was execut" ing, what he appointed for man to do ."

The beginning

of this sentence seems to shew,

that the points then chiefly in dispute were in

what
what

manner Christ was the Son of God, and in

manner his human nature was united to the divine.

Tertullian waves the consideration of these points

for the present, but

he seems to

feel

himself at

li-

berty to assume from the concession even of his op-

way or other Christ was God,

some way or other the divine nature

ponents, that in some

and that in
was united to the human.
fact:

for

This

is

an important

with whatever qualifications and

Christus

Jesus

Dominus

noster, permittat dicere interim,

quisquis est, cujuscunque

Dei

cujuscunque materia? hocujuscunque fidei

prseceptor, cujuscunque mercedis repromissor, quid esset, quid

fuisset,

quam

Patris voluntatem

administraret, quid

gendum

restric-

liomini

determinaret,

a-

quamdiu

Alius,

in terris agebat, ipse pronuntia-

mo

bat,

et I)eus,

sive

populo

palam,

discentibus seorsum.

sive

TERTULLIANUS,
term

tions the

God may

A.D.

191

200.

have been applied to the

Son, the heretics must have seen very strong reasons

for applying
it

it

all,

or they

would have withheld

In what sense Tertullian used the

altogether.

we have

term,

at

seen at the beginning of these quota-

tions.

Tertull. de Prescript. Hceret.

105.

We

may

also learn Tertullian's

c.

48. p. 221. p

own

sentiments

by observing what he says of the tenets of

Among

others he mentions Cerinthus,

the time of St. John; and Tertullian

who

heretics.

lived in

tells us,

that

" taught that Christ

was begotten in
" the ordinary way by Joseph, and that he was a
" mere man without any divinity
Tertullian of
course selected those points in which Cerinthus differed from the catholic church and from himself
it follows therefore from this passage, that the catholic church did not believe Christ to be a mere
man, but it believed in his divinity and since
Cerinthus was considered a heretic in his own time,

this heretic

it

is

not too

much

to quote this passage as a proof

of Christ's divinity being believed by Christians not

only in Tertullian's days, but during the lifetime

of the apostle St. John, which in fact carries us up
to the very fountain

and spring of the gospel doc-

trine.

106.

He
p

Tertull.

De

Prescript. Hceret.

When

published the

first

was ralook upon the

edition of this work, I

ther inclined to

whole of

this treatise as genuine.

now

think that the latter part,

from the forty-sixth chapter,
was probably not written by
Tertullian
but as some per-

c. ult. p.

223.

mentions also another heretic called Theodo-

sons still doubt, I have suffered

the testimonies taken from it to
remain.
Christum ex semine Joseph
c

natum proponit, hominem illum tantummodo sine divinitate contendens.

TERTULLIANUS,

192

A. D. 200.

who

lived at Constantinople, and he says of

"
him, that after being apprehended as a Christian,
tus,

" and denying his religion, he never ceased speak" ing blasphemies against Christ for he introduced
:

" a doctrine, by which he called Christ a mere man,

" but denied him to be God he held indeed that
:

" he was born of a virgin by the Holy Ghost, but

" that he was nothing but a mere man, with no au" thority above other men, except that of righteous" ness only

r ."

This passage also shews, that Ter-

tullian did not consider Christ to be a

mere man

but that he believed him to be God, and considered

the denial of this doctrine to be a blasphemous heresy.

have already alluded to the assertion of Dr.

Priestley, that the early Fathers

except the Gnostics

mention no heretics

and he wishes us

to believe,

that Tertullian did not consider Unitarians as heretics

s
.

If the Unitarians agree with Theodotus in

calling Christ a

mere man, and denying him

to be

God, then Tertullian did consider the Unitarian doctrines to be heretical

and

matters

it

little

whether

Tertullian was speaking of the Gnostics or no, if

was the same

part of the Gnostic creed

Unitarians.

the

Theodotus

as that of

himself speaks

Dr. Priestley

of

an Unitarian, and Tertullian in ex-

as

press terms speaks of

him

as a heretic.

We

may

observe also, that Theodotus must have found irre-

Accedit bis Theodotus hse-

reticus Byzantius

qui postea-

quam

Christi pro nomine comprehensus negavit, in Christum

doblasphemare non destitit
ctrinam enim introduxit, qua
:

Christum hominem tantummodo diceret, Deum autem ilium

negaret

ex

Spiritu

quidem

Sancto natum ex virgine, sed

hominem solitarium atque nu-

dum, nulla

alia prae eaeteris, nisi

sola justitise auctoritate.

s

I. p.

History of early Opinions,

289.

TERTULLIANUS,
sistible

A.D.

193

200.

evidence for the miraculous conception, or

he would never have admitted what was so entirely

new

contrary to the other parts of his

He

creed.

must have been convinced of the beginning

certainly

of St. Matthew's and St. Luke's Gospels being genuine, or he would never have admitted a doctrine

which exposed him so palpably to the charge of inconsistency and self-contradiction.

Attempts have been made of

late years to

those parts of the Gospels of St.

Luke, which
spurious

prove

Matthew and

St.

relate the miraculous conception, to be

and

Improved Version

in the

sages are printed in Italics.

these pas-

These attempts have

been refuted by several writers.

It is allowed

even

to which they
found in every MS. and every version

by the Unitarians, that the passages,

object, are

and when we remember that the Syriac version was

made

early in the second century, if not at the

of the

first,

we must

end

allow that the imposture was

at least extremely old.

The

tioning their authenticity

is

only reason for ques-

taken from the

fact,

that the Ebionites, one of the earliest heretical sects,

omitted this part of

St.

Matthew's Gospel, as Mar-

cion, a heretic of the second century, rejected the

beginning of

St.

Luke.

In the Introduction to the

is

Improved Version

asserted, that " they are treated

it

by Marcion with

" the most contemptuous ridicule

see Tert. de
" Carn. Chr. sect. 2." But the writer of this passage
:

had either not read Tertullian, or did not understand him.

The contemptuous ridicule is Tertullian's,

not Marcion's

Tertullian, in a strain of irony

and sarcasm, represents Marcion's

o

objections,

and

TERTULLIANUS,

194

ends with saying, " Such,

A. D. 200.

imagine, are the argu-

ments by which you have dared to destroy the

" original documents of Christ
The Unitarians
ts

seem to conclude, that Marcion rejected these passages from reasons of criticism but this is an un:

founded assumption, or rather the perversion of a

Marcion rejected them, not because he denied

fact.

the miraculous conception, but because he denied the

proper humanity of Christ

he denied that Christ had

been born at all, and contended that his body was a

mere phantom but he never pretended that his own
Gospel was the genuine composition of St. Luke
he did not even call it by the name of that evangeu
he did not style it the genuine or improved
list
version of St. Luke, but he was more honest and
more consistent, he called it simply the Gospel. It
must be remembered also, that the Gospel of St.
Luke was not the only part of the scriptures which
Marcion mutilated. He entirely rejected four of
St. Paul's Epistles, the two to Timothy, and those to
Titus and the Hebrews and he arranged the others
in an order totally different from that which was geEven those Epistles, which he renerally followed.
tained, were altered and mutilated by himself or his
;

opinor,

His,

consiliis

tot

instrumenta Christi
delere, Marcion, ausus es.
u Contra Marcion Evangelio,

originalia

scilicet

suo,

nullum

adscribit

auctorem, quasi non licuerit il 11

titulum quoque adfingere, cui
nefas non fuit ipsum corpus

Et possem hie jam

non agnoscendum contendens opus, quod non
erigat fontem, quod nullam conevertere.

gradum

figere,

stantiam prseferat, nullam fidem

repromittat de plenitudine tituli, et professione debita auctoris. Tertul. adv. Marc. IV. 2. p.

414. See also Irenseus, III. 1 1. 7.

p. 190. andc. 12. p. 198. Origen.
in Joan. torn. X. vol. IV. p. 165.
quoted at N. 256. Lactantius,
N. 364. There are some judicious remarks upon this subject
in Hug, vol. I. p. 72. (Transla
tion.)

TERTULLIANUS,
successors x

A. D. 200.

195

He also rejected the Apocalypse ?

and

according to Theodoret, he rejected the whole of the

It would be trifling to ask,
Old Testament z
whether any part of St. Luke's Gospel is to be pronounced spurious upon the authority of such an audacious innovator as this nor does there seem any
good reason., why the Unitarians should follow the
example of Marcion in one instance and reject it in
.

the others

they ought,

if

they wish to be consistent,

either to admit the whole of St. Luke's Gospel, as

they admit

Marcion

St. Paul's Epistles

in

or if they agree with

mutilating St. Luke, they should go

The

lengths with him, and mutilate St. Paul also.

original passage in Epiphanius

will

shew what

ought to be given to Marcion's authority

dit

all

cre-

in re-

jecting the beginning of St. Luke's Gospel. " I will

" now come to his (Marcion's) writings, or rather
*e

his audacities.

"

Luke and no

For he admits a Gospel, that of

which is mutilated at the be-

other,

" ginning, on account of the conception of our Sa-

" viour, and his appearing in the

"

it

Nor was

flesh.

the beginning only which was mutilated by this

" corruptor of himself rather than of the Gospel

at the

end

also

and

in the

middle he cut out

but

many

he also added others

parts of the words of truth
" beside what is there written." Epiphanius after-

f*

wards informs us that Marcion's gospel began with

those words, " In the fifteenth year of Tiberius &c."
x
See Iren. I. 27. 2. p. 106.
Tertul. adv. Marc. IV. 5: V.
17. 21. Origen. in Rom. 1. X.

43. p. 687. Hieron. Procera.

in Epist. ad Tit. Epiphan. Hser.
.

XLII.
y

Theodoret.

Haer.

Fab.

I.

24. p. 210. See also Athanasius,

ad Episc.

Mg.

et

Lyb.

4. vol.

273. Epiphan. Hser. XLII.

4. vol. I. p. 305.

I. p.

Hgen XLII.

Tertul. adv. Marc. IV. 5.

o 2

vol. I. p.

309.

TERTULLIANUS, A.D.

196

and the Improved Version adopts

ginning of what

it

this as the be-

conceives to be the authentic

writing of St. Luke, except that

genuine the four

200.

first

verses

Epiphanius however expressly

rejected these four verses

it

also receives as

of the

chapter.

first

tells us,

that Marcion

so inconsistent are the

Unitarian translators in following the authority of

Marcion

The

Unitarians might also have referred to Tatian 9

as an authority for mutilating the Gospels

for

Theo-

66

doret tells us \ that

Tatian composed the gospel
" called Diatessaron, having expunged the genealo" gies, and every thing else which proves the Lord
l

" to have been born of the seed of David according

" to the flesh."

This exactly agrees with what was

said above of Marcion having rejected part of St.

Luke's Gospel, not because he denied the divinity of

Christ, but because

he denied his humanity.

After

the death of his master Justin, Tatian adopted the

heresy of those Gnostics,

who

believed the body of

Jesus to have been unsubstantial

and

may

add,

that in the opinion of Theodoret, the Diatessaron of

Tatian was decidedly an heretical book.

Again, the writer of the above passage says, that

Marcion objected to " the prefatory chapters of
"Matthew and Luke:" which is another mistate-

Marcion never noticed St. Matthew's Gospel

he appears not to have admitted any of the
at all
and this, as we
Gospels, except that of St. Luke
ment.

have seen, he mutilated and altered according to his

own opinions. The only evidence, which we have
against the authenticity of the beginning of St.

b Hger.

Fab.

I.

20. vol. IV. p. 208.

Mat-

TERTULLIANUS,
thew's Gospel,

197

A. D. 200.

contained in the fact mentioned

is

above, that the Ebionites rejected

it

but

if

we read

the extract from the Ebionite gospel, which Epiphanius has preserved,

it is

what these hereMatthew c was a com-

plain that

the Gospel of St.

tics called

position, or rather a compilation of their

in

some points

Matthew

differed totally

own, which

from the Gospel of St.

they altered, omitted, or inserted what-

ever they pleased

so that

no argument whatever

can be drawn, concerning the genuineness of any particular passage in the received Gospel,

of the Ebionites

which,

we

not

from the fact

having retained

learn from Theodoret

d
,

that

it
it

beside

was only

who thought Jesus to

mere man, and who used the Gospel ac-

one branch of the Ebionites

have been a

cording to the Hebrews

believed that Jesus

another branch of them

was born of

only the Gospel of St.

Matthew

a Virgin,
it is

and used

plain therefore

that these latter Ebionites used the whole of St.

Matthew's Gospel

and the Cerinthians, who were

prior to the Ebionites, are expressly said to have ad-

mitted the genealogy in that Gospel

e
:

so that the

argument against the genuineness of the first part of

it rests entirely and solely upon one division of the
Ebionites and yet the Unitarians would persuade
us that the authority of these heretics and of Mar;

cion

is

to prevail against that of all the writers of

the three

first

centuries.

For

it

must be remem-

bered that these very chapters are alluded to by Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Hegesippus,

andria,

Irenaeus,

Tertullian,

&c.

Clement of Alex&c.

All

these

Fathers undoubtedly believed the beginning of the

XXX.

Heer.

Haer. Fab. II.

p. 138.
1. p.

Hser.

218.

O 3

XXVIII.

p. 113.

138,

TERTULLIANUS,

198

two Gospels

be genuine

to

A. D. 200.
they must therefore

have believed the doctrine which these passages

and the Unitarians themselves will inform

contain

us what that doctrine

divinity of Christ

is

expressly declares the

it

these Fathers therefore must

all

have believed the divinity of Christ, whether these

chapters are genuine or no.

by

Hug

who

that Celsus,

It is well observed also

lived in the second cen-

and wrote against Christianity, had seen the

genealogies in Matthew and Luke, and knew that
The pasthe Christians believed them to be true.
tury,

sage

is

in Origen.

107.

c.

Cels. II. 32. vol. I. p. 413.

Tertull. de

Anima,

c.

41. p. 295.

In this treatise upon the soul, Tertullian considers

The

the soul to contain a mixture of good and evil.

from God

from the Devil.

good comes to it
The good principle may be obscured, but cannot be
extinguished and in all persons there is some mix;

the evil

ture of these

two

principles

and hence the

differ-

ence of good and bad men, according as one or the

" For God alone is withdut sin
other prevails.
:

man without sin

also God
In this

" and the only

" Christ

is

appear at

first,

in opposition to

of the

human

is

Christ

because

sentence

might

it

that Tertullian calls Christ a

God

but he

is

man

evidently speaking

nature, which was united to the divine

If he had considered him a mere man,

and said that he was without sin, he would have
contradicted what he had said immediately before,
that God alone is without sin
which words must of
course exclude every human being.
So that when
in Christ.

f
Introduction to the N. T.
translated by Wait, vol.1, p. 46.
g Solus enim Deus sine pec-

cato,

et solus

homo

cato

Christus,

quia

Christus.

sine pecet

Deus

TERTULLI ANUS,

A. D. 200.

199

he says afterwards, that the only man without sin is

Christ he cannot mean that he was a man like
;

human beings but his meaning is, that the

only human being, who was ever without sin, was
not absolutely a man, but he was God with a human
other

nature joined to the divine.

108.
Tertullian
tion,

TertulL de Anima,
is

c.

55. p. 303.

here considering the

difficult

ques-

what becomes of the soul after its departure

Having given the opinion of some

from the body.

heathen philosophers, he says, " Christians believe

" hell h to be, not a mere hollow place, nor a kind of
" sink of the world, open to the air: but a vast space

"

in a cleft of the earth,

and low down, and a depth

" buried in

since we read that

its very bowels
" Christ passed the three days of death in the heart
" of the earth i. e. in an inner and internal recess,
:

" covered up in the earth

"

it,

and raised upon

itself,

still

and shut up within

lower abysses.

But

if

" Christ, who is God, in consequence of his being

" man, died according to the scriptures, and was

" buried according to them, and also fulfilled this

" law, having observed the form of human death in
" hell nor did he ascend to the higher parts of
;

" heaven, before he had descended into the lower

" parts of the earth, that he might there

make him" self known to the patriarchs and prophets

" you have grounds for believing in the subterraneous
" region of hell, and for refuting those who think,
" proudly enough, that the souls of the faithful are
" not deserving of hell ."
i

h
I have translated inferi hell,
because it is the word used in
the Creed, and in some pas-

sages of the Bible,

>

Nobis

vositas,

o 4

inferi

nec

non nuda ea-

subdivalis

aliqua

TERTULLIANUS,

200

We

A. D. 200.

need not trouble ourselves with examining

Tertullian's opinion concerning the nature

cality of the

abode of departed

spirits.

and

lo-

If he erred,

was from taking too literally the words of scripture, where our Saviour speaks of the heart of the
earthy (Matt. xii. 40.) and St. Paul of the lower parts
of the earth, (Eph. iv. 9.) and of the deep, Rom. x.
it

He

7.

at least reasons correctly in asserting, that

there must be such a place somewhere, because Jesus Christ passed part of three days in that place

which he wishes to prove. What he

making himself known to the
patriarchs and prophets is evidently taken from the
Tertulexpressions of St. Peter, iii. 19. and iv. 6.
lian delivers the same opinion in c. 7. of this trea-

and

this is all

says concerning Christ

and many of the other Fathers agreed with

tise,

him

k.

What we

have to observe in

expression, that " Christ,

who

" buried, and descended into

mundi sentina creduntur

is

this passage is the

God, died and was

hell,

because he was

sed

potes sui faceret; habes et re-

in fossa terree et in alto vastitas,

gionem inferum subterranearn

ejus ab-

credere, et illos cubito pellere,

et in

ipsis

visceribus

Siquidem
Christo in corde terrae triduum
mortis legimus expunctum, id

strusa

profunditas.

est, in recessu

intimo et interno,

qui

satis

superbe

non putant

animas fidelium inferis dignas.

k
Hennas, III. Sitnii. 9. 16.
Irenseus,

IV.

27.

2.

p.

264.

et in ipsa terra operto et intra

Clem. Alex. Strom.

ipsam clauso, et inferioribus adbuc abyssis superstructo. Quod

si Christus Deus, quia et homo,
mortuus secundum scripturas,
et sepultus secus easdem, huic
quoque legi satisfecit, forma humanse mortis apud inferos functus nec ante ascendit in sublimiora ccslorum, quam descendit

526. VI. 6. p. 762. Theodotus

ad fin. Clem. Alex. p. 973. Hip-

in

inferiora

terrarum, ut

patriarchas et prophetas

illic

com-

III.

4.

p.

de Antichristo, . 26, 45.

In
c. Celsum, II. 43.
Exod. Horn. 6. . 6. in Reg.
Horn. II. vol. II. p. 497. in
Psalm, p. 553. Eusebius, Dem.
Evang. p. 377. 501. Athanas.
vol. I. p. 905. 933. 946. 1113.
1 154.
1191. Epiphan. vol. I.
pol.

Origen.

p.

394. 789.

TERTULLIANUS,

A. D. 200.

201

The union

of the two natures in Christ

strongly expressed. Termore
could not have been

**

man."

tullian is

go

to

wishing to prove that the souls of

an intermediate place

cause Christ,

who wished

to

all

and he proves

submit to

quences of mortality, went thither.

all

men

it,

be-

the conse-

If Christ

had

been a mere man, the reasoning would be perfectly

would involve a petitio principii

but since Christ was not obliged to die and to descend into hell, and yet submitted to all these things
because he submitted to become man, it follows that

inconclusive

it

one of the consequences of mortality must be, that

the soul,

when

rate place.

that the

it

leaves the body, goes into a sepa-

Tertullian must therefore have believed,

human

nature was adventitious to Christ,

he says expressly in this passage, that Christ

was God.
109. Tertutt. de Came Ckristi, c. 3. &c. p. 308.
The cause, which led Tertullian to write this
treatise, is itself a very strong argument for the di-

or, as

vinity of Christ.

He

wrote

it

against the heresies

of Marcion and his disciples Apelles and Valentinus.

These

heretics

were so far from denying the divinity

of Christ, that they denied his humanity

could not believe that

subject to

manity.

all

God

i.

e.

they

could be born and be

the accidents and infirmities of hu-

Marcion was the leader of

this sect.

He

maintained that Christ was not born, and that he

did not really bear our human flesh, but merely the

semblance of

it.

His disciple Apelles admitted the

reality of his flesh, but denied his nativity.

disciple, Valentinus,

Another

admitted the reality of his

flesh

and his nativity, but still would not allow that he

was a man, like other human beings. It is obvious,

TERTULLIANUS,

202

A.D.

200.

Matthew

that the beginnings of the Gospels of St.

and

St.

Luke must have been

fatal to

Marcion's

he therefore adopted the easy expedient,

already mentioned, of pronouncing them spurious
hypothesis

though Tertullian

knowledged them

The

tells

us, that

he had before ac-

to be genuine.

object of Tertullian in this treatise

to prove,

is

in opposition to these heretics, that Christ did really

take upon him our

human

flesh.

It

was the opinion

of Tertullian, as of most of the early Fathers, that

we

shall rise again

are

now and he
:

with our bodies, exactly as they

brings as an argument the identity

of Christ's body before and after his resurrection.

Now if Marcion's hypothesis were true, that Christ

had not a real body, the argument of Tertullian
would of course fail; because he could not reason
from the apparent body of Christ to the real body of
man. Tertullian therefore labours to prove in this
treatise, that Christ did actually take upon him our
human flesh, not the semblance of flesh and he
begins with refuting Marcion concerning the reality
:

of his nativity.

w According to your notion, you must either think

"

it impossible or unsuitable to God to be born. But

" nothing is impossible to God, except what He does
" not wish.
must therefore consider, whether

We

" he did not wish to be born. If there had been any

" reason why God did not wish to be born, he would
" not have made himself appear like a man.
For

" who, that sees a man, would say that he was not
" born ? So that whatever God did not wish to be,
" he would not wish to seem to be.
You cannot
" say, that His reason for not wishing it was, lest if
" He had been born, and really put on man, he would

TERTULLIANUS,

A.D.200.

" have ceased to be God, by losing

what

203

He was and

" becoming what He was not.

For God is in no
" danger of losing His condition.
But you say, I

deny that God was so changed into man, as to be

" born and to do works in the flesh, because he who
" is without end must necessarily be also unchange" able for to be changed into something else is the
" end of that which it was before.
Change there" fore is incompatible with Him, with whom end is
"

" incompatible."
Tertullian answers, that this is true as to all created things " but nothing is like to God his nature
" is different from the condition of all things.
If
" therefore those things, which are different from
;

" God, and from which

God is different, when they

" are changed, lose that which they were before,
" where will be the difference between the Deity
" and those things, unless the contrary hold good
" i. e. unless God can be changed into all things, and
" yet continue what he was ?
You have read
" and believed that angels have been changed into
a human form, and borne such a reality of body,
" that Abraham washed their feet, and Lot was
" rescued from the men of Sodom by their hands.

**

"

What was

possible for angels,

who

are in-

" ferior to God, that they might be changed into a

" human body and yet continue angels, will you
" deny this power to God, who is more powerful, as
" if Christ

were not able

" yet continue

God

really to put on

man, and

?"

quod non

An

1
Necesse est quatenus hoc
putas arbitrio tuo licuisse, ut
aut impossibilem aut inconve-

sibile, nisi

nientem Deo existimaveris nativitatem. Sed Deo nihil impos-

consideremus. Ad compendium
decurro. Si enim nasci se Deus

ergo

noluerit

nasci,

vult.

(quia

si

voluit, et potuit, et natus est,)

TERT ULLI ANUS,

204

Having thus proved that

God

ble for

was neither impossi-

it

to be born, nor dangerous to His divi-

he shews that

nity,

A.D. 200.

the sufferings and weaknesses

all

of a newborn infant were not unworthy of God,

because the men,

all

whom

he came to redeem, must

have passed through those sufferings and weak-

He

nesses.

God

quotes the words of St. Paul,

has

chosen the foolish things of the world

(1 Cor.

the wise,

27.)

i.

to confound
and observes that there

can be nothing imagined, which would appear so

foolish to the world, as the idea " that God should
" be born, and of a virgin, and that he should be" come flesh m ."
He then very justly reproaches

Marcion

for

denying the nativity of Christ, but

allowing his crucifixion, as

unworthy of God

quacumque de causa,
nec hominem se videri praesti-

dens

Nam
eum

quis

hominem

negaret natum

hominem

ne

si

vere

bus,

neat?

Deus

induisset,

dum

fit quod non

culum enim status
lum est. Sed ideo,

quod

erat,

Peri-

erat.

sui

Deo

inquis,

nul-

nego

Deum

in hominem vere conversum, ita ut et nasceretur et

carne corporaretur quia qui sine
fine est, etiam inconvertibilis sit
necesse est
converti enim in
:

aliud,

finis

est

pristini

non

competit ergo conversio ejus,

cui non competit finis.
Sed nihil Deo par est natura
ejus ab omnium rerum conditione distat.
Si ergo quae a
Deo distant, a quibus Deus distat, cum convertuntur, amit:

tunt quod fuerunt

vi-

natus fuisset et

esse desisset, a mittens

" There are other

ubi erit di-

versitas divinitatis a caeteris re-

Ita

quod noluisset esse, nec videri

omnino voluisset.
Non poles dicere,

the latter was not as

as the former.

noluisset
tisset.

if

nisi

id

contrarium obti-

ut

ut

est,

omnia converti
est

Deus

et

in

possit, et qualis

perseverare

Angelos

Creatoris conversos in effigiem

humanam

aliquando

credidisti,

et

legisti

et

tantam corporis

gestasse veritatem, ut et pedes

eis laverit

Abraham,

ipsorum ereptus

et

manibus

Sodomitis
Quod ergo Angelis
Loth
inferioribus Deo licuit, uti conversi in corpulentiam humanam
permaneangeli nihilominus
rent, hoc tu potentiori Deo auferes, quasi non valuerit Christus vere hominem indutus Deus
perseverare

m
quam
et

non

erit tarn

credere in

quidem ex

carneum.

c.

sit

Deum

virgine, et

4. p. 310.

stultum

natum,
quidem

TERTULLIANUS,

A.D.

205

200.

" things [which the world think] equally

foolish,

" which relate to the indignities and sufferings of

" God.
Or perhaps it might seem wisdom to the

" worki, that God should be

66

"

crucified

Deny

this,

Marcion, even rather than the other.

more unworthy of God

is

For which
which would He be

" more ashamed of, to be born or to die ? to bear

" our flesh or the cross ?
But answer me this,
"

"

is

f*

Christ suffered nothing from them, if he did not

as not God really crucified ? was He not really

" dead, as He was really crucified ?
Our faith
" therefore is vain and all that we hope in Christ
;

Thou most wicked

of men
" furnishest excuses to the murderers of God n
a phantom.

" really suffer

who

For

Christ would

not be called man,

" without flesh nor the Son of man, without some
" human parent as he would not be called God,
" without the Spirit of God nor the Son of God,
" without God for his Father.
Thus his affinity to
;

" each substance rendered him God and man

on
" one side born, on the other not born on one side
" fleshly, on the other spiritual on one side weak,
;

" on the other passing strong

on one side dying,

" on the other living. Which peculiarity of condi" tions, the divine and human, with an equal reality
" of each nature, is proved by the same test of
:

" spirit and flesh. His miracles proved the Spirit of

" God his sufferings proved the flesh of man.
If
" the miracles were not without the Spirit, the suf:

" ferings were not without the flesh.

If the flesh
" with the sufferings was feigned, therefore the Spi-

This strong expression

andria as quoted at N. 314.

is

also used

by Dionysius of Alex-

TERTULLIANUS, A.D.

206

"

with the miracles was

rit

"

if not,

Why do you

false.

He was

" Christ by a lie?

200.

halve

altogether reality

he was a phantom even after

his resur-

" rection
he tricks, and deceives, and deludes
" the eyes of all, the senses of all> the approach and
" touch of all. You ought not to have made Christ
"

come from heaven, but from some company of

" u ggl ers an ^ not a God beside being man, but a
j
" mere man and a conjuror ."
:

have been obliged to give

cause

it

many and

contains so

long extract, be-

this

such positive asserTertullian speaks

tions of the divinity of Christ.

God being born and crucified in the same manner

we should speak of Jesus or Christ being born

of

that

Sunt

plane

tam

hibuit

contuaut
Dei

natum

et

alia

stulta, quae pertinent ad

melias et passiones

Prudentiam dicant, Deum crucifixuni. Aufer hoc quoque, MarQuid

cion, immo hoc potius.
enim indignius Deo ? quid magis erubescendum, nasci an raori ? carnem gestare,, an crucem ?
Sed jam hinc responde,
interfector veritatis,
crucifixus est

Nonne

vere

Deus? nonne vere

mortuus, ut vere crucifixus ?

Falsa est igitur et fides
nostra

et

phantasma

erit

to-

tum quod speramus a Christo.

Scelestissime hominum, qui interemptores excusas Dei. Nihil
enim ab eis passus est Christus,
nihil

si

Aliter

stus

vere est passus.

non

sine

diceretur

carne

homo

Chri-

nec hominis

sine aliquo parente nomisicut nec Deus sine Spiritu

hinc natum, inde non

hinc carneum, inde spiritalem
hinc infirmum, inde
:

hinc morientem, inde viventem. Quae proprietas

conditionum, divinee et humanae,

et spiritus, et carnis.

non sine carne. Si

passionibus ficta, et
Spiritus ergo cum virtutibus falsus.
Quid dimidias mendacio

et passiones

caro

cum

Christum

iam
Ecce

sine

Deo

patre.

Ita utriusque substantias

census

hominem

et

Deum

ex-

Totus

Veritas

fuit.

Fuit itaque phantasma etpost resurrectionem

fallit,

et decipit, et

circum-

omnium oculos, omnium

sensus, omnium accessus et convenit

tactus.

filius

Virtutes

Spiritum Dei, passiones carnem

hominis probaverunt. Si virtutes non sine Spiritu, perinde

de

nec Dei

aequa utique naturae utriusque

veritate dispunctaest eademfide,

ne
Dei

praefortem

filius,
:

Ergo jam Christum non

cselo deferre debueras,

aliquo

circulatorio

coetu

sed de
:

Deum praster hominem,

magum hominem.

nec
sed

TERTULLIANUS,
and

crucified.

A.D.

207

200.

he meant the

It is plain also that

We

one only God, uncreated and unchangeable.

learn further, that Marcion never thought of dis-

puting the divinity of Christ.

made

the Old Testament

present argument.

he

It is true that

a difference between Christ and the

God

of

but that does not affect the

No

now defend

person would

the absurd notions of Marcion concerning the two

or the three principles

it

is

sufficient for

our pur-

pose, that Marcion considered Christ to be God: and

so convinced

was he of

his divinity, that

he even ran

into the wild hypothesis of Christ having an unsubstantial

and only apparent body. The Gospel history

compelled him to acknowledge, that the attributes

of

God and man were given to

the human

to imagine, that

charged by him not

110.

He

Tertull. de

really,

Christ

but he chose

functions

were

dis-

but only in appearance.

Came

Christi,

c.

14. p. 319-

goes on to shew, in opposition to Marcion, that

why Christ should assume the

body of a man, viz. because it was man who had
fallen, and it was man who was to be saved.
But
there was not the same reason why he should
assume an angelic body, as Marcion supposed for
though some angels have fallen, yet no promise of
restitution was made to them.
It might perhaps be
said, that Christ assumed an angelic body in order
Tertullian
to accomplish the salvation of man.
therefore asks, " Why then did he descend to do
" that, which he meant to perform by an angel?
" If it was to be done by an angel, why did he do it

there was a reason

" himself? and if he did it by himself, why was the

" angel also employed ? It is true indeed that he

" was called the

Angel of great

Counsel, that

is,

TERTULLIANUS, A.D.

208

200.

" the Messenger, which title he had by office, not by

" nature.
For it was he, who was to announce to
" the world the great intent of his Father, concern" ing the restoration of man.

Not that it is there" fore to be understood, that he is such an angel as

" Gabriel or Michael.
For the Son is also sent to
" the husbandmen by the Lord of the vineyard, like
" the servants were, to ask for the fruits. But the
" Son will not on that account be reckoned one of
" the servants, because he succeeded the servants in
" their office.
I could therefore bring myself more
" easily to speak of the Son himself as an angel, that
" is, a messenger of his Father, than of an angel in

" the Son.

'"

But when it is said of the Son himself,

Thou hast made him a little lower than the

" angels, (Psalm viii. 5. Heb. ii. 7, 9.) how can it

" seem that he assumed the person of an angel, who
" was made so much lower than the angels, while
" he was man, inasmuch as he was flesh and soul

man ? But inasmuch as he is the

" Spirit of God, and the Power of the Most High, he
" cannot be reckoned lower than angels, because he
" and the Son of

"

is

God and

the Son of

God p."

p Cur ergo descendit ad id

quod per angelum erat expediturus ? Si per Angelum, quid et
ipse ? Si per se, quid et Ange\us) Dictus est quidem magni
consilii

Angelus, id

Nuntius,

est,

petitum.
Sed non
propterea unus ex famulis deputabitur Filius, quiafamulorum
successit officio.
Facilius ergo
dicam, si forte, ipsum Filium
fructibus

angelum,

id

est,

nuntium Pa-

quam angelum in Filio.

Sed quum de Filio ipso sit pro-

officii

non naturae vocabulo.

Magnum enim cogitatum Pa-

tris,

super hominis scilicet restiannuntiaturus sasculo

erat.
Non ideo tamen sic an-

nuntiatum, Minuisti eum modicum quid citra angelos, quo-

tris,

tutione,

gelus

intelligendus,

Gabriel aut Michael.

Filius a

Domino

ut

aliqui

Nam

et

vineas mittitur

ad cultores, sicut et famuli, de

modo

angelum indudiminutus, dum homo sit, qua caro et

anima et Filius hominis ? qua
autem Spiritus Dei et Virtus
isse,

videbitur

sic

infra angelos

TERTULLIANUS,

A. D. 200.

209

All this reasoning about angels seems to be intro-

duced, because Tertullian was aware of Jesus being

spoken of in the Old Testament as the Angel or

To

Messenger of the covenant.

those

who

as all the early Fathers believed, that the

God

the covenant was no other than

himself, this

will be sufficient to prove, that Tertullian

ledged the divinity of Christ.

disbelieve this,

we would urge

But

believe,

Angel of

if

acknow-

any should

to them, that Ter-

tullian here expressly asserts that Christ is superior

and we would

what being is there

between the ministering spirits and God himself,
of whose existence we know any thing from scrip-

to angels

ture?

ask,

Beside which, Tertullian finishes the above

quotation by expressly saying that Christ

The

Came

Tertull. de

111.

Christi,

following short passage

is

c.

is

God.

15. p. 320.

merely brought to

shew that Marcion, with all his strange opinions,

acknowledged the divinity of Christ. Tertullian
concludes an argument against the Marcionites by
saying, " They acknowledge the man united to the
" God, and they deny the man
Tertull de Came Christi, c. 17. p. 320.
112.
After other arguments to prove that Christ had
really and tangibly a human body, Tertullian shews
that he must have received a carnal existence from
his mother
and he points out how worthy it was of
:

the counsels of

"

virgin.
44

God

that Christ should be born of a

He who was

to consecrate a

ought to have been born in a new way

" ing

which the Lord was to give a

Altissimi,

gelos

Dei

non potest
Deus

haberi,

infra

An-

scilicet

et

new
:

birth,

concern-

sign, as Isaiah

Agnoscimt hominem Deo

mixtum, et negant hominem,
(

Filius.

TERTULLIANUS,

210

" declared

What

is

A. D. 200.

that sign

66

shall conceive in her

(S

The

^Behold a virgin

womb, and bear a Son.

virgin accordingly conceived

God

" manuel,
" when a

man

" was born

with us.

is

the

Em-

new birth,
man God
and human

born in God, in which

is

The union

."

This

and bore

of the divine

nature in the person of Christ could hardly be declared

more

plainly.

Pursuing the same argument, he shews the divine

and human natures of Christ from these words,

That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that
which is bom of the Spirit is spirit s : (John iii. 6.)
for Christ was born of the flesh, inasmuch as he
was born of Mary and he was born of the Spirit,
inasmuch as he was born of God. Against this the
:

Valentinians brought another passage of St. John's

where he says of those who believe

in Christ, that they are born not of blood, nor of
the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but
Gospel,

of

God

13.)

(i.

from which they argued, that Christ was

not born of the

but of

flesh,

God

Tertullian

only.

by appealing to the fact, that all believers

and of the will of the flesh, and of
man by the common law of our nature but of

replies

are born of blood

Nove

nativitatis

nasci debebat, novae

qua
Dominus ab
de

dedicator:

signum daturus
Esaia praedicabatur.
istud

signum

Quod

Ecce

est

virgo con-

cipiet in utero, et pariet filium.

Concepit igitur virgo

et peperit

Emmanuelem, nobiscum Deum.

Haec est nativitas nova,

homo

nascitur in

Deo

homine Deus natus

s

in

dum
quo

quia

Deus

Spiritus est, et

de Deo natus est. It was quoted

with the same addition at the
7th council of Carthage. Cypr.

33 j. I may add, that Griesbach omits to mention A th ana-

p.

si

us,

who

reads quia

Spiritus

Dominus

de TriSancto, of

spiritus est in the tract

nitate

et

Spiritu

which a Latin translation only

extant, p. 974.
See Routh,

is

est.

Tertullian quotes

est,

Rel. Sacr. III. p. 156.

TERTULLIANUS,

A. D. 200.

211

was
born of God " for Christ is the Word of God, and
" with the Word he is the Spirit of God and in the
" Spirit he is the Power of God, and whatever beChrist

it

said in a peculiar manner, that he

is

" longs to

God

t ."

We

may

again observe, that

if

Christ were a mere man, born in the ordinary way,

these numerous arguments to prove his bodily

all

But the

substance would never have been used.

and Tertullian,
who acknowledged it, did not believe that he was
born in the ordinary way. Upon either hypothesis
therefore his divine nature was a fundamental article
heretics denied his bodily substance

of belief.
Tertull. de Resurrectione Carnis,

113.

p.

rise

With

again with our bodies.

this

cerned

and

doctrine

39.

348.

This treatise was written to prove, that

hood of

c.

we

we

shall

the truth or false-

are not at present con-

in the following quotation

Tertullian

only observes, that the apostolical writings invariably enforce the doctrine of the resurrection, but with
this difference; that to the

not as a

new

Jews

was preached,
which they all,

it

doctrine, but one in

with the exception of the Sadducees, believed. " The

" apostles had nothing to do, when preaching to the
" Israelites, but to unseal (i. e. to explain) the Old
" Testament, and to seal (i. e. to prove or confirm)
" the New
and particularly to preach God in
:

" Christ"."

This therefore was the leading doc-

quia Verbum Dei,

cum Verbo Dei Spiritus, et
t

Spiritu

Dei
u

Dei Virtus,

est Christus. p.

et

gotiimi

fuit,

in

raelem,

quam

dumtaxat apud Isveteris Testamenti

et quicquid

resignandi, et novi consignandi,

322.

et potius

Apostolis nullum aliud ne-

jam Dei

concionandi.

P 2

in Christo

TERTULLIANUS,

212

A. D. 200.

the Gospel according to Tertullian, that

trine in

God was

in Christ.

114.

Tertull. de Resurrectione Carnis,

We

must again remember, that we are not

p.

44.

c.

351.
at all

concerned with the accuracy of Tertullian's reasoning about the resurrection of the flesh : we have
only to inquire whether he believed Christ to be

Having quoted 2 Cor. iv. 10. Always hearing about in the body the dying of the Lord
Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might he made
God.

manifest in our body, he asks, " Shall then the

"

life

of Christ, which

" rupt, which

the

is

" in a thing which

66

He means

must
and one reason why he draws

because the

conclusion

is,

God

because Christ

115.

e.

p.

In Eph.

iv.

given you.

32.

as

of Christ

is

the

God

in

this

life

of

God.
c.

45.

we read
original

forgiving one an-

Christ s sake hath foris

KaQcb<;

kou

eo$

Iv

which would be literally, as

Christ hath forgiven you ; and there
vpiv,

why

the passage should not be so

Tertullian renders it, " sicut et Deus

seems no reason
translated.

cer-

352.

God for

The

Xpia-Tx eyaplaaro

also

life
is

Tertull. de Mesurrectione Carnis,

other, even

to be

is

in our bodies, those bodies

tainly be eternal

i.

to perpetual dissolution x ?"

to infer, that if the life of Christ

made manifest

made manifest

unconnected with salvation,

doomed

in a substance

of God, be

life
is

eternal, unceasing, incor-

is

" vobis donavit in Christo" which can hardly

mean

x
In re ergo aliena salutis, in
substantia perpetuee dissolutio-

jam

nis,

manifestabitur vita Christi

seterna, jugis, incorrupta,

Dei

vita

et

TERTULLIANUS,
many

213

It is singular that there should

for sake of Christ.

be so

A.D.200.

Ter-

various readings in this passage.

tullian himself quotes it in another place

>

" sicut

some MSS. read it so

some read, as God hath forgiven you ; some, as the
Lord hathforgiven you; which seems rather to shew
that the passage was understood, not as we translate
it, for sake of Christ, but as if God and Christ were
That St. Paul considered it to be
really the same.
indifferent, whether he said that God has forgiven
us, or Christ has forgiven us, seems evident, if we
compare his words at Eph. iv. 32. with those at Col.
iii. 13.
The two passages are exactly similar but
" et Christus donavit nobis

:"

in the

former he says,

in the latter,

eo$

ev

Xpiarcp lyaplaaTo vixh

Xpiarog lyapivajo vpiv.

thought that Tertullian in the second passage

luded to above, (de Pud.
ther than Eph.

2.)

quoted Col.

al-

13. ra-

Paul exhorted the Colossians

other, as Christ
to

iii.

32 but his words are more like

and we may observe that when St.

iv.

the latter text,

mean

might be

It

to

forgive

had forgiven them, he

speak of him as a mere man.

one ancould not

Christ, as a

mere man, could forgive the Jews who crucified

him but in no sense, literal or figurative, could he
;

have forgiven the Colossians, to

writing, unless

than

man z

we

whom

There are other places

Rom.

vi.

sin once

God.

its

force by our translation.

For

Xpiarco is

We render

he died, he died unto

but in that he liveth, he liveth unto

10, 11.
:

Paul was

in the Epistles

of St. Paul, where the expression &eb$

deprived of

St.

conceive him to have been more

in that

Likewise reckon ye also yourselves

De

See what

Pudicitia, c. i. p. 556.
is said of Col. iii. 13. at p. 23.

p 3

to

be

TERTULLIANUS,

214

A.D.

200.

dead indeed unto sin, hut alive unto God through

Jesus Christ our Lord. I would rather render it,
For in that he died, he died by sin once : but in
that he liveth, he liveth by God.
Christ died, because he was made sin for us: (2 Cor. v. 21.) he
died therefore by, or in consequence

the meaning of okeBave

Tvj

afxapria,

the

of,

the sinful nature, which was in him

sin,

and

i.

e.

this is

not that he died

unto sin, which has no definite meaning at

If

all.

be correct, the next clause must be translated

this

in the

same way

gjjj

tS>

God

6e, he liveth by

i.

e.

by the God, or divine nature, which was in him.

His human nature caused him to die
his divine
nature caused him to live.
The next verse I would
Likewise reckon ye also yourselves
translate thus
as dead by sin, but living by God in Christ Jesus
our Lord. A similar expression occurs in ver. 2.
;

drives aneOavo^ev

a^apria,

ryj

which we render,

How

any longer therein

sin, live

render

How

it,

through

sin, live

we

shall

^rjGOfxev

that are

But

any longer in

live

It

may

if

See
apapiaq

be doubted, whether

Rom.

apa

vexpov
Z,corj

16.

bovKoi

Bdvarov, % vKaKovji;
Also viii. io. to

^iKaioa-vvTjv.

wveu/xa

vi.

fo'

dice

dpaprlav,

SiKaioavvYjV

The words,

to

dead
Having

been
i.

e.

we were

all

Christ had not freed us, shall

iq

to

as they are ren-

dered in our English version,

are generally understood
to

anoOvyo-Keiv

a^aprla can

Schleusner quotes

but the whole passage

avrji

sin a ?

signify to die unto sin b

xiv. 8.

ev

dead

would rather

that have

any longer therein

under condemnation,

en

we

the deadly effects of sin. viz. that

felt

we

ttco$

shall

may

Rom.

be as well trans-

mean, to renounce sin, to commit it no more : but this seems

to have been expressed by a different construction, as in Col.
11.

20.

el qvv

<rrS duo tuv

k. t. A.

untQavtrf

arvv t> ~Kpi-

<noi%doov rov Koapov,

TERTULLIANUS,

215

A. D. 200.

For none of us liveth by, or of himself: and

no man dieth of himself: for whether we live, we
live by the Lord, (i. e. by the will of the Lord,) and
whether we die, we die by the Lord. In each
lated,

place I conceive

the

dative to signify the thing

which causes or ordains that we die c

Schleusner
also quotes Ajax 985. (ed. Musg.) Beotg redvyKev qZto$,
which is exactly in point for it can only mean, he
died by the decree of the gods. Gal. ii. 19- may be
.

of the law, I died

by the law, that I might live by God: in other
words, The very nature of the law caused that by
following the law I became dead, (i. e. I was sub-

For

translated,

ject

in consequence

condemnation,) that I might live

to

(i.

e.

might be restored to spiritual life) by the grace of

God. So also I would translate 1 Pet. iii. 18. Being
put to death by the flesh (i. e. being made subject
,

by his human nature,) but quickened by

to death

the Spirit
nature,)

2 Cor.

(i.

which

xiii. 4.

e.

is

raised to

life

again by his divine

nearly the same expression with

Though he was

crucified through

weakness, yet he liveth by the power of

God;

where the construction

auOeveiag and ck Iwafxeccg
Seov has the same force which I would give to the
dative case in all the above instances and Hippo;

c
Our translators have mistaken the force of the dative in
other instances
thus bishop
Bull points out that in Eph. iv.
23. avccveovo-dcu t nvevpaTi tov
vobq i/pSov should be translated,
to be renewed by the spirit of
your mind.
Chrysostom explains it by t itvcv^ocri, t iv tS
v$.
(Discourse on the state of
:

man

before

the

fall.

Compare Eph.

vol. II. p. 97.)

i.

13.

d Athanasius must have understood the dative case in this

sense, when he said, probably

in allusion to this text, 5<a rovro

Geog uv

Aoyoq yeyove aa,p^,

6ava.roo6ei$ a-apia ^aoTroi^Tr}

t?j

eavrov

hvvdpei.

Arian. 44. vol.

Works,

p 4

I.

p.

Orat.

449.

tm

nctvrat;

I.

C.

TERTULLIANUS,

216

lytus quotes

it

A. D. 200.

meaning, that Christ rose in con-

as

sequence of the divine nature which was in him

So

also in 1 Pet.

24.

ii.

afkapTiaig airoyevo^evoL

we

should translate

Iva roug

that

we who

^iKaioavvY] gyjo-copev,

ryj

were dead by sins, (in consequence of our sins,)

shoidd live by righteousness; or, by his righteousness, i. e. the righteousness of Christ
and in Gal. v.
:

25.

$[i*v

el

translated,

Holy

irvevfAOTi,

If we

Spirit

live

irvevpari

which gives us

If this reasoning be correct,

lived by God,

%jj

it

God was

e.

us walk by or

Rom.

13 f .)

viii. 1, 2.

follows, that

Beco,

tco

be the

e. if it

when

St.

he meant, that he

the cause of his being

which caused him to

was the human nature residing in him by a

raised to
die,

i.

i.

life, let

(See

may be

o-TOi/ZfJiev

by the Spirit,

according to the Spirit.

Paul says of Christ,

kou

life

and

as the sin,

parity of reasoning and of construction

that that which raised

him

to life

we

infer,

was God, or the

divine nature residing in him.

I

was led

into this discussion

that the doctrine of

asserted

by

St.

God being

Paul, Eph.

lian's translation of

it.

iv.

We

by having observed,

in Christ

32.

God

conceive to

God was

yovei

In 2 Cor.
in

vlo<;

vaov.

vi.

11. liv-

rov 'fow ccvrov tCpo-

In Gen.

v. 19. St.

Paul expressly

Christ, reconciling the

Avva[M<; yap av rov ov kou

Ylarfbq

Rom.

Jesus our Lord: which I

mean, restored to life by God who was
in Christ

in Christ Jesus.

says,

and by Tertul-

have the same expres-

sion in the passage already quoted,

ing by

seems to be

vol. II.

p.

27-8. Athanasius interprets it

in the same manner, de Incarn.
21. vol. I. p. 888; as does the
anonymous Author apud Ath.

vol. II. p.

world

625.

reader may try the applicability of this construction

f

The

to the following passages

viii.

24. 2 Cor.

iv. 6.

v.

15. x. 4.

Rom.
1

Pet.

TERTULLIANUS,
unto himself.

TV? speak
is

In 2 Cor.

God

before

A.D.200.
and

17.

ii.

in Christ

xii.

and

217

19-

he

says,

his assertion

we understand it to mean, We speak

presence of that God whom we know to be in

stronger, if

in the

Christ. In Phil.

14. St. Paul says, that

iii.

he presses

toward the prize of the high calling of that

who

XpiaTco

t%

Christ Jesus,

is in

In Col.

'Ivja-ov.

2.

ii.

KAycrecos

avco

God

tov Seov lv

the received text reads

TOV [XVO'TVJpiOV TOV SeOV KOU TIOLTpOg KOU TOV XpiCTTOV,

Of tlie
mystery of God, and of the Father and of Christ :
but the number of various readings
ing,

tion

is

quite astonish-

and most of them remarkably support the noof Christ's divinity.

Thus Clement of Alexan-

dria twice

quotes

the mystery

who

is

God

of God

Christ

the

Father

occurs in Col.

God.

may

in Christ

others,

iii.

Xp/o-Tw,

others read,

of God

it tov fxva-TTjpiov tov

of

in Christ.
3.

your

life is

Christ; others, of
similar expression

hid with Christ in

this

discussion

Dens

in Christo,

finish

that the expression

God

Seov

by observing,

God

in Christ,

occurs very frequently in the works of Tertullian.

Tertull. de Eesurrectione Carnis,

116.

p.

It

c.

49.

356.

might be expected, that those words of St.

and blood cannot inherit the kingdom

Paul, flesh

of God,

would present some

(1 Cor. xv. 50.)

diffi-

culty to Tertullian in his attempt to prove the resurrection of the flesh

nor need

he removes the objection.

But

we examine how

in the course of his

argument, after noticing the preceding words,

As

the earthy, such are they also that are earthy;

as

is

is

and

the heavenly, such are they also that are

Strom. V. 10.

p.

683. V. 12.

p.

694.

TERTUL L I AN U S

218

A. D. 200.

heavenly he says, " If Christ, who alone is really

" heavenly, nay more than heavenly, yet being a
" man, inasmuch as he was flesh and blood, is not
" distinguished, as far as those substances are con" cerned, from the earthly quality it follows, that
;

" those
6

'

who

are called heavenly by St. Paul, are un-

derstood to be so called, not with reference to their

" present substance, but to their future glory

His reasoning

is

this

whose nature was

earthy, inasmuch

If Christ,

really divine, could yet be called

and blood,

as he partook of flesh

any men are

called heavenly,

it

it

follows, that if

must be with

ference to some future state of glory

present

life,

being

made

h ."

re-

for in this

of flesh and blood, they

must be earthy.
This passage clearly proves that Tertullian conceived

of Christ, that his

human

nature was as-

sumed, and that he was himself heavenly, nay more

:
by which he must have meant, su-

than heavenly

perior to angels.

But nothing

except the divine nature

117.

is

superior to angels,

itself.

Tertull. de Hesurrectione Carnis,

c.

51.

p. 357.

One

of the arguments, which he brings to prove

may

appear a strange

the resurrection of the

flesh,

one

contain an express declara-

but the terms of

it

tion of the divinity of Christ.

" argument

may

" and I have reserved

Si

enim Christus

He

says, "

stand in the place of

it

solus vere

immo et supercoehomo tamen, qua caro

all

the rest,

to close the whole, that I

qualitate

discernitur

et qui coelestes

lestis,

non de substantia
de

futura

proinde

secundum

ccelestis,

atque anima, nihilo ex ista substantiarum conditione a choica

But one

ilium,

prsesenti, sed

claritate

prsedicari intelliguntur.

coelestes

TERTULLIANUS,
*

may really

A. D. 200.

219

convict the apostle himself of the great-

" est want of consideration, if shutting his eyes so

" hastily, as some think, without distinction, with" out condition, he excludes all flesh and blood of
" every sort from the kingdom of God, i. e. from
" the palace of heaven itself when Jesus still sits
:

" there, at the right hand of the Father, as man

" though God
as the last Adam, although the
" Word, who was in the beginning ."
If Christ
;

were a mere man, exalted by the power of God, this

argument would of course fail it would involve a
petitio principii.
Tertullian could not then have
known whether Jesus was in heaven or no but he
:

assumes, that the

he

is

man

Jesus

in heaven, because

is

God.

118.

Marcionem,

Tertull. adversus

1.

II. c. 16.

p. 389.

Marcion was charged with believing that there

were two Gods, one the author of good, who was revealed in Jesus Christ

the other the author of evil

was the Creator of the world, and inAmong other objections which
Marcionites
brought
the
against the God of the Old
Testament, was his cruelty and as an instance of this
that the latter

ferior to the former.

they alleged his severity in inflicting punishment.

Tertullian very properly answers, that Justice
attribute of

'

bit,

God

as well as

Sed pro omnibus jam stain clausulam reserva-

quod

vimus, etiam pro apostolo ipso

revera maxima? inconsiderantiee

revincendo,
qui dam

si

tarn abrupte, ut

volunt,

clausis

(quod

aiunt) oculis, sine distinctione,

sine conditione,

omnem

passim

Goodness

carnem
Dei

et

is an
and that the

sanguinem a regno

ab ipsa
adhuc sedeat Jesus ad dexteram
extrusit, utique et

regia coelorum
Patris,

homo,

novissimus,
rius.

quum

etsi

etsi

illic

Deus Adam
Sermo prima;

TERTULLXANUS,

220

A. D. 200.

nature of a Providence implies His correcting what

have learnt our
He says, "
is evil in the world.

We

" notions of God from the prophets and from Christy

" not from philosophers, nor from Epicurus we,
:

"

who

believe that

God

ever lived upon earth, and

" took upon him the humility of the human form,

" for sake of the salvation of man, are far removed

" from the opinions of those (the Epicureans) who

" think that

"

retics

"

God

God

Hence the

cares for nothing.

have drawn the following conclusion

is

angry, and

is

and

jealous,

he:

If

excited and

is

" provoked, therefore he is subject to corruption

" and therefore he is mortal.
But it is well to be" lieve, as the Christians do, that God even died,
" and yet that he lives for ever and ever k ."

God

Marcionites thought that they proved

mortal, which

is

of course absurd

God submitted

he took upon him our

119.

The

to

yet, as

be

Ter-

no absurdity in believing with

tullian says, there is

the Christians, that

and

The

when

to death,

flesh.

Tertull adv. Marc.

following passage

is

1.

II. c. 27. p.

395.

given at length, as shew-

ing not only the doctrine of Tertullian concerning

Christ's divinity

and

as proving also, that

that Christ,

God.
k

his union

with the Father, but

Marcion himself

who appeared upon

fully believed

was

earth,

really

Tertullian indeed could not put the divinity

Deum

nos a prophetis et a

non a philosopbis, nec

ab Epicuro erudimur. Qui eredimus Deum etiam in terris
egisse, et humani habitus huChristo,

militatem suscepisse ex causa

humanee salutis, longe sumus a
sententia
eorum qui nolunt
Deum curare quidquam. Inde

venit ad hsereticos
nitio

ejusmodi

Si

quoque

Deus

defi-

irasci-

tur, et semulatur, et extollitur,

et exacerbatur, ergo et

corrum-

petur, ergo et morietur.

Bene

autem quod Christianorum

etiam
et

mortuum Deum

tamen viventem

rum.

est,

credere,

in sevo sevo-

TERTULLIANUS,

A. D. 200.

221

of Christ higher than Marcion did, who, while he

two Gods, believed that

and greater of these, who had

believed in the existence of

Christ was the better

revealed himself in a

human

form.

It appears, as in

the last article, that Marcion had thought to prove

the inferiority of the

God

of the Old Testament by

the fact of his being represented as subject to anger,

jealousy, &c. of his having talked to

men, and per-

which imply humanity. Tertul"

lian observes,
that God could not have entered
" into conversations with men, unless he had as" sumed human feelings and affections, by which he
" could temper the greatness of his majesty, that
66
would have been intolerable to human weakness,
" with a humility which might be unworthy of him,
" but necessary for man, and so far therefore worthy
" of God, because nothing is so worthy of God as
" the salvation of man. I should treat of this at
" greater length, if I was dealing with heathens, al" though the dispute is not very different when held
e
with heretics. Inasmuch as you yourselves already

formed other

acts

" believe that God has sojourned in the form, and

" the other circumstances, of human nature, you
" will not require to be persuaded more at length,
" that

God has conformed himself to humanity but

" you are refuted by your own belief.
For if God,
:

" and indeed the higher God , lowered the emi" nence of his majesty by such humility, that he
" submitted to death, even the death of the cross,
l

"

why cannot you think that some degradations were

" compatible also with our God m , which were even
1

Marcion

acknowledged

Christ to be the higher God.

inasmuch as he was the author

of good.

i.

e.

world, the

the

God

Creator of the
of the Old Tes-

TERTULLI AN US,

A. D. 200.

more tolerable than Jewish reproaches and crosses

" and sepulchres ? Are these the degradations, which
" are to prove that Christ, who was subject to hu" man passions, did not belong to that God, whom
66

" you reproach with having

"
"
"

human feelings ? For

we hold, that Christ always acted in the name of
God the Father that he conversed with him from
the beginning that it was he who talked with
;

" the patriarchs and prophets, the Son of the Crea" tor, His Word, whom He made His Son by pro" ducing out of Himself, and thence placed him
" over the whole of His dispensation and will, mak" ing him a little lower than the angels, as David

by which lowering he
" was also ordained by the Father to perform those
" things which you object to as human, that he
<e
might learn even from the beginning what was
" that human nature, which in the end he was to
"writes;

(Psalm

viii.

5.)

" be.
it is he who asks
It is he who came down
" it is he who inquires it is he who swears.
But
" that the Father is seen by no man, even the com:

" in on Gospel" will testify,

when

Christ says,

No

"

man knoweth the Father, save the Son : (Matt.

" xi. 27.) for he himself in the Old Testament had

" declared, JVo man shall see God and live 0 : but
" he shews that the Father is invisible, in whose

name he himself, who was seen, the

" Son of God, was God.
Therefore whatever you
" authority and

lament,

whom Marcion

knowledged

ac-

God, but

to be a

accused him of being the author of evil.

a That is, not Marcion's Gospel, but those which are com-

monly received by

all

Christians.

This

xxxiii. 20.

is

taken from Exodus

No man

shall see

me

and live; which words were

spoken by Jehovah to Moses
;

but Tertullian says, that they

were spoken by Christ,

TERTULLIANUS,

A.D. 200.

223

" require as worthy of God, will be found in the Fa" ther who is invisible, and not to be talked with,

" and free from passions, and (if I may use the ex" pression) the God imagined by philosophers. But
" whatever you object to, as unworthy of God p, will
" be found in the Son,

who was

seen and heard,

" and conversed with, the judge and minister of his

" Father, uniting in himself man and God in his

" mighty acts, God in his degradations, man so
" that as much as he takes from God, he confers
:

" upon man in short,

" graceful to my God ^
:

all
is

that you consider as dis-

the pledge of

human

sal-

" vation. God conversed with man, that man might

" be taught to act divinely. God placed himself on

man might put himself

" upon an equality with God.
God was found in a
" degraded state, that man might be in the most
" exalted state.
If you disdain such a God as this,
" an equality with man, that

" I doubt whether you really believe that God was

" crucified r ." Origen also says that " the Jews cruNamely,

his lowering himappear on earth.

q The God of the Old Testament, whom I and all Christians acknowledge.
p

self to

Quatenus

et ipsi

Deum

in

figura et in reliquo ordine hu-

manae

jam

conditionis

diversatum

non

exigetis uti-

credidistis,

que diutius persuaderi Deum

conformasse semetipsum humased de vestra fide revincimini.
Si enim Deus, et qui-

nitati,

dem

sublimior, tanta humilitate

fastigium
vit,

majestatis suae

ut etiam morti

et morti crucis, cur

nostro quoque
sillitates

liores

Deo

stra-

subjiceret,

non

putetis

aliquas pu-

congruisse,

tolerabi-

tamen Judaicis contume-

et

liis

An

patibulis et

sepulchris

hae sunt pusillitates quae

jam

praejudicare debebunt Christum,

humanis passionibus objectum,

ejus Dei esse cui humanitates
exprobrantur a vobis ? Nam et
profitemur Christum semper egisse in Dei patris nomine:
ipsum ab initio conversatum
ipsum congressum cum patri:

archis et prophetis, filium Crea-

Sermonem ejus, quem ex

semetipso proferendo Filium
fecit, et exinde omni dispositioni suae voluntatique praefe-

toris,

diminuens ilium modico

apud David
scriptum est; qua diminutione
in haec quoque dispositus est a
cit

citra Angelos, sicut

Patre,

quae ut

humana

repre-

TERTULLIANUS,

224

"

A. D. 200.

God." N. 221, see also N. 357. with which

cified

expressions

we may compare

that of St. Paul, that

Lord of

the princes of this world crucified the

Glonj, 1 Cor.

8.

ii.

Tertull. adv.

120.

Marc.

1.

III. c. 6. p. 400.

It seems, that Marcion, in order to prove his doc-

two Gods, had argued, that the Jews rethey considered him as a
preacher of a strange God different from their own.
Tertullian denies this, and says, " They did not hate
" and persecute Christ, as belonging to another God,
" but as being merely a man, whom they thought
" an impostor in his miracles, and a rival in his doctrine of

jected Jesus, because

" trines

s ."

It is plain therefore that Tertullian did

man: but he looked

not consider Jesus as a mere

upon

notion as the fundamental error of the

this

Jews, and the cause of their committing such an

enormous crime.
henditis, ediscens jam inde a
primordio, jam inde hominem,
quod erat futurus in fine. Ille
ille qui inest qui descendit
terrogat
ille
ille qui postulat
qui jurat. Ceterum Patrem nemini visum, etiam commune
testabitur evangelium, dicente
:

Nemo

Christo,

cognovit

Patrem

Ipse enim et veteri

Testamento pronuntiarat, Deum
nisi Filius.

nemo

videbit

invisibilem

et

vivet

Deus

Filius.
exigitis

in

cu-

nomine

ipse

Dei
Igitur quaecumque
Deo digna, habebuntur

Patre

bilique

Patrem

determinans,

jus auctoritate et
erat

qui

videbatur

invisibili

et

placido,

incongressiet

ut

ita

philosophorum Deo.
Quaecumque autem ut indigna

dixerim

reprehenditis,
Filio, et viso.

deputabuntur in
et audito, et con-

gresso, arbitro Patris et mini-

miscente in semetipso ho-

stro,

minem et Deum: in virtutibus

Deum; in pusillitatibus hominem ut tantum homini conferat, quantum Deo detrahit
;

totum denique Dei mei penes

vos dedecus sacramentum e&t
humanse salutis. Conversabatur Deus, ut homo divine agere

Ex

doceretur.

aequo

Deus cum homine,

ex aequo agere

Deus

homo

cum Deo

posset.

pusillus

homo maximus
lem

Deum

agebat

ut

inventus
fieret.

est,

ut

Qui

ta-

dedignaris, nescio

ex fide credas

Deum

an

crucifixum.

s
Et adeo non qua alterius
Dei Christum adversati persecutique sunt ; sed qua solummodo

hominem, quern planum in sigaemulum in doctrinis ex

nis et

istimabant.

TERTULLIANUS,
Tertidl. adv.

121.

Among

Marc.

A.D.
1.

225

200.

III. c. 8. p. 401.

other absurdities, Marcion considered the

body of Jesus

be a phantom.

to

Tertullian ob-

was guilty of a
meant it to be conceived, that he had a real body
and thus, he continues ironically, Marcion would refute himself, and
make Christ resemble the God of the Old Testament, who, according to his own notion, was full of
deceit.
In the same strain of irony he observes,
were

serves that, if this

so,

Christ

deception, because he certainly

" It seems therefore, that Marcion's Christ, lest he

" should be a deceiver, and should thus chance to

" be supposed to belong to the Creator, was not

" what he seemed to be, and told a lie as to what
" he was, saying that he was flesh, when he was
" not flesh man, when he was not man and conse;

" quently that he

was God, when he was not God.

" For why might he not also have borne a false

" appearance of God? Shall I believe him concerning
e

his interior substance,

" ing his exterior

?"

when he deceived

It is evident

from

concern-

this irony,

that Tertullian conceived the divinity of Christ to

be a point which was fully believed by Marcion

and

in order to refute Marcion's reasoning, he shews,

that

it

would lead

to the

absurd conclusion, that

Christ was not God, at least that his divinity might

be questionable.
122.

Tertidl adv. Marc.

1.

III. c. 16. p. 406.

Tertullian observes, (and in this he

1
Et ideo Christus ejus ne
mentiretur, ne falleret, et hoc

modo

Creatoris forsitan depunon erat quod videba-

taretur,
tur, et

quod

erat mentiebatur

caro, nec caro

homo, nec ho-

mo

tus

is

followed by

proinde Deus Christus,

nec Deus. Cur enim non etiam
Dei phantasma portaverit ? An
credam ei de interiore substantia, qui sit de exteriore frustra-

TERTULLIANUS,

226

A. D. 200.

many commentators,) that the application of the

name Jesus to Christ was prefigured in the Old
Testament, when the son of Nun had his name
changed from Oshea

to Joshua, which is Jesus

which he says, " Christ himself testified that this was his own name, when he
spoke to Moses for who was it that spoke, except the Spirit of the Creator, which is Christ ?
When therefore he gave his commandment to the
people, Behold I send my Angel before thee, to
keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the
land which I have prepared for thee : beware

(Numb.
<e

"

"
"
"
"

"

xiii. 16.) after

" of him,

"for he

and obey
is

his voice

do not disobey him

not concealed from thee

for my name

upon him u ." Exod. xxiii. 20. The same passage occurs nearly word for word in Tertullian's
work against the Jews, c. 9- where he says, " He
" who spoke to Moses was the Son of God, who was
"

is

" always visible for no one hath ever seen God the
" Father and lived and therefore it is evident that
:

" the Son of God himself spoke to Moses, and said

" to the people, Behold &c. x "

We

have only to observe, that Tertullian refers

these words to Christ

and yet

u Hoc nomen ipse Christus

suum jam tunc esse testatus
est, quum ad Moysen loqueba-

tur.

Quis enim loquebatur,

nisi

Spiritus Creatoris, qui est Chri-

qui te custodiat in via et introducat in terram, quam paravi

tibi: intende Mi et exaudi ilium:

ne inobedieris eum
celavit

super ilium

te,

non enim
:
quoniam nomen meum

we
est.

look to the

Where Ter-

read non celavit te, our

version has, he will not pardon
your transgressions : in the LXX,
tullian

ov [Ay vitcxnelhrjxal ae.

Cum

ergo mandato diceret populo, Ecce ego mitto Angelum meum ante faciem tuam,
stus?

if

Nam qui ad Moysem loque-

Dei Filius, qui

Deum
semper videbatur.
enim Patrem nemo vidit unbatur, ipse erat

et

quam

et vixit

et ideo constat

ipsum Dei Filium Moysi esse

loquutum, et dixsisse ad populum, Ecce &c. p. 194.

TERTULLIANUS,
Book

of Exodus,

it is

A.D.200.

227

impossible to doubt but that

they were spoken by the Almighty himself:

and
more remarkable, because Tertullian
the Fathers considered the Angel here pro-

the passage

is

and all
mised to be Christ so that Christ promised that he
would send himself; which is wholly unintelligible,
:

unless

we

one.

That Tertullian believed

believe that the Father

and the Son are

plain from this

so, is

passage.

123.

Tertull. adv.

Marc.

III.

1.

c.

19. p. 408.

The following passage requires no illustration

from the context " In the Gospel, which even you
" acknowledge, God has made a revelation, calling
" bread his body y :" and the belief which Tertullian
:

had

becomes

in the divinity of Christ

parent,

when we turn

more ap-

treatise against

his

to

still

the

Jews, where there are whole passages agreeing word

for

word with the present work

and there we read

the same observation, with the single difference that

Christ is substituted for God, " Christ has made a

" revelation, calling bread his body

importance did

it

seem

to

z ."

Of

so little

Tertullian whether he

named God or Christ as the author of an act, which

we know to have been performed by Christ.
Tertull. adv. Marc. 1. IV. c. 9. p. 419.
124.
Tertullian

makes a singular remark upon the mi-

raculous cure of the leper mentioned Matt.

Jesus cured him by a touch

Moses he would have been considered

having touched an unclean person

remark

is

suum

defiled for

but Tertullian's

a proof of his belief in Christ's divinity.

y Sic enim Deus in evangelicquoque vestro revelavit, panem

corpus

viii. 3.

and by the law of

appellans.

z
Christus revelavit,
corpus suum appellans,

p.

196.

panem
c.

io.

TERTULLIANUS, A.D.

228
"

He

touched the leper, by

whom

200.

although a

man

" might have been defiled, yet God could not be de" filed, being undefilable so that no command need
:

" be given to him that he ought to obey the law,

" and not touch an unclean person, since the touch
" of an unclean thing could not defile him a ."

There

is

a similar passage in

where, speaking of the

20. of this book,

c.

woman who had an

blood, (Matt. ix. 20.) he says, "

issue of

She touched him,

" not as a holy man, nor as a prophet, whom she

" would have known to be defilable from his human
" substance
but she touched him as being God
" himself, who, as she concluded, could not be pol:

" luted by any uncleanness.

" this faith of the woman,

Christ approving of

who

believed

" Creator only, answered, that he was the

" that faith, of which he approved b ."

the

in

God

of

125.

Tertull adv. Marc.

When

Jesus had said to the paralytic man, (Luke

v. 20.)

Thy

observed,

IV.

1.

c.

sins are forgiven thee,

Who

10. p. 421.

and the Jews

can forgive sins but

God

alone ?

Jesus did not reply by asserting plainly that he was

God, but he told them, The Son of man hath power

on earth to forgive sins, leaving them to draw the
two inferences, that he was the Son of man, and
that the Son of
a

man was God.

Tetigit leprosum, a quo etsi

homo

inquinari potuisset,

Deus

utique non inquinaretur, incontaminabilis scilicet.

Ita non
preescribetur

illi

legem observare,

quod debiierit
et non con-

immundum, quem conimmundi non erat inqui-

tingere
tactus

naturus.
b

Sic

minem sanctum, nec ut prophetam, quem contaminabilem

pro humana substantia sciret
sed ut ipsum Deum, quem nul:

spurcitia pollui posse prsesumpserat.

-Hanc fidem probans Christus ejus foeminae, quee
solum credebat Creatorem, ejus
la

fidei

eum

tetigit,

non ut ho-

Tertullian remarks,

se

Deum

respondit,

probavit. p, 434.

quam

TERTULLI ANUS,

A. D. 200.

229

that Jesus answered in this way, because he

that Daniel, one of their

tioned the Son of

man

own

prophets,

(Dan.

13.)

vii.

knew

had menhis answer

was equivalent to this. You say that God

only can forgive sins and you say rightly but I
tell you, that the Son of man, whom Daniel mentions, can forgive sins
for, as you yourselves well
know, the Son of man, whom Daniel saw, was God.
" JesLis was seen
Tert ullian's words are these
therefore

" by the king of Babylon in the furnace with his

" martyrs, being the fourth person, like the Son of

"

man c the same was revealed to Daniel himself

" expressly as the Son of man, coming as a judge
" with the clouds of heaven, as the scripture proves.
"

have said that

this

might

suffice as to

the

title

Son of man being used by the prophets but the

" scripture makes still more in my favour by the
" explanation of the Lord himself.
For when the
" Jews, who only looked upon the human part of
"

" him, and were not yet certain that he was God,
" as being Son of God, reasonably objected, that a

"

man could not forgive sins, but God only, why did
" he not answer them according to what they con" ceived of a man, that he had power to forgive
" sins, whereas by calling himself the Son of man,

" he called himself man, except that, by this very

" appellation of the Son of man, he wished to con" vince them out of the Book of Daniel, that he
" might shew

them both God and man with power

" to forgive sins

?"

c
Dan. iii. 25. All the Hebrew copies read Son of God.

The Septuagint
vla

eov.

read

o/x-o/^a

Theodotion, opaia.
Tertullian seems to

ayyiXov eov.

have considered the two

expressions Son of man and Son

of God as equivalent.
d

Hie

bylonio

Jesus) erat visus Bain fornace cum

regi

TERTULLIANUS,

230

Tertull adv. Marc.

A.D. 200.

IV. c. 12. p. 424.

Speaking of the Sabbath, he observes, that the
Jews mistook the fourth commandment, which only
126.

1.

them from performing any common work

restrained

of their own on that day, " For the work of God

" may be done even by man for the salvation of a
yet what the man Christ was about to do,
" was done by God, because he was also God e ."
After which he says, " He was called the Lord of
" soul

" the Sabbath, because he observed the Sabbath as

" a thing belonging to himself. But if he had abro" gated it, he would have had a right, inasmuch as
" he was the Lord who appointed it f ." If it was

who

instituted the Sabbath, it seems imposdeny his union with the Father.
Tertull adv. Marc. 1. IV. c. 13. p. 425.
127.
Having shewn how Christ made his actions ac-

Christ

sible to

cord in many instances with facts mentioned in the

Old Testament, he quotes Psalm Ixxxvii. 4, 5. as a
prediction of the multitudes who came from the seamartyribus

quam

Alius

Datiieli

suis

quartus,

hominis

revelatus

tan-

idem

directo

ipsi
filius

hominis, veniens cum eceli nubibus judex, sieut et scriptura

demonstrat.
Hoc dixi sumcere
potuisse de nominatione prophetica circa filium hominis.
Sed plus mihi scriptura confert,
ipsius scilicet

tatione.

Domini

Nam cum

interpre-

Judsei so-

testatem

quando

dimittendi

mi nans
nisi

delicta,

hominis nohominem nominaret,

filium

et

quia ideo ipse voluit

appellatione

filii

eos

hominis ex in-

strument Danielis repercutere,

Deum et homi-

ut ostenderet

nem
e

qui delicta dimitteret.

Quia opus Dei etiam per

hominem

fieri

tem animse

potest in

sal li-

Deo tamen, quod

lummodo hominem ejus intuentes, necdum et Deum certi, qua

facturus fuerat et Christus ho-

Dei quoque Filium, merito

Dominus Sabbati dictus,

quia Sabbatum, ut rem suam,
tuebatur.
Quod etiam si destruxisset, merito, qua Dominus

tractarent

re-

non posse hominem

delicta dimittere sed

Deum

so-

lum, cur non secundum intentionem eorum de homine eis

respondebat, Habere eum po-

mo, quia

et

Deus.

magis

ille

qui instituit.

TERTULLIANUS,
coast of

Tyre and Sidon

A. D. 200.

231

(Luke

to hear him.

vi. 17.)

Tertullian's version of this passage differs consider-

ably from our

own

and commentators are

also di-

vided, whether the prophecy relates to Christ or to

the multitudes of believers

ment upon the passage

is

but Tertullian's com-

not affected by this dis-

crepancy, nor his testimony to the divinity of Christ.

" They come together from Tyre, and a multitude
" from the regions even beyond the sea this was
:

" the meaning of the Psalm,

66

Tyre and

the people

Behold

Philistine

and

of ^Ethiopia, they were

" there. Sion the mother shall say,

man and a
" man was made in her ; since God was born as a
" man, and established her by the will of his Fa" ther that you may know that the Gentiles then
" came together to him, because God was born as a
" man, who was to build up a church by the will of
:

66

his Father,

128.

even out of the Philistines s"

TertulL adv. Marc.

1.

IV.

c.

25. p. 440.

We

must remember that Marcion considered the

God who was revealed in Christ to be different from
the God who created the world, and that they were
opposed to each other.
Conveniunt a Tyro

et

ex

regionibus multitude) etiam

transmarina.
Hoc spectabat
Psalmus, Et ecce Allophyli et
aliis

populus Mthiopum,
Mater Sion
fuerunt illic.

Tyrus,
isti

dicet,

in

et

homo factus est

(quoniam Deus homo

homo

ilia,

natus est,)

et

et cedificavit earn

vo~

Tertullian says, that the

516. he reads this verse of the
Psalm, Deus homo natus est in
ilia.
Origen agrees with the
p.

of these two readings,

first

airy, which is the reading of the Septuagint. Athanasius has the same with the exception of iyewrjd'/] for iyev^Svj. de
Incarn. 22. vol.1, p. 889. et ad

eyev-fori ev

ut scias ad eum
tunc Gentiles convenisse, quia

Marcel.

Deus homo

brew

luntate Patris

erat natus, sedifica-

ecclesiam ex voluntate
Patris, ex Allophylis quoque. In
another place, Adv. Prax. c. 27.

turus

y.y-

ryp Xiav ipu, avOpavoq Kai av6paTto$

said,

6.

reads,

p.

984.

Of Sion

The Heit

shall be

A man and a man was

in her.

bora

TERT ULLI ANUS, A

232

D. 200.

notion might be refuted by that text, All things are

me of my Father; (Luke x. 22.) at

would follow from this text, that Christ and
the Creator were connected, because all things must
belong to him who created them and no other perdelivered to

least it

son but the Creator could have given them to Christ.

Tertullian's comment upon the text is this, " You

"

may

believe

if

it,

Christ belongs to the Creator,

" whose all things are because the Creator delivered

" to His Son, who was not inferior to Himself, all
:

" things which

"Word

He

created by him, that

much more

by His

the Socinians and Unitarians.

Tertull. adv.

129.

is,

This passage refutes even the Arians

"."

Marc.

1.

IV.

c.

40. p. 457.

Fie argues, that the fact of Christ observing the

which were instituted by the God of

the Old Testament, proves that there could be no
opposition between them, and he makes this remark

Jewish

feasts,

upon Christ eating the

" Having pro-

last passover.

" fessed that with a desire he desired to eat the

" passover, as belonging to himself, (for it was un" becoming that God should desire any thing belong-

" ing to another,) he took bread, and distributed it

" to his disciples, and made it his body, by saying,
" This is my body, i. e. the figure of my body 1 ."
130.

To
h

Omnia

Patre

Tertull. adv.

Marc. L V.

sibi

credas,

si

tradita

(licit

Creatoris est

omnia quia non

minori se tradidit omnia Filio

Christus, cujus

Creator, quae per eura condidit,

per

Sermonem suum

scilicet.

Professus itaque se concupiscentia concupisse edere Pa1

c. 5. p.

understand the following quotation,

467.

we need

scha ut suum (indignum enim

ut quid alienum concupisceret
Deus,) acceptum panem et clistributum discipulis, corpus illum suum fecit, Hoc est corpus
meum dicendo, id est, figura
corporis mei.

TERTULLIANUS,

A.D.

The foolish-

only remember those words of St. Paul,

ness of

God

is

wiser than men,

233

200.

and

the weakness

of God is stronger than men, (1 Cor. i. 25.) " But

" what is the foolishness of God, which is wiser than
" men, except the cross and death of Christ ? What
" is the weakness of God, which is stronger than
66
men, except the birth and incarnation of God k ?"
Tertidl. adv.

131.

The
born

Marc.

1.

V.

c. 8. p.

470.

preexistence of Christ, as well as his being

of a virgin, are maintained in the following

comment upon that prophecy of

Isaiah, There shall come forth a rod out of the
root of Jesse, and a flower shall grow out of his

passage, which

root, (xi. 1.)

is

"for he shews, that Christ was to

rise

in the figure of a flower from a rod which was to

" proceed from the root of Jesse, i.e. from a virgin
" of the family of David the son of J esse, in which

66

" Christ the whole substance of the Spirit was to

" dwell
not as if it were to come subsequently
" upon him, who was always the Spirit of God, even
:

" before his incarnation lest you might argue from

" this, that the prophecy belonged to that Christ,
" who as a mere man of the family of David was to
:

God afterwards ."

Marc. 1. V. c. 9. p. 472.

" receive the Spirit of his

132.

Tertull adv.

Tertullian's

commentary upon Psalm

k Quid
est autem stultum
Dei sapientius hominibus, nisi
crux et mors Christi ? Quid infirmum Dei, fortius homine, nisi
nativitas et caro Dei?
Christum enim in floris fi-

lxxii. is

ret tota substantia Spiritus

quasi postea obventura

very

illi,

non
qui

semper Spiritus Dei merit, ante

carnem quoque ne ex hoc ar;

gura ostendit oriturum ex virga

profecta de radice Jesse, id est

gumenteris prophetiam ad eum

Christum pertinere, qui ut homo
tantum ex solo censu David
postea consecuturus sit Dei sui

virgine generis David

Spiritual,

in

filii

Jesse,

quo Christo consistere habe-

TERTULLIANUS, A.D.

234

200.

remarkable. " This Psalm may be said to be sung to

" Solomon and yet will not those parts, which be" long to Christ only, teach us that the other parts
:

" also belong not to Solomon but to Christ

"

He shall have dominion, he says, from

"

and from

sea to sea,

the river unto the ends

of the earth.
" This is given to Christ alone but Solomon only
" ruled over the small country of Judaea. All kings
:

66

shallfall

down

before him

whom

before

will all

" fall down, except before Christ ? and all nations

" shall serve him : whom shall all nations serve, ex" cept Christ ? Let his name be for ever : whose

"

name will be for ever, except Christ's ? his name

" shall endure before the sun : for the Word of God,
" i. e. Christ, is before the sun. And all nations
" shall be blessed in him: no nation will be blessed
" in Solomon
"

now

if this

What

but in Christ every nation.

Psalm prove him

Him

" they shall call

"

Lord God of

66

things

also to

And

be God?

blessed : for blessed

the

is

who only doeth wondrous

glorious name ; and all
" the earth shall be filled with His glory m ." With
the correctness of every part of this commentary we
m Sed

Israel,

blessed be

et hie

His

Psalmus Salo-

moni canere dicetur. Quae tamen soli competunt Christo docere non poterunt etiara csetera
non ad Salomonem sed ad Christum pertinere? Dominabitur,

omnes,

Hoc

in

datum est Christo

caeterum Salomon uni et mo:

dicse Judsegs imperavit.

bunt ilium omnes reges

omnes,
vient

ei

Adora:

quern

Christum ? Et seromnes nationes : cui

nisi

Et

Christus.
illo

soli

Christo? Sit nomen

:
cujus nomen in

seternum, nisi Christi ? Ante solem manebit nomen ejus : ante

solem enim Sermo Dei, id est

mari ad mare, et a flumine usque ad terminos terrce.

inquit, a

nisi

ejus in cevum

universce

benedicentur

gentes

in

in

Salo-

mone

nulla natio benedicetur;

Christo vero omnis.
Quid

nunc
iste

si

et

Deum eum

Psalmus

demonstrat? Et beatum eum

dicent:

Quoniam

minus Deus

benedictus

Israelis,

mirabilia solus, &c. &c.

Do-

qui facit

TERTULLIANUS,
are not concerned

but

235

A. D. 200.

undeniable that Tertul-

it is

Lord God of Israel,

would not have applied passages to him, which
would so easily have been understood of God the

lian believed Christ to be the

or he

Father.

133.

Tertull. adv. Praoceam,

c. 2. p.

501.

This treatise was written against Praxeas,

who

fol-

lowed what has been called the Patripassian heresy,

i. e. he believed and taught that it was the Father

who was

born and crucified so that the Father and

Son were one, not only in substance, but in person.
In refuting this doctrine, Tertullian would naturally
;

point out, that the orthodox church fully believed in

the unity of God, but he would also shew

how two

persons were understood to exist in one substance.

Accordingly he says in the second chapter "
;

" believe that there

" dispensation

n
:

is

We

only one God, but under this

namely, that there

is

also a

Son

" of this one God, His

Word, who proceeded from

" Him, by ivliom all things ivere made, and without
" whom nothing was made: that he was sent by his
" Father into a Virgin, and born of her, man and
" God, Son of man and Son of God, and named
" Jesus Christ that he suffered
that he died and
:

" was buried according to the scriptures

that he
" was raised again by the Father, and taken up into
" heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of the Fa;

" ther

"

who

" the
"

who

who

will

come

to

judge quick and dead

sent from thence, according to his promise,

Holy Ghost, the Comforter, from the Father,

sanctifieth the faith of those

who

" the Father and Son and Holy Ghost

n
Dispensatio sive oeconomia.
See note p. p. 70.

believe in

."

Unicum quidem Deum

dimus

cre-

sub hac tamen dispen-

TERTULLIANUS, A.D.

236

In this passage

we

200.

evidently read a prescribed

form of belief or creed, and Tertullian tells us that

had been handed down from the beginning of the

it

At

Gospel, even before any heresies existed.

I

p.

69-72-

have transcribed the creeds which Irenaeus ac-

knowledged

and the reader may compare them

with the one just given, as well as with the following,

which Tertullian has

" There

also preserved.

"

is only one rule of faith, alone unalterable and not

" to be reformed, i. e. of believing in God Almighty,

" Creator of the world; and in His Son Jesus Christ,

"

who was born

of the Virgin Mary, suffered under

" Pontius Pilate who rose again from the dead on

" the third day, was taken up into heaven, and sit;

" teth at the right hand of God, who will come to

" judge the quick and dead p."
" The rule of faith is, that there is only one God,

and no other except the Creator of the world, who

all things out of nothing by His Word,
" who was produced before all things
that this
Word was called His Son, who was seen at va<

" formed

satione, quam ceconomiani dicimus, ut unici Dei sit et Filius,

Sermo

ipsius, qui

cesserit,

per

ex ipso pro-

quem omnia

facta

quo factum est niHunc missum a Patre in

hil.
Virginem, et ex ea natum liomi-

a Patre Spiritum

sunt, et sine

nem

et

Deum, Filium hominis

et Filium Dei, et

cognominatum

Jesum Christum. Hunc passum, hunc mortuum et sepultum secundum scripturas, et re-

Sanctum Pa-

racletum, sanctificatorem fidei

eorum qui credunt in Patrem et
Filium et Spiritum Sanctum.
p

Regula quidem

omnino

irreformabilis
in

unicum

fidei

una

sola immobilis

est,

credendi

Deum

et

scilicet

omnipoten-

tem, mundi conditorem, et Filium ejus Jesum Christum, natum ex Virgine Maria, crucifixum sub Pontio Pilato, tertia
die resuscitatum a mortuis, re-

suscitatum a Patre, et in ccelos

resumptum, sedere ad dexteram

ceptum

venturum judicare vivos

et mortuos
qui exinde miserit,
secundum promissionem suam,

ad dexteram Patris, venturum

judicare vivos et mortuos. De
Virg. Veland. c. i. p. 173.

Patris,

in ccelis,

sedentem nunc

TERTULLIANUS,

A.D.

237

200.

" rious times in the name of God by the patriarchs,

" was always heard in the prophets, and lastly by

" the Spirit and power of God the Father came

<e
into the Virgin Mary, and was made flesh in her
" womb, and was born in her, and appeared, Jesus
" Christ
that he was crucified, rose again on the

" third day, was taken up into heaven, and sitteth

" at the right hand of the Father %"

Prax. c. 17. p. 510.

Nothing can shew more plainly the sense in
which Tertullian used the term God, when applied
Tertutt. adv.

134.

to Christ, than the following passage.

"

The

titles

God Almighty, Most High, Lord of

" Hosts r , King of Israel, I Am, as far as the Scrip" tures teach us, we say that those titles belong also
" of the Father,

" to the Son, and that the Son came under those
" titles, and always acted according to them, and
" thus manifested them in himself to men. All
" things that the Father hath he says, are mine
9

6i

(John xvi. 15.)

Regula

est

why

not also his

unum

fidei

omnino Deum esse, nec alium

qui
praeter mundi conditorem
;

universa

de nihilo produxerit,

per

Verbum suum

um

clemissum

id

prinio

omni-

Verbum

Fi-

lium ejus appellatura, in nomine

Dei varie visum a patriarchis, in
prophetis semper auditum, postremo delatum ex Spiritu Patris Dei et virtute in Virginem
Mariam, carnem factum in utero
ejus, et ex ea

natum

sum Christum

egisse Je-

fixum cruci,

tertia die resurrexisse, in coelos

.

ereptum
Patris.
c.

sedisse

De

ad dexteram

Prescript.

Haeret.

13. p. 206, 7.
r

Hippolytus says, that the

Son

is

the

titles

When

Lord of Hosts,

II. p.

24. quoted in N. 170.

See also
Justin Martyr as quoted at N.
26. and Dionysius of Alexandria
quoted at p. 123. note h
s
Athanasius argues in the
.

same manner from

that the Son is alhot;,
aBdvaroq.

In Ma'tt.

xi.

this

text,

odwioc, ku)

27. vol.

I.

106; and in his commentary

upon Psalm lxxxviii. 25. he has
p.

still

stronger passage to the

same purpose, beginning with

-roiq ovopcca-iv,

ol?

aaktcrrcx,

m-piitovcri

tS narfi, ku) avroq 6 vloq hotja^ercu,

and ending with the quotation
of John
60.

xvii. 10. vol. I, p. 1

159-

TERTULLIANUS, A.D.

238

200.

" therefore you read Almighty God, and Most High,

" and God of Hosts, and King of Israel, and I Am,
" consider whether the Son is not also pointed out
" by those titles God Almighty by his own right,
" inasmuch as he is the Word of God Almighty
;

" and inasmuch as he has received the power of all

" things: the Most High, inasmuch as he is exalted

" by the right hand of God, as Peter preaches in

" the Acts, (ii. 33.) the Lord of Hosts, because all
" things are subjected to him by the Father (Matt.
;

"

" nation
e<

King of

xi. 27.)

many

fell

Israel, because the lot of that

properly to him

/ Am,

also

are called sons and are not

because

If they should

l
.

" also say, that the name of Christ belongs to the

" Father, they shall be attended to in the proper

" place. In the mean time let me here give an

" answer to that which they bring forward from the
" Revelation of John, (i. 8.) /, the Lord, which is,
"

and which was, and which

" mighty

" the

title

is to come, the Alany other place they think that

of God Almighty does not also apply to

and

" the Son, as

if in

who

come cannot be Alwhereas the Son of the Almighty is as

" much Almighty, as the Son of God is God u ."
I

" mighty

if

he

is

to

Whether we admit

this in-

terpretation of the title Qui

est,

furnish no suitable analogy for

the generation of the

Son

but

or no, it seems impossible to

deny, that Tertullian conceived
Christ to be the Son of God in

deny that our ideas can conceive a begotten Son to be of a

different nature from his Fa-

a manner different from any

person who is merely called so.
He considered him to be a begotten Son, from which he could

ther.

come

to

no other conclusion,

Sed et nomina Patris, Deus

Omnipotens, Altissimus, Dominus Virtutum, Rex Israelis, Qui
11

est,

quatenus

ita scripturae

do-

but that the begotten Son of

cent, hsec dicimus et in Filium

God is God. Our own language and our own ideas can

competisse, et in his Filium venisse, et in his

semper

egisse, et

TERTULLIANUS,
may

observe that Hippolytus

words

Rev.

in

i.

to

8.

239

A. D. 200.

considered the

also

be applied to Christ

see

N. 160.
Tertull. adv.

135.

The

last

Prax.

quotation which

c.

27. p. 516.

make from

Tertullian

must be a long one but it goes so deeply into the

doctrine, which I am endeavouring to ascertain,
;

that there

is

a difficulty in abridging

it

neither

is

any introduction necessary to explain its meaning.

" Being pressed on all sides by the distinction of the
" Father and the Son, which distinction we care" fully observe, though the union remains like that
" of the sun and the ray, of the fountain and the
" river, though we use the individual numbers of 2
" and 3
nevertheless they try to interpret that
;

" distinction according to their own opinion that

" though making only one person they may keep a
;

" distinction of both, the Father and the Son, by

" saying that the Son is flesh, i. e. man, i. e. Jesus
" but that the Father is spirit, i. e. God, i. e. Christ:
" and thus they, who contend that the Father and
hominibus maniOmnia, inquit, Patris

sic ea in se

item,

festasse.

filii

me a

sunt.

Cur non

et

nomina ?

ergo legis Deum omnipotentem, et Altissimum, et Deum

Virtutum, et Regem Israelis, et

Cum
Qui

ne per hsec Filius

demonstretur, suo jure
Deus omnipotens, qua Sermo
Dei omnipotentis, quaque omAlnium accepit potestatem
tissimus, qua dextera Dei exaltatus, sicut Petrus in Actis conDominus Virtutum,
cionatur
quia omnia subjecta sunt illi a
Patre
Rex Israelis, quia illi
est, vide

etiam

proprie excidit sors gentis istius

Qui

est,

dicuntur, et

autem volunt

quoniam multi
non sunt. Si

et Christi

nomen

audient suo loco.

Interim hie mihi promotum sit
responsum adversus id quod et
de Apocalypsi Joannis proferunt
Ego Dominus, qui est, et
qui fuit, et venit, omnipotens: et
sicubi alibi Dei omnipotentis
appellationem non putant etiam
Filio convenire, quasi qui venturus est, non sit omnipotens ;
cum et Filius omnipotentis tarn

Patris

esse,

omnipotens
Filius.

sit,

quam Deus Dei

TERTULLIANUS,

240

A. D. 200.

" Son are one and the same x begin to divide them
" rather than to unite them
They say, It was
,

" declared by the angel, Therefore that holy thing,

66

which shall he horn shall he called the Son of

" God. (Luke i. 35.) It was therefore flesh that
" was born the Son of God therefore is flesh:

"

But

I reply, it

was spoken of the

Spirit of

God

" for certainly the Virgin conceived of the Holy

" Ghost and what she conceived, that she brought
" forth that therefore which was conceived and to
;

" be brought forth, was born i. e. the Spirit, from

" whom also he was to have the name Emmanuel,
" which is, when interpreted, God with us: but
:

" the flesh

is not God, that of it should be said, that

" holy thing which shall he horn shall he called the
6C

Son of God : but he who was born

(i

was God, of

whom

also the

Psalm

in the flesh
says,

Since

God was horn in it a man, and established it by

" the will of his Father, (lxxxvii. 5.) What God was
" born in it ? The
ord, and the Spirit, which was
"

" born together with the Word, by the Will of the

" Father. Therefore it was the Word which was
" in the flesh
so that we must inquire into this
:

" point, how the

Word was made

flesh

whether

" by being as it were transformed in the flesh, or

" having put on flesh certainly he put it on
but
:

"

God must be believed to be one, who cannot be

" changed and cannot be formed, as being eternal.
" But transformation is a destruction of that which
<e

was before: for whatever is transformed into some" thing else, ceases to be that which it was, and be" gins to be what it was not. But God neither ceases
x

i.

e.

not only in substance, but in person.

TERTULLI ANUS,
<c

A. D. 200.

to be, nor can

he be any thing

God

Word

" was

and the

else.

241

But the

God remains
its own form.

of

" I mean, by continuing in

" incapable of being transformed,

it

Word

for ever,

If

it

is

follows, that it

" must be understood to have been made flesh, by

" having been in the flesh, and made manifest, and
" seen, and handled by flesh

for if the

Word

was made flesh by a transformation and change of

" substance, Jesus will then be one substance out of
" two substances, a sort of mixture made of flesh
tc

" and spirit

" (for he,

Jesus will therefore neither be God;

who was made

flesh,

ceased to be the

Word ;) nor will he be flesh, i. e. man

for he
" who was the Word is not properly flesh.
But
" we find him described expressly as God and man,
:

" as in this same Psalm, Since

God was

born in

it,

man &c. clearly in every way the Son of God, and

Son of man, since he was God and man, without

" a
44

" doubt differing in his proper nature according to

" each substance
because the Word was nothing
:

"

else

but God, nor was the flesh any thing else but

" man. So also the apostle teaches concerning both

" his substances, Who was made, he says, of the
" seed of David : (Rom. i. 3.) this means man, and
" Son of man, who was declared to he the Son of
u God according to the Spirit : this means God,

We

" and the Word, the Son of God.

see the two" fold condition, not confounded, but united in one

" person, Jesus,

y

God and man

Undique enim obducti

stinctione Patris et Filii,

di-

quam

manente conjunctione disponimus, ut

y."

earn ad suam nihilominus

sententiam interpretari conantur, ut seque in una persona

ter

solis et radii, et fontis

utrumque distinguant, Patrem

tamen

et Filium, dicentes Filium car-

et fluvii, per individuum

numerum duorum

et triuni, ali-

nern esse, id
11

est,

horainem, id

MINUCIUS FELIX,

A. D. 210.

Minucius Felix.
This writer has

A. D. 210.
concerning the doc-

left so little

trinal or controversial points of Christianity, that I

should have omitted him altogether,

est

Jesum

Patrem autem Spi-

desinit esse,

Deum,

esse.

ritum, id est

Et

stum.

id est Chri-

unum

qui

eurtdem-

que contendunt Patrem

jam

lium,

quam

potius

illos

et Fi-

dividere

incipiunt

unare.

Imrao

utique erit Filius Dei.

de Spiritu Dei dictum est. Certe

Spiritu Sancto Virgo
concepit
et quod concepit, id
peperit
id ergo nasci habebat,

enim de

quod

erat

endum

conceptum

et

pari-

id est, Spiritus, cujus

nomen Emmanuel,
NoDeus. Caro autem Deus

et vocabitur

quod

est

biscum

interpretatum,

non est, ut de ilia dictum sit,

Quod nascetur &c. sed ille qui
de quo
in ea natus est, Deus
et Psalmus, Quoniam Deus ho:

mo

natus

est in ilia, et cedificavit

earn voluntate Patris.

in ea natus
tus, qui

QuisDeus

Sermo,

cum Sermone

et Spirio*e

Patris

voluntate natus est. Igitur Sermo in came, dum et de hoc

quserendum,
caro

sit

quomodo

factus

Sermo
utrumne quasi

transfiguratus in carne, an in-

Immo indutus.
Deum immutabilem

dutus carnem

Cseterum
et informabilem credi
est,

ut seternum.

necesse

Transfiguratio

autem interemptio est pristini.

Omne enim quodcumque transfiguratur

in

aliud

desinit esse

quod fuerat, et incipit esse quod

non erat. Deus autem neque

he had not

neque aliud potest

Sermo autem Deus et

Sermo Domini manet in sevum,
:

preseverando

Quern

ma.

scilicet in
si

non

sua for-

capit trans-

consequens

figurari,

Ecce, inquiunt, ab angelo preedicatum est, Propterea quod

nascetur sanctum vocabitur Filius
Dei. Caro itaque nata est, caro

if

ut sic

est,

caro factus intelligatur

dum

fit

in carne, et manifestatur, et vi-

detur, et contrectatur per car-

nem.

enim Sermo ex

Si

transfiguratione et demutatione
substantia? caro factus est,

jam

duabus,
mixtura

carne

ex

una
ex

Jesus

substantia

erit

spiritu

et

Neque

qusedam

er-

Sermo
Jesus
enim desiit esse, qui caro factus
go Deus
est

erit

neque caro, id

est,

homo

non proprie est, qui

Sermo fuit
Sedenim invenimus ilium directo et Deum

caro enim

hominem

et

expositum,

ipso

hoc Psalmo suggerente, Quoniam Deus &c. certe usquequaque Filium Dei et filium homi-

cum Deum

nis,

et hominem,
secundum utramque

sine dubio

substantiam in sua proprietate

distantem
quia neque Sermo
:

aliud
aliud

quam Deus, neque caro

quam homo. Sic et apo-

stolus de utraque ejus substantia

docet, Qui factus

semine David:
et

est,

hie

inquit, ex

erit

homo

hominis: qui definitus

Filius Dei secundum Spiri-

filius

est

tum
Dei

Deus et Sermo
Videmus duplicem

hie erit

Filius.

statum, non confusum, sed conin una persona, Deum

junctum
et

hominem Jesum.

MINUCIUS FELIX,

A.D.

243

210.

furnished one very material testimony to the fact of

Lardner supposes that he

Christ being worshipped.

We

flourished about the year 210.

any thing of

his

to Christianity

life,

and

know

his

book

is

a powerful exposi-

tion of the absurdities of paganism.

Octavius, from

its

scarcely

except that he was converted

It is entitled

containing a Dialogue, which

is

supposed to take place between Csecilius Natalis, a

Mi-

heathen, and Octavius Januarius, a Christian.

nucius Felix was present as the judge

and

it

ended

in Csecilius being convinced.

Minucii Felicis Octavius,

136.

The

passage alluded to

Octavius

is

is

p.

280-81.

at p. 280-81.

where

answering the old objection of the Chrisman, who was crucified as a

tians worshipping a

He says, " For as to your charging our

" religion with a man who was a culprit, and with
" his cross, you wander very far from the truth,
" when you think either that a culprit would have

malefactor.

" deserved that we should believe him to be a God,

" or that a man of this earth could be believed to
" be a God.
That man is indeed to be pitied,
" whose whole hope rests upon a mortal man for
" his whole assistance is at an end when the man is
:

" extinct

7 ."

from

It is plain

7-

Nam

hominem

this passage that, in the opinion

quod religioni nostra?

noxium et crucem

ejus adscribitis, longe de vicinia

veritatis

Deum

erratis

qui

putatis

aut meruisse noxium, aut potuisse terrenum.

Nse ille miserabilis, cujus in
credi,

homine mortali spes omnis innititur

totum enim ejus auxi-

cum

lium

extincto

homine

fini-

Lactantius alludes to the

same accusation quae velut opprobrium nobis objectari solet,
tur.

quod

et

hominem,

et

ab homi-

nibus insigni supplicio affectum

et excruciatum colamus. Instit.
IV. 16. p. 314.

HIPPOLYTUS, A.D.

5244

of Minucius, the person, to

220.

whom

the Gentiles ob-

jected as a crucified malefactor, was worshipped as

a

God

neither could he have been called God, like

one of the deified heroes of paganism

for not only

does Minucius prove most successfully that a mortal

man

never could be a God, but he expressly says in

the above passage, that the Christians did not rest

their hopes on a mortal, or on a person of this earth.

But

Christ,

if

who

confessedly

much as he was born from an

who confessedly was subject to

was

earthly, inas-

earthly parent,

and

death, inasmuch as

he was crucified, was yet not of this earth, and not

a mortal man, whence could he come but from

heaven

and what could

mortal and divine

his

nature

be

but im-

Hippolytus.

A. D. 220.

is generally mentioned as, Hippolyand he was certainly a bishop but

it has been disputed whether he was bishop of Portus (Porto) near the mouth of the Tyber, or of Portus Romanus, now called Adan, or Eden, in Arabia.
The same uncertainty, which attends the name of
and it might be
his see, pervades his whole history
doubted, whether two or more bishops of the same
name have not been confounded, and the works of
Jerom and Theothe one attributed to the other.
doret mention Hippolytus as a martyr, and it has
been supposed that he suffered either in the Decian

This Father

tus Portuensis,

Maximus in 235.
dates, we may safely

persecution in 250, or in that of

According to either of these

follow Lardner in considering

With

him

to

have flourished

respect to his doctrine,

about the year 220.

he stands as a connecting link between Irenaeus and

HIPPOLYTUS,
Origen

A.D.220.

having been a disciple of the former, and

having had Origen as one of

his hearers.

Hippolyti de Antichristo,

137.

245

c. 2. vol. 1. p. 5.

Whatever doubts may be entertained concerning

some of the works ascribed to Hippolytus, the authority of the book de Antichristo seems to be un
questioned.

The
that

preexistence of Christ, and his union with

Spirit,

wrote,

are

under whose influence the prophets

maintained in

following

the

passage,

where the prophets are compared to a musical instrument touched and rendered vocal by the Word
" For these Fathers, the prophets, were
of God.
" harmonized by the prophetical Spirit, and ho" noured according to their merit by the Word
" himself, and put in tune with each other, like in" struments, having the

Word

always in themselves

" like a plectrum, by which they were touched, and

" declared those things which God wished.

For
" they did not speak of their own ability, lest they
" might deceive
nor did they preach what they
;

" themselves wished

first place they had

a ."
them
wisdom
by the Word
And if we doubt what Hippolytus meant in these
places by the Word, we find in the following chap" You wish to
ter, that he meant the Son of God
" know how the Word of God, who was himself the
" Son of God, and long ago the Word, made revela-

" true

but in the

given

b ."

" tions to the blessed prophetsa

ol

Ovroi yap Ttvevpari

narepeq

itpocpyirtKa

Kccryprio-fAevoi,

kou

vk

avrov rov Aoyov d%twq rert^T/uevoi,

opydvcov

S/foji/

eavroTq vjvuf/Jvoi, tyov-

T$ e> tavroTq del rov Aoyov

ktjjgv,

ravra,

Si'

ov

cwrep

Kivovpevoi
rjdetev

obq TtAvj-

dwf\yyeXkov
eoq,

ol

npo-

(pyrai.

yap

ov

icpdeyyovro,
osztp

ovfie

^ nXdvco
avroi

itilaq
(1.

SwdfAeuq

Trkdvuo-w,)

efiovXovro,

ravra

ixYipvnov, d'Ahd icpSroy uev hid rov

Aoyov
b

icrotpl^ovro opOSit;, k. r. A.

Wac,

npocp'fjrau;

y ndXai

roiq

dneKaAvipev

txaKaptoiq

rov

0eou

HIPPOLYTUS,

246

A. D. 220.

Hippolyti de Antichristo,

138.

In the following passage

we

see

c. 4. vol. 1. p. 6.

more

still

plainly,

that Hippolytus not only believed in the preexist-

ence of Christ, but that the state, in which he was

" The
before his human birth, was a divine state.

Word of God, who was not fleshly, put on the

" blessed flesh from the blessed Virgin, like a bride"

" groom wearing a garment for himself, in the suf" fering of the cross that by blending our mortal
" body with his own power, and uniting the cor;

" ruptible to the incorruptible, and the

" strong, he might save lost man c ."

Hippolyti de Antickristo,

139.

weak

to the

c. 6. vol. I. p. 7.

Hippolytus referred Jacob's prophecy of the Lion

Judah (Gen. xlix. 9. Rev. v. 5.) to

and begins the sixth chapter with these
words, "Now since the Lord Jesus Christ, who is
" God, on account of his kingly and glorious state,
d ."
" was spoken of before as a Lion
Hippolyti de Antickristo, c. 26. vol. I. p. 14.
140.
Hippolytus, like every other commentator ancient
of the tribe of

Christ,

and modern,

refers to Christ that magnificent de-

by Daniel of the

scription given

man

of

/ saw

vision of the

Son

in the night visions, and, behold,

one like the Son of man came with the clouds of

heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and
And there
they brought him near before Him.
was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingAoyoq, avToq itdXiv
o

tov Seov Ttouq,

vaXou plv Aoyoq,

Tvy*Ttv

eiri^-

Te7q.
c

'O Aoyoq tov &eov, dcapKoq av 9

ive^vcraTO t\v dyiav <rdpKa eK Tvjq

dyiaq

icapQevov, Sq vv{A(ptoq

i^vcpdvaq kavTu iv
6ei,

OTtcoq

tZ

ludTiov

crTccvpiKtp itot-

avyKepdcraq

to

Qv/\tov

crapa,

7jfAuv

T7j

iavTOv Swd[Ai, kou

tw dcpOdpTU to cpOapTov kou

to dtrOeveq tS layppa, cra<rri tov
duoWvpevov dv&puizov.

[Aifjoiq

Tov
tov

(ttov

[xev ovv

@eov

Kvptov
did

kou evSofov aq XiovToq

vov

to

'I'/jcrov

Xpi-

(3cca i'aikqv

TrpoKKrjpvy[/.i-

HIPPOLYTUS,

247

A. D. 220.

dom, that all people, nations, and languages,

should serve him : his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his

kingdom that which shall not he destroyed,

(vii.

We

might naturally infer, that the prophet

could not have had in his contemplation a mere
man and Hippolytus observes upon this passage
" He is describing all the power which was given by
13, 14.)

" the Father to the Son, who was declared to be

" King and Judge of all things in heaven and in
" earth and under the earth of things in heaven,
:

i(

because he was the

" before

Word

of the Father, begotten

and of things in earth, because

man amongst men, forming
" Adam afresh of himself; and of things under the
" earth, because he was also reckoned among the
" dead, and preached the Gospel to the souls of the
" saints, conquering death by death e ."
141. Hippolyti de Antichristo, c.45. vol. I. p. 21, 22.
all

things

" he was born

as

We find the following remarkable

expression con-

cerning John the Baptist " When he heard the sa" lutation of Elizabeth, he leaped in his mother's
" womb, rejoicing because he saw God the Word
;

" conceived in the

Womb

of the Virgin

f."

Hippolyti de Antichristo, c. 61. vol. I. p. 30.

In this place we have an explanation of the vision
described in Revelations xii. The woman mentioned
142.

Tvjv

i^ovatav na<rav

[Azvqv icapd rov Tiarpoq

8ei|ev,

65

inovpuvi'av,

rvjv

tb

kou

Seo-

ditodedeiKTCci.

on Aoyoq

rov

yeyevYiy,evo<;

Opaitoq

iv

v\v.

rav

aylav \pv%dq, did Oavdrov tov 6dva-

irpo

itdvrav

iniyetav e,

on av-

dvOpanoiq iyevv^Ofj, dva-

nvXdacroov di

kou iv vcKpoTq koct-

iitiydav,

rov vikoov.
f

iicovpavlav tAtv,

Uocrpoq

on

evayyeXt^opevoq rdq

eXoyicrQ'q,

kou Kccxayfiovlav fiaaiXevq kou Kpiryq

ndvrav

rayfiovloov 8e,

via ime-

eavrov rov 'Addu' kcl-

t%

Ovroq aKOvtraq rov

o\<j<tcoi<tikqv

'EXio-dfier icrKiprya-ev iv KOiXta

[Ayrpoq,
KOiXla,

dyocXXofxevoq
ryjq

eov Koyov.

itapBlvov

ivopav

rov

iv

avvtiX'^^vov

HIPPOLYTUS,

248
in ver. 1.

was

Church and after those

She brought forth a man child, who

said to be the

is

words, ver.

A. D. 220.

5.

rule all nations with a rod of iron, Hippolytus observes, " The Church teaches all nations,
to

" while it is always bringing forth Christ the Son of

" God, a man child, and perfect, announced as God

man

" and

and the words,

Her

child

was caught

up unto God and to His throne, mean, that he

who is always brought forth by her, is a heavenly
" King and not earthly, as David also predicted,
" saying, The Lord said unto my Lords" & c
Ps. ex. 1. At the end of the chapter he quotes those
words of Malachi, (iv. 2.) But unto you that fear
my name shall the Sun of Righteousness arise
"

64

healing in his wings, which

with

the words of Jehovah, (see

iii.

are evidently

17.) but Hippolytus

quotes them as spoken by Christ.

Throughout the whole of

this

work Hippolytus

quotes so largely from the book of Revelations, that

no doubt can be entertained as to his opinion of the

We are told indeed that
authenticity of the work.
he wrote a defence of

it

h
.

The

only one of the Ante-

Nicene Fathers, who seems to have doubted whether

it was written by St. John, is Dionysius of Alexanbut he received it as canonical and of great
dria
:

The
genuine work of

the apostle

Irenasus, Melito,

Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian

following Fathers quote

antiquity.

Tov appeva koa TeXetov Xpicnov

r.ouha eoE

eov

Tcx-yyeXXoyLevov

KMitria Mda-Kei

kcCi avOpcoixov Kct-

del t'iktovgcl y 'E/c-

ndvra

Se Xeyetv, 'HpTidyy

%poq tov

ainov, 0T1

eov

koa

en;ovpa.vio<;

ra. e0w?.

To

to tckvov

ccvTvjs

tov

Bpovov

npoq

eVr* fiaanXevi;,

as the

it

Papias, Justin Martyr,

koa ovk

eitiyeioi; o Si

vvfAevoc, naBoiq Ka\

vet, 'Aeyav,

Einev

*,

avrvjq dei yev-

Aa5i

wpoccvetya-

Kvpio$ k. t. X.

h
See the edition of his
works, vol. I. p. 280.
Tertullian's testimony is
1

very strong,

Nam

etsi

Apoca-

HIPPOLYTUS,
Hippolytus,

Apollonius,

A. D. 220.

many

do not transcribe them k

Hippolyti contra Platonem,
143.

writers, that

The
"

The

Origen, Metliodius.

instances have been given by so

I

249

For

may

following short passage

" brought before

144.

God

the

Word

quoted

."

Hippolyti Fragmentum,
following

other

who

writers

also be

222.

both righteous and unrighteous, shall be

all,

The
among

vol. I. p.

passage

which

testimonies

vol. I. p. 225.

quoted by Gelasius

is

he

from

brings

believed in the twofold nature of Christ.

When he came into the world, he appeared God

" and man.
It is easy to understand that he was
" man, since he was hungry and weary, &c. But it

"

"

is

" he

also plain that

is

we may

when

see his divinity,

praised by angels, beheld by shepherds, &c.

"

You have seen that according to the flesh he was

" of David but according to the Spirit he was of
" God
wherefore it is proved that the same person
" was both God and man m ."
;

145.

Hippolyti contra Beronem

vol. I. p.

et

Helicem,

225.

This treatise was written against the opinions of

Beron and Helix, who, as we learn from Hippolylypsim ejus Marcion respuit,
ordo tamen episcoporum ad
originem recensus in Joannem
stabit auctorem. Adv. Marc. IV.
5- P- 4i5k
The Fathers who have
quoted this book are enumerated at length by Tillemont,
Mem. torn I. p. 1086. &c.
Yldvret; yap biKaiol re koi abi1

koi ivuiuov rov

eov Aoyov ayfirpov-

&c.

gatur,

videre

ejus

in

mundum

Divinitatem

vero

rursus clarum est,

quando laudatur ab angelis, et

hoc a pastoribus inspicitur &c.
Vidisti quod secundum carnem
quidem ejus ex David erat, quod

secundum

vero

Deo

Spiritum,

ex

quapropter probatum est

eundem

tai.

m Hie procedens

et homo apparuit
et hominem quidem eum facile est
intelligere, cum esurit, et fati-

Deus

et

Deum

et

hominem.

HIPPOLYTUS,

250

A. D. 220.

and
They acknow-

tus himself, deserted the Valentinian notions,

adopted others

still

more erroneous.

ledged the two natures of Christ

them

to have

become

entirely

but they conceived

and absolutely one

so that the flesh assisted in the divine operations of

and his divine nature shared the sufferings

of the human.
This heresy was in a manner revived by the Apollinarians though there seems to
have been this difference between them Beron and
Christ

Helix believed that the

became

Christ,

itself

flesh, or

divine;

human

nature of

Apollinarius taught

that Christ did not take a fleshly body at

that his body

See page 21.

but

was uncreated and eternally divine.

Almost every page of this treatise

might be quoted

He

all,

as asserting the divinity of Christ.

begins by saying, that the nature of

God cannot

be susceptible of any change whatsoever and hence

he argues, that the divine nature of Christ could not
be altered by the assumption of the human nature.
C. 1. p. 226. " Wherefore also the Word of God,
:

"
"

who was truly made, as we are, a man, yet without

sin, who acted and suffered humanly, in every

" thing that

"

is

incident to our nature, without being

and endured

for our sakes to be circum" scribed in natural flesh, did not undergo any
" change, nor did that, which is the same with the
sinful,

Father, become in any respect at all the same with

" the flesh on account of his divesture.
But as he

66

" was,
" from

when without
all

flesh,

circumscription.

so he

And

continued, free

having performed

" in a divine manner through the flesh those things

" which belong to divinity, he proved himself, by

" the things which he did in both ways, (I mean

" divinely and humanly,) to be, and to be conceived

HIPPOLYTUS,

A. D. 220.

251

" to be, really, according to true and natural exist" ence, both God who is infinite, and man who is
" circumscribed having perfectly the perfect sub:

" stance of each, together with its own operation,

" i. e. its natural property from which we know
:

6i

that their difference always continued according

ee

to their nature without any change.

" was not, as some say, by comparison

" should

make

But
n
;

the same person greater and

this

lest

we

less,

ac-

" cording as he stood in the same relation to him" self, which we ought not to do for comparisons
" belong to things of the same nature, not to things
:

" of different natures. But that which is created is

" in no respect compared with God the Creator of
" all things, nor finite with infinite, nor finity with
" infinity since they always differ from each other
" in every respect naturally, and not comparatively
" although there be an indescribable and indissolu;

" ble union of both in one substance, which alto" gether surpasses every perception of every created
" thing. For the divine nature, as it was before its
" incarnation, is also after its incarnation, by nature
" infinite, incomprehensible, impassible, incompara-

"

ble,

64

unchangeable, having power in

in

itself,

word, existing substantially, the only inexhausti-

" ble good

."

No

words can be stronger than these

n These heretics said, that

the divine and human natures
of Christ did not differ really,

they were one and the

same but they differed only
in comparison.
for

Ato kou kccQ'

vo[Avoq

tov

di/QpccTtoq

&eov Aoyoq,

ntaBciv

dvOpairlvaq

'/JiAccq

%cop)q

kou

(pva-iKriq

Tpairqv oz3%

reXaq,

rn^Scq,

vnefAeivev, pjB' i'A irav-

rotvrov

yevopevoq ravrov
Kevu<riv.

<rap-

2u

iari
t5j

rS

a-apKi

Aaa' va-nep

Harp),
i\v

8i

trap-

uXrfiaq ye-

Koq, itda-qq efo; neptypoupvjq ^e/xeV/jKe"

d^ctpriocq

kou Sia crapKoq

ivepyqcrccq

tcra

i<rriv dvoi\xdpvt\'V'x,

Koq itepiypaipvjq dya<r%o^voq

trjq

re kou

BeoTq'Voq

(pvaeaq

colvtqv,

Be'tKcoq

icrriv,
<'

hepyqarctq dnep

d[/,<poTepcc

av afMpOTepcoq,

deiKvvq

(Qe'iKwq

tj

HIPPOLYTUS, A.D.

252

For

last.

if

220.

the divine nature of Christ be the only

inexhaustible good, the nature of the Son must be

the same with the nature of the Father

we

otherwise

put the divinity of the Son above that of the

Father.
C. 2. p. 226. " The God of the universe therefore,
" without undergoing change, was made man, ac-

" cording to the scriptures, without sin, as he him" self knows, who is alone the natural Framer of
" what surpasses our understanding.
Also by this

" incarnation for our salvation, he produced in the

" flesh the operation of his own divine nature, which
" operation was not circumscribed by the flesh on
" account of his divesture, nor did it proceed by
" nature from the flesh, as it did from his divine
" nature but in all the divine works, which he did
;

" while incarnate,

"

was manifested through the

it

For the flesh did not change its nature,

become by nature divine, when it became by
nature the flesh of that which was divine
but
what it was before, so it continued in nature and
operation after it was united to the divine nature
(as the Saviour said, The spirit indeed is willing,
flesh.

" and

"
"

"
"

Kai avQpomtvccq) ivfjpy/jae,

cp'fjfM

avr /]V r qv
r

ovrcoq

oc\y}6yi

Kai

Kar

<pv<TiK'/]v

vnap^iv, eov aizeipov oy.ov Ka\ nepi-

ypanrbv
pevov,

avOpccirov o'vra re

e%ovTa,

rekeiav

Ka) voov-

sKarepov re'Aeiaq

overlay

rrjv

[/.era

avryjq

nrqq

ivepyeiaq, rjyovv (pvo-tKyjq Ibiorvjroq'

d>v

pevovcrav

rpoic^q

'AAA'

w%,

Kara, to

koi
ov-X,

$e

avrav

rrjv

j^yj

hia<popdv.

(pao-i,

Kara.

% e7,

pei^ova

XeyufAev. opoepvav y&p>

erepocjivuv, at avyKpla-eiq.
iroiVjTTj

8/%a

tov avrbv iavrS

avro, nap

fAtlova

(pvaiv

'icr^ev

riveq

Iva

avyKpicriv'

Kara

del

rav oXav

Tvoi'fjrov,

e
ditelpu

Tteparov, aa) diteipla nepaq, Kar' ov-

avyKpiverai

Ziva

ndvra

Xoyov,

de)

Kara,

(pvtriKZq, csaa' ov uvyKpiriKwc,

dXXrfAav diacpepovra' Kav appr\rlq riq

koCi apprjKToq

dq

f/Jav VTioaracriv d[A-

cporepav yeyovev ev&o-iq, Ttaaav nav-

roq

yevyrov navreXuq

yvZmv.

To ydp

crapKojcrecoq, ecrri

Kara
itrov,

uq yv npo

koi [/.rd crapKuctv,

cpvcriv aneipov,

6eq, dcrvyKpirov,

hacpevyovo-a

eioi>,

acr^erov,

avroadeveq, Ka\ to nav

ixpetrroq ov<riuheq {aqvov

dyadov.

dna-

dvaXXolarov, drpeelireiv,

diteipoaBeveq

HIPPOLYTUS,

253

A. D. 220.

" but the flesh

is weak?:) in which manner he did

" and suffered what belonged to sinless flesh, and

" proved that for our sakes he had divested himself

" of his divinity, which was confirmed by his mira-

"

cles,

and the natural sufferings of the

For

flesh.

" the God of the universe became man for this cause,
" that by suffering in passible flesh he might redeem
" our whole race, which was sold unto death and
" by working miracles through the flesh by his di;

" vine nature, which was impassible, he might bring

" us to his own unmixed and blessed life.
He

" continued therefore, though incarnate, to be by

" nature the superinfinite God, having the power of
" operation which properly belonged to him, which
" proceeded substantially from his divine nature, but
" appeared incarnately in his miracles through his
" all-blessed flesh, that he might be believed to be
" God, working the salvation of the world through
" the flesh, which was by nature weakV
P Matt. xxvi. 41. Hippolytus
considered Christ to speak these
the spirit
words of himself
was his divine nature the flesh,
his human nature. He says the

ypa<j>d<;,

same thing

at vol. II.

Beoryroq

and

and the

the Jlesh

p.

spirit

45.

seem

same sense in
was interpreted

to be used in the
1

Pet.

in the

18. It

iii.

same way by Athanasius.

Orat. III.

c.

Arian. 26. vol.

I.

p. 576. De Incarn. 21. p. 887,

and by the anonymous author,
Polycarp
ib. vol. II. p. 569.
however appears to have ap-

plied

it,

as

modern

interpreters

have done, to the weakness of

human nature
ad Phil. 7.
P- 189.
:

Tlyovev ovv dXyfiaq, Kara. rd$

rpanei*;,

//');

rZv oXav

Seoq, avOpccizoi ava^dpr^rot;,

Sei'

avTo$

rav vxep

<f)i(TiK0<;

afxa rqv

ivepyeiav,

vitdpypv

[aovoi;

avrvjv

aapKCcxw ryq $[aq

i^noi-qcrac,

ov

Kar

'evvoiav,

<Tur'f\piov

ol-

rtyyirric,

oapKt

rrj

TTf.piypa(po^.evqv

rrjV

avrrj

tid rrjv Kevw(Tiv i ovV uairep ryjq av~

rov Beoryroi;, ovra Kal avrvjs

k&<; 6K(pvotAi>'fiv.
Ktvdeii,

Qt'iKuq iv^pyrjTe

(paivo^ev/jV
Beor'rjq

a-dpf;

adp^.

d\X' iv

ov

yap

aW

rrj

oitep

r)v

KaBuc

Yj

Beor^roq

Kai

r^v

Oeoryri

<pvcrtv

elitev

To phs Hvevpa npoBvpov,

dcdevvjt;.

<pvaei

rrjv <pv<riv,

(pva-ei

crv[X(pvua-a [AtfAevyKe
rrjv ivepyetav.

avryjq ck-

yeyove

u.era^?,rj6e7cra.

yevo^evrj

Bt

(pvcri-

av crap-

01;

b
'f\

koi

'Earrjp,

Se <?dp%

Ka&" yv lvpyfj<raq re Ka)

icaBwv airep

r)v

avapapryrov aapKoq,

HIPPOLYTUS,

254

C. 3. p. 227-

He

A.D.

then endeavours to illustrate the

manner in which Christ's divine nature was united

to and manifested by the human, by the example of

human mind, which

the thoughts of the

are ex-

pressed by the voice and by writing, although they

have no natural connection with them. " As there" fore in our own case, (if we may liken that which
" has no likeness at
cc

all,)

mind

the naturally rational fa-

without being
" changed, by our tongue, which is corporeal
so
" also in the miraculous incarnation of God, the
culty of the

is

expressed,

" operation of the entire divine nature, which is

" omnipotent and creative of all things, is mani" fested by his all-blessed flesh in the divine works
" which he performed, continuing by nature free
" from all circumscription, although it shone through
" the flesh which was by nature finite.
For that,
" which

is by nature not created, cannot be circum" scribed by that which is by nature created
al" though the latter was united to it by an union
;

which circumscribes

66

all

rr v vnep rj^av i%iarua-aro Kevuaiv

t

comprehension

izavrbq aoorrjptav.
e

Bavpaai kou aapKcq naBqyaai <pv<riKaq (3e(3tziGV[A6V'/iv. hid ydp

rovro yeyovev dvBpccTcoq 6 rav oXav

Kacrou to navreXaq dveiKaa-rov,) hid

&eoq, iva

nrooq

Beoryroq,

dttav

crctpKi \tXv TraBrjrrj izdcryjxiv

to

vjjAuv

t>

Bavdr

itpaBev

XvTpaxrvjTcti yevoq' divaBei hi Beoryri

hid

crapKoq

aK'(\parov

vaydyri

Bavyarovpyav

/^eyevrjKiv ovv Ka\

Kara

dneipoq, rrjv
dKXvj'Aov

r\v

avrov kou paKaplav ina-

X^wrp'

<rapKuB(uq

ttpbq

ry\v (pva-iv

&eoq vnep-

iavrS avyyevrj kou Kar-

eyjuv

ivepyeiav,

rrjq

pev

Beoryroq ovaicchwq eK^voi^evYjV, hid he

rrjq

avrov icavaylaq crapKoq iv roTq

Bav[/.acriv

oiKOVoyiKaq

Hva TiiarevB^
vovq <pvaei

eoq

iK(j)aivo[AevY}v,

elvai,

hi

aapKoq avrovpywv

da-Be"
TYjv

rov

ypvv,

'L~l<rnep ovv i<fi

(o<rov

rrjq o~a)[AariKyjq -f^Mov yXaaa-'/jq

'/]

Kara

hvvayiq'

ovra kou

in) ryq vneptyvovq rov eov

hid

raaecoq,
crapKoq,

rav

iv

oXcov

ivepyeia

Kara

Kq.v hid

avrov

itavaylaq

dv

Be'iKuq

ivrjpyrj<r,

v\

navroKparopiKT],

Troi'/jriKYj

rvjq

oXvjq

hiaheUvvrai,

(pva-tv

<ra[/.oc-

rvjq

oiq

rpoit^q

hiyjx,

drpe-

(pvaiv ryjq t/^%vfc Xo~

npo<peperai

yiKYj

itdarvjq

eKroq

vtepiypacpyjq hiapevovo-a,

ov

yap

irecpvKe

<pe.a-Bai yevyrri fyvarei

to

ndvra

TC-

nepiypd-

Kara (pv<riv
Kara arvX-

dyevyrov, Kq.v avvecpv avrcp

X'/jipiv

kou

Beor'f\roq

aapKoq hieXayipe (pvaei

7iepaa-[/.ev'^q'

el-

Ttepiypdcpovtrav vovv.

HIPPOLYTUS,

A. D. 220.

255

C. 4. p. 228. "

For the mystery of the divine in" carnation is distinguished by the apostles and pro" phets and teachers as bearing a twofold and dif" ferent aspect, since it belongs to the divine nature,
" which is indefectible, and gives proof of the entire
" human nature.
If therefore we do not acknow" ledge one substantial Word of one operation, never
" in any way will the effect of both natures be un-

" derstood.

For He, who is always by nature God,

" becoming, as He wished, by His superinfinite
" power, man without sin, continues to be what He
" was, with every thing that

we conceive of God
" and he also continues to be what he was made,

" with all that we conceive and naturally under" stand of man always continuing in each relation
" without departing from himself, according to his
:

" divine and

human

" either relation his

" dition

operations, keeping perfect in

own

naturally unalterable con-

s ."

C. 5. p. 228. "

For lately one Beron, with some

" others, leaving the fancies of Valentinus, fell into
" a worse evil, and said, that the flesh, which was
" assumed by the Word, became in consequence of
" this assumption capable of performing the same
" works as the divine nature; and that the divine

ydp

To

rvjq

fXV(TTf]piov

a-apKucreaq diroaroXoiq re,

(p'rjraiq,

tivvdfAei

A'qcrev,

dvBpamoq dva^dpr-qroq,

$ia<popav e%ov dieyvuo~rai rvjv iv itdo~t

%ov

Beapiav,

Beor'/jroq,

dve'AAnrovq

ryjv

ovo-lav

ivepyelaq,

dv

011% elq

Kara

yv copper set

Aoyoq

(Aidq

ovbeitore

KaB' oriovv

(porepav yvao-Brjo-erai Kivrpiq'

dei

Kara

virdp-

kou nh'qpovq ivfieiKriKOV

dvBpcoTrorrjroq ov' eaq

aq

ovrtelpcp

irpo-

kou didao-KaXoiq, Sitttjv kou

(j)va-iKyjv

yevopevoq,

Belaq

kou

7]v

ivri,

oirep

jM.e0'

yeyovev eari peS'

Kafir

ocrcov

nrecpvKev

eKarepov

voelrai

dvBpccKoq,

del

[Aevoov

dveKirraroq, oiq Be'iKuq bfAOv kou dvBpccrrivaq

ivqpyr o~e, reXeiov

t

d^-

eKarepov Koyov

ydp

Kooq dvaXKoiciorov.

(pvaiv virdpxoov Seoq, virep-

oirep

taav voeTrai Seoq, kou

kou yvapiCpaBcu
iavrov

'f\Be-

crco^cov

Kara

rov

eavrov (pvai-

HIPPOLYTUS,

256

A. D. 220.

" nature, on account of the divesture of

" capable of suffering like the flesh

it,

became

thus making

" an alteration, and confusion, and blending, and a

" change of both into each other.
For if the flesh,
" by being assumed, became capable of performing
" the works of the divine nature, it therefore be" came by nature to be God, with all that we natu" rally conceive of God.
And if the divine nature,
" by being divested, became capable of suffering like
" the flesh, it therefore also by nature became flesh,
" with all that we can by nature understand of the
" flesh
6<

for those things,

which agree

in operation

with one another, and perform the same works,

" and

are

altogether

kindred and subject to the

" same sufferings, do not admit of any difference of

" nature.
And since their natures are confounded,
" Christ will be two and if we divide the persons
" [of the Trinity] there will be four which cannot
:

<{

And

be tolerated.

how can

according to them

" Christ be one and the same, at once by nature

" both God and man ? And according to them what

" sort of existence will he have, who became man
" by a change of his divinity, and who was God by

" an alteration of the flesh? For the transition of

" these into each other

e.

i.

the Father

one, the

is

Son two, and the Holy Ghost

one.

Athanasius

linarians, that the

ity

would

trines

arise

tells

the Apol-

same absurd-

from their doc-

ecrrai 6 /ca0' vfAai; rerpaq

avr) rpiaZcx; KarayyeXXofAevvj.

Apol.
u

is

an entire destruction of

u ."

" both

I. 9. vol. I. p.

Tponrjv

Kai avy/ycr i.v , Ka)

l[/.ov,

triv

Cont.

929.
koi rpvpcrw,
el$

ScXXvjXovi;

a[X(porepai/ (AZTafioXrjv SoyuarfCovTet;.

El yap TrpoXytpOelcra
ravTovpyoq
(pvaei

rat

eo$

eoV

tSJ

/Aefl'

Ka)

el

Ka)

(pvaiKcoi,

to yap

cftvcret

ytyove

fyXovoTi Ka)

oa-av (pv<riKu<; voe7-

yeyove Kevu6et<ra

aapKi lavTOTza^c,
Xovort

o-a.pl;

vj

0eoTvjTi,

77

BeoT'qc, Stjtcrccv

<ra.pl;,

yvupi^ea-Qai

ite<pVKe

crapi;'

aXXvjXois o/Aoepyrj, Ka)

rovpya, Ka)

o[/.o(pvXa

ndvraq,

rav~

Kai

HIPPOLYTUS,

A.D. 220.

257

C, 6. p. 229. " It

is acknowledged as a doctrine
" of the Christian religion, that God has in himself
" an equality and identity, in nature and in opera" tion and in every thing else which belongs to Him,

" having none of His properties at all unequal, or

" not corresponding to Himself.
If therefore, as
" Beron says, the flesh, which he assumed, acquired
" the same natural power of operation which He
" has, it follows that it also acquired the same na-

He has, with all that we conceive of

" His nature, the property of being without begin-

" ture which

e<

ning, of being uncreated, of infinity, eternity, in" comprehensibility, and every thing of this kind,
" which theology contemplates as belonging superx ."

" latively to the divine nature

It is needless to

point out, that Hippolytus conceived

all

these attri-

butes of Divinity to belong to that nature, which

Jesus Christ had as God.

They fell into this error, being

" falsely persuaded, that the divine energy was the
" property of the flesh, which only appeared through
u it in the miracles by which divine energy Christ
C.

229 "

8. p.

" keeps the universe together, being in substance

ravroTvaQrj, hiacpopav ovk inifieverai

tyvveuq'

Ka) tyvarcw avioiq crvjKe-

yy^evccv earai hvaq

vrpocrwTcav

Kai

ipevKrorarov
o

avroq, eoq

Ttoq,

itcoq

rerpaq, ro

avTOiq

o[A,ov cpvcrei

ttjj/

eiq i<ai

Ka) avQpa-

Kar

navre'Aaq

rov

pava

avra

rr\q

avrr\q

^yfhovori

Ka)

<pvceaq

^eBi"

eoq

yap

eiq

aK-

yjaq,

rr\q

avrvjq

ocrav

ayevqaiaq,

tj

ttj

avap-

'oca rcv-

vi:epoy)iv 6

(pvaq ivopa

Kai

(pv&iq,

rav

rav Kotf

(pvariv,

cra,p,

aidiorrj-

roq, aKaraAYjijjiaq, Kai

avrrjv re

tj

avra yeyove

aneipiaq,

i&riv afAcporepav avaipeaiq.

x Evcrefieq KeKvparai Boy/xa Xpi-

Kar

izpocrXycpGeTaa

yeyovev

Ivepyelaq

Kykaq rovrav ^eraiuracriq navreKvjq

ariavoTq,

Ka)

Et roivvv Kara, B'^-

vitap^iv, [AerafioXrj 6eo-

noiav 8e

e%ovra,

avinov

aKar&XKrfkov.

(pvviKYiq

T'qroq yevoy,evoq avBpunoq, Kai crapKoq

fAeranoirio-ei

Ttpoccpveq, laov

av~

Xpiaroq

rovq efe;

Xpurroq, kou

[/,e[/,epi<7 [Kevav

avra
iavra Ka) ravrov elvai tov @eov, /XTjSej/ eavrS rav eavevepyeiav, Ka) itav k'repov

ttjj/

BeoKoyiKoq vitep-

Beoryri Koyoq.

HIPPOL YTUS,

258

A. D. 220.

" whatever is conceived of God.

But every one
" confesses as an article of religious belief, that for
" our salvation, and to bring the world to a state
" free from change, the Word, who is himself God,
" the Creator of the universe, having substantially
" united to himself an intellectual soul with a sensi" tive body from the all-blessed Virgin Mary, by an
" unpolluted conception without any change, became
" man, by nature free from wickedness, working by
" his divine nature, through his all-blessed flesh, the

" divine acts which did not naturally belong to the

" flesh and by his human nature working the hu;

"

man

acts, which did not naturally belong to the

" divine nature, being capable of suffering by a sus" pension of his divinity 7."

Hippolyti Homilia in Theophania.

146.

vol. I. p.

The

261,

2.

following passage requires no introduction.

u You have heard

" baptized in
" transaction

how

Jordan

Jesus came to John, and was

by him.

how was

extraordinary

the uncircumscribable Ri-

" ver, which delighteth the city of God, washed in

" a little stream
how was the incomprehensible
!

" Fountain, which giveth life to all men and hath

" no end, covered by paltry and temporary waters
!

r\v nkuv/jv

Elq TuvTVjV

yfi'fjO-a.v,

ve<rBai

Kar'l\-

KaKaq neurBevreq Wiav yetSjs

eKavBei<rav

crapKoq

evepyeiav, y to

nay

<raq Kaff o voelrai

yti Tcitjzevav

on

Belav

Bavf/.avi

XpurToq ovcria-

eoq avveyjit Kpa-

'AXX'

rov^evov

avrrjq

rrjv

rolq

ev

evcrefiuq

hid r\y

'f\\/Jav

irav,

ray

oXoov

fyfMOvpyoq

dy^pavrov,

evovtriua-aq

eavra

at<rB'/]riK0v

cra^aroq, yeyovev dvBpw-

tioq

eoq'
S<a

t5j$

avroq

crarvj-

Bpcoiror'/jri

e'/c

rvjq

(pvcrei rvjq

<pv<rei

roq.

Beor'/jri

Aoyoq

pev ra Beta

avrov nzavaytaq crapKoq, ovk

ovra

icavaylaq demapBevov Mapiaq, Kara,

rpoi^q,

\pvyfiv voepdv y.erd

(pvaet KaKiaq dXXorpioq, 6

0//.0A0-

p[av, koi to hrjirai npoq arpexpiav to

Zt%a

<rv\A7jipiv

aapKoq evepyav. av-

8e ra. avSpuitiva, ovk

Beoryroq, avoy^ Ttday^ay

ovra

Beor'/j-

HXPPOLYTUS,

A. D. 220.

259

He that is present every where and faileth no

M where, who is incomprehensible to angels and in" visible to man, comes to be baptized, as it pleased
cc

" him.
" what

When
is

you hear

do not understand

this,

written naturally, but receive the quotation

" with reference to the incarnation.

Wherefore the
" Lord by the mercifulness of his condescension was
" not unknown to the nature of the waters in what
" he did secretly for the ivaters
" afraid, (Psalm cxiv. 3.) they
:

saw him and were

all but retreated

" back and fled from their boundary. Whence the
" prophet many ages before perceived this, and

What

" asked,

ailed thee,

thou sea, that thou

"Jleddest ? and thou, Jordan, that thou wast driven

" back f But they answered and said, We saw the
" Creator of all things in the form of a servant, and
" not knowing the mystery of the incarnation, we

" are driven back through fear

z ."

This secondary application of the words of scrip-

common

ture was

in the days of

Hippolytus

but

Justin Martyr seems literally to have believed that

when Jesus went into the water, fire appeared in

Dial, cum Tryph. c. 88. p. 185.
Hippolyti Homil. in Theophan. c. 3.
147.
vol. I. p.

it.

262.

Pursuing the same subject, he makes John the

Baptist point out the difference between himself and

" I

Christ.

am

" not master

z

HKQveq

'

rov

irpo<;

i^aitrlo-B-f]

vt:

npay^drm.
TdfAoq

Seov

iv

it at;

'ludvvvjv

not the Christ,

am

iXBwv
iv

rS

'Ivjiroti?

'IopSav/)

avrov. a nccpato^uv

ryv

itoXiv

oXlyu v^art iXovero.

tj

am

a servant,

a subject, not a king

nvuq o ceKepiypctr.roi; tco-

evcppawcov

rov

ukcc-

rdcXyjirroi; it'iyy,

v)

and

am

^ccYjV fiXacrTccvoviTcc

nacriv ccvBpuizQiq kou reXoq pr] 'i^ovaa,

nzevt^pSv kou npoo-Kou'pav vfidrav

viro

iKocXvTrrero.

noivrf,

napuv, kou

[A'$a,y.ov a,KoXi[/.irccvo[AVOt;, o

aKard-

Xvi%roq dyyeXoiq kou dopctroq ccvBpa-

HIPPOLYTUS,

260

A. D. 220.

" man, not God I loosed my mother's barrenness

" when I was born, I did not make her virginity
:

" barren a
I am mean, and the least
but he com" eth after me, who is before me ; after me, on
" account of the time, but before me, on account of
:

" the inaccessible and indescribable light of his divi-

" nity I am under authority, he has authority him" self; I have the ground for my bed, he has the
" heavens b ."
;

Hippolyti Homil. in Theophan.

148,

vol. I. p.

The answer which

Christ gives to John contains

this

remarkable assertion of his divinity

"

now, John

it

" seest as man,

c. 5.

263.

"

thou art not wiser than

foreknow as God

vol. I. p.

263,

thou

c ."

Hippolyti Homil. in Theophan.

149.

Suffer

c. 7.

4.

After the word spoken by the voice from heaven,

This

my beloved Son, in whom lam well pleased,

is

Hippolytus makes
Troiij,

ewi to

fiuirvic-iAa,

remark

this

epxerai, uq

He

Kvpioq rfj <piXav6pco%la rvjq

rr\q

A<o kou

GvyKaToi&da-tuq ovk eXaOev

rav

rr\v

vtdrccv (pvaiv, onep ino'iyo-tv iv Kpv(prj'

rd

e&ov yap avrov

(3'fj6Yi<rav,

vtcxra kou i(po-

i^ear7}(rav [MKpov de7v, kou

opoOeaiaq di:e<pvyov. o$ev

rvjq

ineparq,

Qeupr\a-aq,

Xeycov }

icriv 6dXao~<xa k.t.X,

KpiBevra
iv

(.Inov,

[Aop<p?j

Tlpo-

a-T'ripiov

avrd

Tt

rvjq

calls

23 O.
b Ovk
el/M

et/xi,

ov

her denrdpQevoq, vol.

eljM iyco

fiacriXeuq'

iyco

ov

napQevtav

evreXyq

&e ok'ktco
oitiarw,

(/.ov

kcu,

oq e^Ttpo<r9ev [aov iartv'

did rov %povov, e^itpoo-Oev Se,

deoryroq

probably believed that Mary continued a

yevvq-

io-rei'pcocra

to dnpocrirov kou

dyvorjo-avTeq,

ov

[AYjrpoq

iXdy^iaroq, ep^erai

did

a-ioq,

iharvjq

avOpconoq

eoq' ardpcoaiv eXvcra

Beiq^

I.

"Kpicrroq, vTrype-

kou ovk avOevryq'

rvjq

iXavvopzOa.

HippolytUS

p.

col

Tov Ttdvrcov Krio-TTjV

oiKOVofAiaq

beloved begets

Se diro-

dovXov eito^ev, Ka\ to \kv-

ditb ry\q deiX'iaq

a

iK itoXXSv rcov ^povoov rovro

(p'^rrjq

The

virgin after the birth of Christ.

Tavra ockovcov, pj <pvcriKccq iKXd^ave rd Xeyopeva, dXX'

oiKOVouiKuq dtyjjv rd TcapariQe^eva.

yvhoKrjcrev.

"

avroq Se

dveK(ppacrrov

(pcoqiyu

vice^ov-

avre^ovaioq

iyco

to eha<poq kawyjv e%&>, avroq rov ov-

pavov e%i.
c

"A(j)eq apri, 'Icodwy, ovk ei

o-ocf)arepoq'

<rv

{/.ov

aq dvOpcoiroq fiXeneiq,

iya aq eoq itpoyivaaKa.

-:

HIPPOLYTUS,

A. D. 220.

261

" love, and immaterial light begets inaccessible light.

" This is my beloved Son, who appearing on earth,
" and yet not separated from the bosom of his Fa" ther, appeared and did not appear
This is he
" who is called the Son of Joseph, and my only -be
" gotten according to the divine substance.

my

"

beloved Son,

who was hungry, and

This

is

fed thou-

who was weary, and refreshed the weary

who had not where to lay his head, and bore all
things in his hand
who suffered, and healed

" sands
66

"

d ,"

" sufferings

&;c.

Hippolyti

150.

Ho mil.

vol. I. p.

Theophan.

in

10.

c.

264.

He

concludes the subject with an exhortation to

baptism, and says, " He that descends with faith to
" the washing of regeneration bids farewell to the

"

evil one,

and

numbered with Christ

is

he denies

" the enemy, and confesses that Christ

is

God e ."

This passage shews what was the meaning of that

form of words, or profession of faith, which the catechumens repeated at baptism when they said that
they believed in Jesus Christ, they were understood
:

mean

to

that they believed

him

often been shewn, that this

ing of the Creed

be
d

'AyaTryrbq dyditfjv

vloq

[xov

and Hippolytus here

Ka)

yevvoi,

^cupia-Qelq, ei:e<pdv'fj

Ovroq eariv
voq vlbq,
Be'iKYjV

im-

dyaTtYjroq, 6 Karoo

Ka) rav narpaoov koatvccv

(f)ave)q

God.

It has

asserts

it

to

so.

<paq dvAov <puq ditpocnrov. ovroq icrriv

o

to be

the necessary mean-

is

'Iccarjcp bvoy.aC oi/.e-

Ovr oq

ttj

%eip) fiacrra^av.

rb

rdcrcrerai

i<rriv k. t. A.

Ka) rpecpccv [/.vpidhaq'

Ka)

he

ra

ra

K0v f\pa,

avvrdcrcrerai

airapveTrai rov iyfipoy,

6[AOAoye7 he rb

kohiwv kou dvanavav rovq Koiticovraq.

niarecoq

dvayevvfaeuq Xovrpov, hia-

'K.oicttco,

<rrov.

perd

Karafialvccv

ryjq

rrjv

itdcr^av Kai ra, ivddrj la^evoq.

elq

Ka) ipoq [xovoyevrjq Kara,

ova lav.

Tieivav

rov

ovk

Ka) itdvra iv

[Mj

icpdvYj

e%oov nov r\v K(f)aXrjv KAivai,

@eov

elvai

rov Xpi-

HIPPOLYTTJS,

262

Hippolyti Fragmentum in

151.

vol. I. p.

The

following fragment

ginning

A. D. 220.

but

Sam.

i,

267.
is

imperfect at the be-

seems to have contained a mention

it

of the different times in which the Word had been

" Secondly, by the prophets
revealed.
as when
" he called them by Samuel, and turned the people
;

" from serving strangers

and thirdly, when he ap" peared in the flesh, having assumed the human
:

" nature from the Virgin

f ."

Hippolyti Fragmentum in 1 Sam.

152.

vol. I. p.

There
it is

is

i.

267.

a fragment from the

said, that the three great

same work

Jewish

in

which

festivals

were

"

At the
some event in our Saviour's life.
" passover, that he might shew himself about to be
typical of

" sacrificed as a sheep, and to be exhibited as the

" true Passover as the apostle says, Christ who is
" God our Passover is sacrificedfor us? 1 Cor. v. 7;

According to our present copies, St. Paul merely

says, Christ our Passover: but Hippolytus quotes
Christ who is God. Chrysostom also
and
there is other authority for it.
reads 6 Beog,
Hippolyti Fragmentum in Psalm, ii.
153.
Xpi(TTo$

o 6eo$-,

vol. I. p. 268.

"

When

" fested as

he came into the world, he was mani-

God and man

s."

ferent facts are mentioned

After which the

which prove

dif-

his divine

and human nature.

TT v
t

he

rav HprHprjTav & c

hzvrepciv rrjv dia

rpfoyv, iv

'EauovrjX

rr\q icctpQevov

dice

rov

ccvtxKaXav, kcu iiri(TTpe(f)uv rov Xctov

coco rrjq dovXe'icu;

rav aXXocpvXcov'

rvjv

Ovrot;

@ec? ko)

fj

evcrctpKoq nctpyv rov

Ik

avQpamov ctvaXaj3av.
irpoeXBccv

elt;

rov Koa^ov

ScvOpamoi; i(pavepS9r}.

HIPPOLYTUS,
154.

A. D. 220.

263

Hippolyti Fragmentum in Psalm,

vol. I. p.

xxiii. 1.

268.

"

"

The Saviour himself was the ark made of infor his incorruptible and imcorruptible wood
:

" perishable tabernacle was thus signified, which

" produces no corruption of sin
for the sinner
" makes confession and says,
wounds stink and
:

My

" are corrupt because of my foolishness. (Psalm

" xxxviii. 5.) But the Lord was without sin, of in" corruptible
Virgin

wood

in his

and the Holy

human

nature,

" the Word of God, covered as

" purest gold h ."

it

i.

of the

e.

and without

Spirit within,

were with the

Hippolyti Fragmentum in Psalm, xxiv.

155.

vol. I. p.

7-

268.

That sublime passage of the Psalmist, Lift up

your heads, &c. which is unquestionably addressed
to God Almighty, is referred by Hippolytus to Christ.
" He comes to the heavenly gates angels accom" pany him and the gates of heaven are closed for
;

" he is not yet ascended into heaven.

He appears
" now for the first time to the heavenly powers a
" fleshly body ascending.
It is said therefore to
" these powers, the angels
<c

viour and Lord, Lift

"

and

"

King of Glory
h Ka)

be ye

KijS&JTo?

Tiruv avroq
Ttrov

Tavry

avrov

e/c

Ka)

shall come in \

HvXav

Gtoryp' ro

d^apr-fi^aroc, (T'ffK^ova

ro

<7K7\voq

u $efs.tav
r

^va aV

d^apr^traq Ka) i^o^oXoyov^eyoq

Ttpoa-oj^ea-av

dvay.dprrjroq

\vhw

ro

k. r. a.
vjv,

Kara

e/c

ao-'/j-

yap atr^-

a^idcpdopov

Kar'rjyyi'hheTO

before the Sarulers,

and the
The King of

up, ye everlasting doors,

lift

oe

who run

up your gates, ye

yap

(p'qai,

Se Kvpioq

rav da^iircoy

avBpcoTtov,

rovritrnv

e/c rr,q

napQevov Ka) rov aylov

[/.aroq e<xcc9ev

rov

Qeov, ola

Tlj/et/-

Ka) e^uQtv rov Aoyov

KaQapaidra ^pvaix
This is an al-

TrepiKe/caXu/x-^evo?.

Exodus xxxvii.
Fragm. p. 342.

llision to

Irensei
1

Xaq'

I.

'Ep^erai eVi rdq ovpa/iaq

dyyeXoi avra

/ce/c>.e7|aeVcu elaiv

<rvvoevov(7i,

vid.

<nv-

Ka)

at itvKai rav ov-

HIPPOLYTUS,

264

Glory

evidently Christ.

is

The

"

tell

angels

Compare Justin Martyr,

Athanasius expresses the same idea k ,

p. 44. N. 26.

"

A. D. 220.

who

attend upon the Saviour on earth

the heavenly powers, as he was ascending, to

" open the gates the powers above, amazed at his

" wonderful incarnation, ask, Who is this King of
" Glory ?" &c. In another place he represents Christ
:

as uttering the words, Lift up, &c.

self,

" for he

not, as

needed them to be opened

serves, that he

the Lord of

is

all

he ob-

for

things, nor

is

him-

any

" created thing shut against its Creator, but he

" opened them for us to enter in

Hippolyti Fragmentum in Daniel, et

Susan, vol. I. p. 277.
This is a commentary upon the history of Susanna and at the 35th verse, And she weeping,
&c. Hippolytus remarks, " For by her tears she
" drew down the Word from heaven, who by his
" tears was to raise up Lazarus when dead m ." Hippolytus must therefore have believed that Jesus was
in heaven at this time, which was nearly 600 years
156.

before his incarnation.

157.

This

is

Hippolyti Fragmentum, vol. I. p. 281.

a fragment from a Homily upon the para-

ble of the Talents, Matt. xxv. 14. in

which the per-

who

received one talent seems to have been

compared to certain heretics. " One might say,

son

" that these persons and heretics resembled each

pavav'

QvleKa yap

avafiefirjKev

elq

ovpavovq'

Uparoq

hvva,[A<ri

ra7q ovpavlaiq

fictivovcroi.

Xeyerai ovv iaiq ovvd^eaiv

vivo

vvv (paiverai icuc,

rav dyyeXuv rav

tov ^coTrjpcc

Kcti

Kvpiov,

k In Psalm, vol.

'

crccpt;

ava-

Delncarn. 25. vol. I. p. 69.

Orat. I. C. Arian. 41. p. 446.
m Aid ydp ~Zv taKpvoov icpel'AKero
1

rov

aw

ovpavuv Aoyov, rov peKhovra.

irporpe^ovrcov

tid daKpvuv iyeipeiv tov AaC/xpov re-

Apare

OvyKora.

I. p.

k.t.X.

1041.

HIPPOLYTUS,

265

A. D. 220.

" other, being alike in error for the latter either

" think that Christ came into life a mere man, de" nying the talent of his divinity
or they acknow" ledge him to be God, but deny his human nature
:

" teaching that he deceived the eyes of those who

" saw him, appearing as a man, though having no

human nature, but that he was rather a sort of

" phantastic delusion such as Marcion and Valen" tinus and the Gnostics, who by separating the

"

"
"

Word

from the

human

nature

flesh

Hippolyti Fragmentum in Prov.

158.

vol. I. p.

The

one talent, the

reject the

n ."

first

282.

verse of this chapter

Wisdom hath

is

builded her house ; upon which he says,

" the

Wisdom and Power

ix. 1.

of

God and

66

Christ,

the Father,

" hath builded himself an house, the incarnation

" from the Virgin."

See N. 286. Athanasius also

interprets Prov. ix. 1. of Christ

Orat.

2. c.

Arian. vol.

I. p.

becoming incarnate.

512.

we read, She hath mingled

upon which we find, " The Saviour hav-

In the second verse

her wine

" ing united his divine nature to the Virgin by the

" flesh like unmixed wine, was born of her without
" mixture God and man."
n

kcu Tovq eTepoho^ovq

TovTQvq

(p/jveiev

dv Tiq yeiTvidv, &(pctXXo[A-

vovq napcniXYio'luq'
YjToi

kou yccp KaKtivoi,

iptXov dvBpaitov

o{AoXoyovo~i

(pvKevou tov Xpjcrrov elq tov

OeoTYjToq avTov to
vol' '/jTOt,

Tie-

(3iqv, Tr\q

TaXavTov ctpvovue-

tov eov o^oXoyovvTeq dvai-

uajcep
ol

MapKiav kou

Teq iov Aoyov, to ev TaXavzov ccko-

(SdXXovrcu
0

Trjv ivavBpuiiyjcTiv.

'Xpta-Toq,

aocpia.

75

tov eov kcu Tlcnpoq

kou hvvccutq

Kai eKepaaev

aicoKevou &d<7K0VT<; Tccq oipeiq avzcov

T7\q olvov, elq ttjv

elq

toov Beayevccv, aq

dvBpunov, ov (pope-

%eoTv\~a evixraq

aavTct dvBpmcov,

dXXd

aKpctTov,

(pao-[jt.a,T6Yi

(xaXXov

tivcc

yeyovevou' olov

eccvTy

opKo'boy.-qo'ev

oIkov, tvjv e/c itcupBLvov a-dpKcoaiv

povTou ndXiv tov d,vBpaitov, ne<pavTa-

So'/ojcr/v

OvccXcvtivoc KOU

Yvuo-tikoi rfq crapKoq cc'noSiacr'jiuv-

'EccT^p

KpaTYjpa tov eav-

napBevov t\v iavTov

t5j

crapKi,

eyevv'f\B'f\

ooq

olvov

e avryq

dcvyyvTOvq, @eoq kcu dvBpocKoq.

HIPPOLYTUS,

266

A. D. 220.

Hippolyti Demonstratio contra Judceos.

159.

c. 7. vol. II. p. 4.

This book was written to convince the Jews of

At

their blindness in rejecting Jesus as the Messiah.

p. 131. I have given quotations from the second and

fourth chapters

and

in this place

Hippolytus makes

use of the very just argument, that since the last

punishment of the Jews was far greater than any

we may

former one,
greater,

infer that

was
the Lord

their crime

and

this was, that they crucified

Hippolytus asks, " Why was the temple

of Life.

" destroyed ? Was it for the making of the calf in

" days of old? Was it for the idolatry of the people?
" Was it for the blood of the prophets ? Was it for
" the adulteries and fornications of Israel ? By no
" means
for they always obtained pardon and
" mercy for all those things
but it was because
:

" they killed the Son of their Benefactor

" he, who is coeternal with the Father p."

for it is

If the Son were simply called aiho^ 9 eternal,

might be

said, that

retrospectively, as

it

he was so prospectively but not

we

say that the souls of

men

are

immortal, because they will never have an end after

they have once had a beginning

said to be coeternal with the

is

understand that the Son

as the

Father

is,

is

when the Son

Father, we must
but

eternal in the

same sense

or in the language of the schools,

a parte ante, as well as a parte post.

160. Hippolyti contra Noetum, c. 2.

vol. II. p. 7.

This work was written against Noetus, who adopted the Patripassian heresy, and conceived the Father

and the Son

P

>

Ttarpi

to be actually

XX' qti rov

vvva&nq.

and numerically one, so

vtov tov evepyerov eBavdzcctxav' avroi;

yap iariv

tw

HIPPOLYTUS,

267

A. D. 220.

was the Father who was born of the Virgin,

and who died upon the cross. We may observe of
that

it

this heresy, that its existence is a strong proof, that

the divinity of Christ was a fixed article of belief in

Theodoret informs

those days.
trines of

the doc-

Noetus had been maintained before by Epi-

gonus and Cleomenes %

mon

us, that

The

Patripassians, in

com-

with the catholic church, believed that Jesus

Christ

was God, and that he was one with the

Father

them

but their conviction of this doctrine led

into the Sabellian error of confounding the

and even beyond it.

That Noetus fully believed in the divinity of
Christ, is evident from the reasoning by which he
and his followers thought to support their doctrine.
persons,

They

first

quoted texts to prove the unity of God,

such as Exod.

xx. 3. Isaiah xliv. 6. xlv. 5

after which they said, " If therefore I acknowledge
iii,

6.

" Christ to be God, he must be the Father

for if

" Christ is God, and yet suffered, being himself God,

" therefore the Father suffered, for he was the Fa" ther r ."
Again, "For Christ was God, and suf" fered for us, being himself the Father^ that he
" might save us.
Neither, as they say, can we rea" son in any other way
for the apostle acknow;

" ledges one God,

"fathers, of
"flesh,
i

who

when he

whom
is

over

all,

God
s

Haer. Fab. III. 3. vol. IV.

<ttiv o

Xlarf\p'

eoq, enctOev de Xpiarroq,

Toq uv @eo?,
Jlar'/jp

iariv

apa

yap avroq

ovv
*r\v.

the

blessed for ever*?

Xpiatlq yap

cryjzv Si'

Ei ovv XptcTov o^oXoya eov,

apa.

Whose are

Christ came according to the

p. 227-8.
avroq

says,

yap
av-

enadey llaryjp,

Kal (Tcoaai
(p'/]aiv,

oi

Qeoq, Ka\ tna-

vjfxaq

Suj/'/j07j.

"AXXo

oi ZvvaiAtBa Keyeiv'

o airotTToXoq

av

rjv

vj^aq, avioq uv UaTVjp, 'Iva

na\ yap

eva Selv ofAoXoyeT, Aeyav,

izarepeq k. t. A.

HIPPOLYTUS,

268
I

have already quoted

where

this passage in part at p. 90.

I observed, that

Hippolytus agreed with Noe-

words of

tus in giving to these

which they bear

He who

adds, "

A.D.220.

St.

Paul the sense

our English version, and

in

he

God, for he says boldly,

" All things are delivered unto me by the Father,

" (Matt.

is

xi. 27.)

over

all is

God who

" having become man is

" John also said, which
66

which

"

He

come,

to

is

over

is

God
for thus
and which was, and
:

is,

God

Almighty. (Rev.

right in calling Christ

is

and

all is blessed,

for ever

Almighty

i.

8.)

t ."

Hippolyti contra Noetum, c. 3. vol. II. p. 7.

Hippolytus then shews that though the church

161.

held a plurality of persons in the Godhead, it be" For who will not say,
lieved in the unity of God
:

" that there

God ? but then he

will not deny

" the incarnation":" and he explains what he means

one

is

by the incarnation, ohovo^la x at p. 9. " This Word

" was truly the mystery of incarnation from the
" Holy Ghost and from the Virgin y."
The same
also is said in the following passage.

162.

is

Hippolyti contra Noetum,

i&riv, "Keyei

aiaq,

yap ovru lAera

Tiavra.

tov Uarpoq.
evKoyrjToq

y.oi

'O

ianv

kou

yap Kai 'laaw/iq

Kai

rjv,

kou

ndi/rav eog

elq

ovrooq

nawoKpaTccp.

irapp'/j-

napabedorat vno

cov eivi

yeyevrjrai,

yevoptvoq @eo$

vol. II. p. 8.

ouuva?
c

elnev,

ep%o/x.evo$, b

Ka\u<;

8.

it

IS

only

without o eo?, which is a various reading not noticed by

Griesbach
but the words may
perhaps be taken from Rev. xi.
:

av9pairo<;

rovq

elivev

av,

eoq

navro-

Kpdropa Xpio-rov. p. 10.

In the
printed text of the Apocalypse,
i.

c. 4.

Noetus had quoted Isaiah xlv. 14. Surely God

in thee, and there is none else ; there is no

navTOKparap,

aXV
x

Ttq yap ovk ipei eva

ew

elvai

ov Trjv otKGVOfAiav avaip'f]<xei.

See

p. 70.

note

OTt OVTCOq (AVO-T'fipiQV OIKQ-

vofAiag eK iTvev[/>aroq ayiov

Koyoc, kou itapdei'Qv.

yjv

ovroq 0

HIPPOLYTUS,
God: from which

A. D. 220.

269

declaration of the unity of

lytus quotes the whole passage

and then
66

thee

says,

but in

The words

6S

whom

is

from

are,

11 to 15;

ver.

God

Surely

God, except

God

Hippo-

he argued that Christ was the Father.

is in

in Christ Jesus,

" the paternal Word, and the mystery of the Incar" nation ?
and by the words God is in thee, he
" shewed the mystery of the incarnation, that by

Word becoming

" the

and being made man,

was in the Son, and the Son in the
" Father, it being the Son who lived among men z ."
163. Hippolyti contra JVoetum, c. 4. vol. II. p. 9Having quoted the words of St. John, iii. 13. jVo
man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came
down from heaven, even the Son of man, which is
in heaven, he asks, " Will Noetus say, that the flesh
" was in heaven ? The flesh, which was of the
" Spirit and the Virgin, which was offered as a
" gift by the paternal Word, is the perfect Son of
" God.
It is plain therefore, that he offered him" self to the Father.
But before this, the flesh was
" not in heaven who then was in heaven, but the
Word without flesh, who was sent to shew that
" while he was upon earth, he was also in heaflesh

" the Father

" ven

?"

That Christ was

z

'Ev

'Ev aoi ovv,

t'ivi

'Itjctod

(pYjtriv, 6

eoq

ccXa'

rj

rS irarpaa Aoya,
0iK0V0[Aiaq

rvjq

CTTYjpia

elntiv,

he

on

iv

o~o\

@eoq ianv.
iv ~Kpicrra

kou

rS
To

f/,v-

he

eoq i<rnv, ihet-

on

yjv

ianv pev

Aoyov
hcopov,

reXsioq

e(pepev

aaoKCH^lvov rov Aoyov kou ivocvQpa-

ovp".va

oiKOvo[/.loi,q )

UscrYjp

KYjaavroq

o vibq iv

ra

Yjv

iv rep via, kou

Ylocrp), i^icoAtrevouevov

Myn

e/jet",

on

e/c

ra

iv ovpavcp <jap%

aocpi

nzvevfAocroq

&eov

vlbq

crocpl;

ovpotv aXk'

ovk
Yj

Yj

vitb

kou napQevov,
ctTcohehtiy^evoq.

Upo
y)v.

eavrbv

irpo<r-

he rovrov iv

Tiq ovv

Aoyoq aaapKoq,

crrocXelq iva. hei^Yj

rov

npocreveyfie'iGa

on avrbq

Hotrpt.

avrov in)

eivou kou iv ovpocva.

rov vlov iv ccvQpuitoiq.

a

Yj

ovv

Ttarpaov

rov

Ylpoh'fjAov ovv,

o"-

Kvvev ^vcTTYipiov

he was upon

in heaven, while

y)v

iv

lvko*

yvjq ovroc

HIPFOLYTUS,

270

earth, seems to be declared

f

above quoted.

ev

A. D. 220.

by the words of

John

can hardly have

ovpav

too

St.

any other meaning.

164. Hippolyti contra Noe'tum, c. 8. vol. II. p. 12.
After many arguments to refute the doctrine of
" He is comNoetus, Hippolytus thus concludes
" pelled therefore, though unwillingly, to confess the
" Father God Almighty, and Christ Jesus the Son
" of God, who is God made man, to whom the Fa" ther hath subjected all things, except Himself and
" the Holy Ghost, and that these are in this man;

" ner three.

But if he wish to learn, how there is
" said to be one God, let him know, that His essence
" is one, and as to essence there is one God
but
;

" with reference to the incarnation, the manifesta" tion of Him is threefold b ."
165.

Hippolyti contra Noe'tum,

Having shewn, that there

is

c.

11. vol. II. p. 13.

only one God, and

yet that His Son was always present with Him, he

says, " And thus there was another present with

" Him.
But when I speak of another, I do not
" mean that there are two Gods, but I speak of him,
" as light from light, or as water from a fountain,

" or as a ray from the sun for the essence

" that which is of the whole, and the whole
:

" Father, from

whom

is

the essential

b 'AvdyxYjV ovv e%ei kou [Ay BeXav

o(Ao\oye7v

pa,

Uarepa @eov

Kai Xpicrrov

itavroKpdro-

'lrjcrovv

eov

vlov

Seoq,

ocrov

"be

"Erepov $e Xeywv ov duo eovq

vdvp

e/c nrjyyjq,

ov.

Lvvapiq yap

elq

on y.ia
pev Kara

crKerco
%<70V

Ei le fiovXerai ^aBeiv,

eoq

ditoteUvvra^
bvvajxiq

yivcc-

rovrov,

r-qv Zvvaj/.iv

elq

Kai
ecrn

the

Kara, r\v oiKOVOf^lav,

Uvevparoq dytov, Kai rovrovq

ovraq rpla.

is

rpi%yq q enibei^iq.
c
Kai ovruq naplcrraro avrcp krepoq.

itZq

one,

Word c ."

eov avQpaTiov yevopevov, o) ndvra

Uarvjp literate napeKToq eavrov Ka)
elvai

is

aXX' aq (paq Ik cpuroq,

Xeyce,

roq, to be

Aoyoq.

vj

aq aKrlva dito

pa

vj

tbq

rfki-

y Ik rov nav-

ndv Uaryp, e

oii

dvvatuq

HIPPOLYTUS, A.D.
166.

Hippolyti contra JVoetum,

The manner

271

220.

c.

12. vol. II. p. 14.

which Hippolytus quotes Isaiah

Ixv. 1. and applies it to Christ, shews that he believed the Father and the Son to be one God. Having said, that it was Christ who inspired the prophets, he remarks, " The Word, who was with the
" prophets, spoke concerning himself for he was
" then the herald of himself, shewing that the Word
" was to appear amongst men for which cause he
" used this exclamation, / am seen of them that
6i
asked notfor me, I am found of them that sought
in

66

"

me not. But who is it that was seen, but the

Word of the Father, whom the Father sent, and

shewed to men His own power d ?"

167. Hippolyti contra Noetum, c. 13. vol. II. p. 15.
He also quotes Jer. xxiii. 18. which according to
his own translation would be, Who hath stood in
the substance of the Lord, and hath seen His
Word e
upon which he observes, "The Word
" of God is the only word which is visible the word
46

" of man is audible. When he speaks of seeing

" the Word, I must believe that he, who was sent,
" was visible. Nor was this any other than the
<e

Word.

" ness,
66

But

who

that he

was

sent, Peter bears wit-

said to the centurion

Word

hath sent his

to

Cornelius,

the children

" by the preaching of Jesus Christ : he

"

Lord of all*."

Aoyoq i(p6eyyero

irep)

yap avroq iavrov Kypvl;

kvvwv peXXovra Aoyov
avOpanaiq, IC
'E[A<pavv)<;

Yjv

Aoyoq rov

eyevero, Set-

iavrov i^ovaiav

(pai've<r9ai ev

alrlav ovrwq [3oa,

17$ Se

yevopevoq aXK"

Uarpoq,

ov

the

anoo-rekXoov

Uarvjp ideiKwev avOpanoiq

iavrov,

iyevoprjv k. r. X.

e<rr\v 0 ifAcfyavriq

God

(Acts x. 36.)

d 'Ev rovroic, rolvvv itoXirevo^evoi;

o

of
is

God

Israel,

tj

is

rvjv

<nap

e
The Septuagint translation
almost precisely the same.
f

T/j e<mj ev viroirr^[/.ari Kvptov,

Kal idev rov Aoyov avrov

Aoyoq 5e

HIPPOLYTUS,

272

have quoted

A.D. 220.

this passage

marking two things:

1.

for the sake of re-

that in the citation from

the Acts Hippolytus understood the

Word

in the

John speaks of the Logos, as

Jesus Christ
and 2. that he inserts the word God,
which is not in our copies of the Acts, where we
only read, he is Lord of all.
Hippolyti contra Noetum, c. 17. vol. II.
168.
sense in which

St.

p. 18, 19.
" Let us then believe according to the tradition

" of the apostles, that God the Word came down

" from heaven to the holy Virgin Mary, that being
" incarnate of her, and assuming the human, I mean,
" the reasonable soul, being

made every thing that

man is without sin, he might save him that had
" fallen, and might give immortality to men who
"

We

" believe in his name.

have therefore entirely
" demonstrated the Word of truth, that the Father
" is one, whose Word is present with Him, by whom
"

He made

all

things

whom

in later times, as

we

" said above, the Father sent for the salvation of

" man. He was declared by the law and the prophets
f
In the same
as about to come into the world.
" manner therefore that he was declared, in this he
" also came and manifested himself of the Virgin
c

Holy Ghost, being made a new man, hav" ing the heavenly part, which belonged to his Fa" and the

" ther, as the

Word, and the

Seov povoq oparoq, avOpaitov

"Onov

aroq.

ccvayKYjv

tyu

bpq,v

Koyoq.

pccprvpei
6

ha

ovroq <7Tiv o

&eoq

T.dviav

Kvptoq.

vldiq

K^pvy/^aroq 'lyo-ov Xpi-

terpretations are rather fanciful.

Ovk aXXoq
"Ot*

Herpoq

eoq tov

'Io-pavjX

crov'

The same has been thought

by some commentators eoncerning the Word mentioned in Luke
i. 2. Heb. iv. 12. &C.
See Waterland, III. p. J 54 but such in-

nia-reveiy opccrov tovtov

aireo-TaXpevov.

e aicov-

tov Aoyov "keyet,

earthly part, as of the

rjv

ScXX'

Senear a,\Qri,
'E^anea-retXev

Aoyov avTov roTq

HIPPOLYTUS,
ct

Adam, being

old

A. D. 220.

273

incarnate of the Virgin.

He

and was manifested God in

w the body, coming as perfect man
for he was
" made man, not by delusion or by suffering any

<e

came

into the world,

" change, but really

h ."

169. Hippolyti contra Noetiim,

" So

c.

18. vol. II. p. 19-

he does not refuse his human properties,

" though proved to be God, when he is hungry and
also

" weary

and when he

sleeps

upon

who

a pillow,

M by nature requires no sleep, as being God and

" prays for the cup of suffering to pass away, who
" for this very cause came into the world
and is
;

" strengthened by an angel, who strengthens them

" that believe on
and is betrayed by Judas,

him

"

who knew Judas what he was

and

insulted

is

by

" Caiaphas, who before was honoured by him as

" God and he is set at nought by Herod, who is
" to judge all the earth
and he is mocked by
:

" the soldiers, who has thousands of thousands and

" myriads of myriads of angels and archangels stand" ing by him and he is fixed by the Jews to a cross,
" who fixed the heaven like a chamber (Isaiah xl.
:

" 22.) and crying to the Father, he

h

II icrrevo- 00 u.ev ovv kcctcc rr;v tca-

rav

pdSocriv

Aoyoq

a.-!:

diroa-roXav,

ovpavZv KocryjXBev

ayiav ixapQevov
8 elq e|
rrjv

oti

M.ocpiocv,

avrr^ Xafiwv

dvdpanrivrjv,

Xva,

XoytKrjv

eKToq

pv%6rj

Xeyco,

a,v8pcaicoqi

'Ev T.aGiv ovv ditobelieiKTou

Vjfjuv TTjq

ccXf]8elaq Xoyoq, oti elq icrrh

Ilary^, ov ndpecni Aoyoq,

KaOcoq

eTTOL'tjcrev

e'ntcifAtv

ov

ov

rd

varepoiq Kuipoiq,

kou

rpoizov

his

dv6pamav.

Ylpo<p-/]rav e/oj-

tov

elq

koct/xov.

Kara

iK'fipvyB't],

tovtov Kou irapccv icpavepcoaev lavrcv

e/c

TtapQevov

kou

Wvev^aroq,

dyiov

Kouvoq dvOpwnoq yevoyevoq, to [xev ov-

e eirlyetov &q

avrov.

TtavTa

ovv

pdviov eyjAV to

ovopta

crccT'/jplocv

itapecroyevoq

Kcc6' ov

nemu-

aaarj tov

pdo~x{i Totq 7iiarevovcriv elq to

npoq

(jid voptov

dcpOapcriotv dvOp&noiq ticl-

dpiaprlaq,

kotoc, kou

r qv

elq

crapKeo-

he

Ylaryp

Ovroq

te kou x^v^yjV

yeyovaq Ttdvra ocra ecrrh

eoq

commends

narpSov aq Aoyoq, to
e/c

iraXatov

9uv

elq Kocrptov

vepadrj,

&eoq

'ASa,//, rjia

Ovroq

napBevov aapKOvyevoq.
iv

<r

dv8pw%oq reXeioq itpoeXQuv'

ydp Kara tyavratjlav

>j

rpoTtrjV,

dXrficcq yevopevoq dvBpicnoq.

dvarepa, d%etrr(iXev

irpoeX-

apart, i<paov

dXX'

HIPPOLYTUS, A.D.

274

220.

"

Spirit, who is inseparable from the Father

and
" bowing his head gives up the ghost, who said, /
" have power to lay down my life and have power
;

" to take

it

again. (John x. 18.)

This

God,

is

who was made man for our sakes, to whom the

" Father hath subjected all things. (1 Cor. xv.

"

Hippolyti e Comment, in Genesin,

170.

vol. II.

p. 24.

Speaking of the death of Christ, he says, " He

" was not holden by death k , but although he was
" among the dead like a man, he continued to live
" by the nature of the Godhead
and the Son is
" the Lord of Hosts, who did no sin, but rather
" offered himself for us as a sweet-smelling savour
" to

God and

Lord of Hosts,
markable

as applied to the Son, is very re-

and the more

This expression of

the Father 1 ."

so,

when we

But

Father, as at p. 28. "

1

rd

kou

Ovrooq ovv

dvBpojTtiva

eavrov ovk d-navalverai ivteiKvv^evoq

eoq
Ka)

izpocrKe<pdXaiov

lici

avnvov e%uv
ntorriplov

rrjv

ndBoq

itapaireirai

rovro rcapayeyovaq iv

Ka)

vit

dyyeXov

va^wv rovq

elq

KaBevhei

aq &eoq, Kai

(pvcriv

dp%ayyeXav' Ka) vno

npoo-nriyvvrai, b

Uarpoq'

ivhv-

ypaq yeyovaq,

avrov iziarevovraq

Ovroq

him

[AaC^rai

Kaidcpa,

vito

avrov leparevofxevoq

ooq

nporepov in

&eoq'

(1.

for-

avrov leparevopevov ripa-

san v%

pevoq uq >eoq.) Ka)

viib

'Hpafiov e|-

dXX'

i.

e.

vid.

Ov
et

yeyove

vivo crrpariccrcov itai^e-

riav,

eavrov

rai a irape<rr^Kacri %lXiai ^iXidteq

ypav

elq

<yq V

Ka)

KOu

\Kvplai

[Avpidheq

dyyeXav

Kai

dvBpccncoq

itdvra

$i

virera^ev

rep

Bavdr<p Karoypq'

Bpwnoq, ccKo^e^evtiKe Zfiv ry rvjq Beo-

Kvpioq 8e rav 'bvvd-

TYfeoq (pvcrei
6

peXXcov Kp7vai iracrav

ebq,

KetpaXvjv

eya k.t.X.

Ka) yeyovev iv veKpoiq wq av~

peav

'E^ovcriav

death did not retain

Acts ii. 24.

rvjv

ovBeveirai

dyjupiaroq

kX'ivgov

Harrip.
k

'lovfia itapatl^orai

the

Kapdpav

coq

Ka)

iKnvti, b eiitaq,

<xkoov rov 'lovfiav riq iariv' Ka) dri-

vtiq

God

'lovhaicov %vXop

irrjljaq

TtapariBerai to irvev/xa

rov

yivoj-

Ka)

to

bows were broken,

their

8ta

koo-[acc

evtvva\f.ovrai

it

rov ovpavov' Ka) npoq Tlarepa [3oZv

ore ireiva koi KOitia

gov,

Hippoly-

find

tus in other places expressly referring

Tlarpi.

vlbq,

oq ov

ocr^v

Tceitoi^Kev

df^ap-

y.aXXov eBve vnep

evooViaq rep

@e

Ka)

HIPPOLYTUS,

275

A. D. 220.

"

and the nerves of their arms were loosed by the

hand of the mighty one of Jacob, i. e. of God and
" the Father, who is Lord of Hosts."
We may reTertullian
Justin
Martyr
and
member also that
mentioned Lord of Hosts as one of the titles which
"

belong

to

Son

the

see

N. 26. p. 237.

p. 43.

N. 134.

Hippolyti e Comment, in Gen. vol.11,

171.

p. 27, 8.

This

a commentary upon that part of Jacob's

is

prophecy which concerns the tribe of Dan, Gen.

xlix. 16, &c.

and having explained the

latter part

of the 17th verse to relate to the death of Christ, he

says, " But although the rider fell, having volun" tarily endured the death of the flesh, yet he will
66

be restored to life, taking the Father as an assist" ant and support. For the Son, being the power of
" God and the Father^ restored his own temple to

m
life
Thus he is said to have been saved by the
" Father, having been in danger as a man, although
" by nature he is God, and himself keeps together in

"

" good order the whole visible and invisible creation.

"

Thus St. Paul understood and said of him, Though

" he was crucified through weakness, yet he liveth
" by the

power of God n ."

(2 Cor.

m There

is

a passage in Atha-

nasius very similar to this

Kai

avrbc, 8e <rriv o eyelpav rov '&iov vaov,

p.

Kai

eo?,

uc,

capKi.

De

^fcovq

ry

t,cc7jv

Incarn.

Itla

vol. I.

2.

AXX

iOeXovrTjq

power of God

rov

i^awyovei

cr8ai

yap av rov

Avva[M<;

@eov Kai Yiarplq

6 vloq

rov

Kai nenrccKev

el

avarXag

Bdvarov, aXX'

rov

ovv Kai

ttnievt;,

rrj*;

arapKoq

avafitacrerai

crvKhrptropa Kai iirayayov izoiov^evoc,

'lliov

Tavry

vaov.

av-

<Te<rZ-

Xeyerai nzapa rov liarpo*; ke-

Kiv"bvvevKo)q &<; avBpoMQi;, tcctfroi Korea,

(pvcnv v-napyjAV eo<;, Kai

872.
n

Uarepa.

rbv

It ap-

xiii. 4.)

pears that Hippolytus interpreted the

el<;

oX'qv

avroq

to ev that Gweyjuv opar'/jv re Kai

doparov

kt'hiiv.

0 decTireo-ioq

Ei Kai k. r. A-

T 2

Ovroo

Uavkoi;

itov avveiq

irepi

avrov

Kai

(pYjo-i,

HIPPOLYTUS, A.D.

276

in this passage to

mean

220.

the divine power which was

was the weakness of his huhim to suffer death it

was the power of the divine nature, which caused
inherent in Christ.

man

him

It

nature, which caused

to rise again.

This interpretation

is

confirmed

by the following passage.

172. Hippolyti e Comment, in Gen. vol.11, p. 28.
" For although he endured the cross, he lived
" again, as being God, having trampled upon death 0 ."

Another extract from the Commentary of Hippolytus

upon Genesis has been already given at p. 121. and
Grabe in his notes to bishop Bull's Defence of the
Nicene Faith, (II. 8. 2.) adds the following fragment, which was not published by Fabricius. It
is upon Gen. xlix. 26. where the LXX read, The
blessings of thy Father and thy Mother ; upon
which Hippolytus observes, "
" by this

is

It is quite evident that

intended the generation of the only-be-

" gotten from

God and the Father, and that from

" the blessed Virgin, according to which he is con" ceived to be, and appeared as, a man. For being
" by nature and in truth Son of God and the Fa" ther, he endured for our sakes to be born of a
"

woman
173.

p."

Hippolyti e Comment, in Gen.

vol. II.

p. 30.

"

The most
who arrived

and those
"
at the very extremity of virtue, were
" behind the glory of Christ. For they were serv0
cbq

illustrious of the Fathers,

Ei yap Ka) averXrj aravpov, aKk'

Qeoq aveBla,

TtaT'qcraq rov Qavot,-

avOpanroq'

vloq

voeirat

Kai netyyvev

yap vnapyjuv (pvaiKuq

Te Ka) aXrjOaq tqv @eoS Ka) Harpoq,

tov.

P 2a<$ T6 Ka)

hapyaq

'q

e/c

&eov Ka) narpoq yivvqcnq tov povoyevovq,

//.a/yeTcu, Kaffb

Ka) ia

rrjs

aylaq irapOevov

cry-

8*'

^aq

averXv} r\v hia

Ka) yA\rpaq ykvvtpiv.

ywaiKoq re

HIPPOLYTUS,
" ants

but the Lord,

" them with

66

"

all

A. D. 220.

who was

277

the Son, supplied

by which they became

Of

Therefore also they say,

illustrious.

have all

his fullness

we received\"
Hippolyti Fragmentum,

174.

The

following passage

vol. II. p. 32.

quoted, as containing the

is

words of Hippolytus, by John of Antioch, who lived

"

century.

tenth

the

in

The

Virgin,

when

she

" brought forth a body, brought forth also the Word,

" and therefore is mother of God the Jews also,
:

"

when they

"

Word

crucified

God the
Word

body, crucified

nor does any distinction between the

" and the human body occur in the scriptures: but

" he is one nature, one person, one hypostasis, one
" operation, the Word who was God, the Word who
" was man, as in truth he was

r ."

This

is

said to

be taken from a work of Hippolytus written against

who

those

God

attack the incarnation of the

IVjrd of

on account of his consubstantiality with the

Father ; and was evidently

directed against the he-

resy of Valentinus and others,

who

considered Jesus

and Christ to be two separate persons or in other

words, that the human nature was not united to the
;

divine, but that both continued distinct.

There

is

another fragment, said to be taken from

a treatise of Hippolytus upon the union of the body

1

KaTo-Mv

ovv

Xpunov

apa.

tZv %arepav eTtiarypoTa-

So^tj? kcju ol

tci Ka) elq Avjfiy vjKwxeq a,fTrjq'

yXv yap

ra

fo*

-qa-av oIkT'm'

&v

iKeTvoi

Kxap'/jy/jKev

6 e

ol

Kvpioq vloq

yeyovacri "hafATtpoi,

Totydproi Ka)

avroiq.

Aeyova-iv, k. t. X.
r
Virgo, cum peperit corpus,
Verbum quoque peperit, et id-

circo est

Deipara

que cum crucifixerunt corpus,

crucifixerunt Deum Verbura
neque distinctio ulla inter Verbum et corpus hominis occurrit
:

scripturis
sed ipse
natura una, persona una,
suppositum unum, operatio una:
Verbum Deus, Verbum homo,

in

divinis

est

quemadmodum

Judsei quo-

T S

erat,

;:;

HIPPOLYTUS, A.D.

278

220.

of Christ with his divinity, in which

" he

who was

it

is

said that

created was by this union uncreated

" and that he, who was uncreated, by the same union
" became created since there is one nature com" posed of those two entire parts s ."
;

There

is

also another fragment,

quoted from a

ter of Hippolytus to Dionysius bishop of

let-

Cyprus

and the same passage may be found in a letter said

by Julius, bishop of Rome, to Dionysius of Alexandria.
But there is reason to think,
that the letter was really written by Apollinarius
and the doctrine contained in it is not that of the

to be written

catholic church

Hippolyti Fragmentum, vol. II. p. 45.

175.
Leontius of Byzantium has preserved the following
fragment as written by Hippolytus upon the prophe" but that he might be proved to
cies of Balaam
" contain both in himself, the substance of God and
:

as the apostle also says,

the substance of man
" mediator between God and men, the man Christ
" Jesus. (1 Tim. ii. 5.) But a mediator is not of

<c

" one (Gal. iii. 20.) man, but of two.

It was neces" sary therefore that Christ who became a mediator
" between God and man, should receive a kind of
" pledge from both, that he might appear a mediator
" between two persons u ." Compare Irenaeus N. 58.
p. 97.
s

and Cyprian N. 283.

illis

11

ilium, qui creatus est,

increatum esse per unionem et

ilium increatum per eandem
unionem creatum fieri, quandoquidem natura una ex duabus
integris partibus constat.

t
See the edition of the works
of Dionysius of Alexandria, p.

297.

iva,

<p6repov

e%av

Sei%05/ to fwajneav7% r^v re rov

avOpunuv, aq

Seov

ova-iav kou tyjv ef

kou

a-KocnoXoq Xeyei, ueo-iTyv Seov

kou ccvdpaituv, avQpuvoq Xpto-Toc

<rovq.

'O

ov ytverai,

^eahfiq

dXXa,

dvo.

kvoq

I>j-

"ESe* ovv rlv

Xpiarov eov kou dvOpaitav

yevopevov nap

avQpanov

f^eo-hyjv

d[A<poTepcov appafiZva,

HIPPOLYTUS,

Hippolyti Fragmentum,

176.

The

A. D. 220.

following

is

He was

vol. II. p. 45.

taken from a work of his upon

Easter.

"

" places

and he who

entire to all persons

and

in all

space divested himand contended against all the powers of the

" air, and all but cries out that the cup may pass
" away, that he might truly shew that he was a

"

filled all

self,

" man but remembering also the reason for which

" he was sent, he cries out, Father, not my will
;

" the spirit is willing, but the flesh is

weak*" See

note at p. 253.
Since the publication of the

work, some

new fragments

edition of this

first

of Hippolytus have been

brought to light by Angelo Maio, in his Scriptorum

Veterum Nova Collectio e Vaticanis Codd. &c. Vol.

I. p. 161, &c. They are taken from a Catena of commentators upon Daniel: and on those words, The
form of the fourth is like the Son of God, iii. 25.
Hippolytus says, " The scripture shewed beforehand,
" that the Gentiles were afterwards to know him in
flesh, whom Nebuchadnezzar had long before
" seen without flesh and recognised in the furnace,
" and acknowledged him to be the Son of God?."

" the

Commenting upon Dan.

vii. 18. he speaks of the

"
that the heavenly king may be
time arriving,
" shewn openly to all, no longer seen partially as in a

" vision, nor revealed in a

rivet

elXycpivai, fv&

(poevrj

hvo itpoa-

aitoov [tea-lrqi;.

x "OXoq

rjv

yejAicrccq 8e

to

XvjjWa \kov' to
rj

<ko.<ti

ttocv

itda-aq Tccq

y Tlpooczeheiiiev

yivuxTKeiv,

kou npoq oXlyov j3oa notpeXOeTv to

eVe-yvw iv Kotu.lva

rripiov, 'Iva &<ij

Qpawoc

aXyOaq on kou av-

vjv' [Aefjs.vsi[j<.evo<;

<TTuhrj,

Se kou S<o ait-

kou (3o$, IlaTep,

(ay)

rj

ypacpr],

on

//.eA-

X^crovai tcc e8vrj tovtov evcrapKOV eiti-

aepiovq c\pyjxq yvpvoq avTomehucraTO,

7to-

nzvevya TrpoOvfAOVt

jwev

Se <rap% a&Oevrjq.

kou iravrayov,

irpoq

a cloud on the

pillar of

kou

vlov

yyjcrev.

p.

to 6e-

T 4

ov

Geov
1

88.

itdXou
o

elvou

aaapKOV luv

^u^ov^ohovoa-op,
tovtov

obpoXo-

ORIGEN,

280

A. D. 240.

" top of a mountain, but with power and angelic

" hosts, God in the flesh, and man the Son of God

" and Son of man, coming from heaven to the world

" as judge 7 ."

Origen.

A. D. 240.

Origen was born in Egypt about the year 185, and

before he attained his seventeenth year, his father

He was a scholar of
Clement of Alexandria, and we are also informed
that he had been a hearer of Hippolytus.
At the
age of eighteen he was himself appointed to preside
in the catechetical school of Alexandria, and Dionysius, who was afterwards bishop of that see, was one
of his pupils.
He was not ordained till the year
In 231
228, when he was forty-three years of age.
he left Alexandria and went to Caesarea, where he
was received with great attention and admiration.
The Homilies which passed under his name amounted to a thousand and the number is more astonish-

Leonides suffered martyrdom.

ing, because

he did not suffer his discourses to be

taken down in writing

It

was about

this

till

he was sixty years of age.

time that he composed his work

against Celsus, which

is

one of the soberest and most

and has come down to

All his works together are said to have
us entire.
amounted to the incredible number of 6000 volumes 3
but we are probably to understand by volumes the
books or parts into which his works were divided.
It was either his unwearied labour in reading and
valuable of

all

his writings,

composing, or the great strength of his reasoning,

7

ak\u ptTa
ayye'kiKcov

o-rpccTiZi/

k. t. X. p.
a

$vvdy.av koi

ev<rapi<o$

Seoq

9 1

i^aKicr^iXioic (3i(3Xav$,

but Epiphanius seems uncertain

whether the number was cor-

206.

Epiphan. Hser.

Voi.I. p.

LXIV.

63.

rect.

ORIGEN,
which gained him the

He

A. D. 240.

title

of

281

Adamantius, or In-

have suffered considerably

vincible.
in the Decian persecution in 250, and to have died
at

Tyre

Of
down

said to

is

255 at the age of seventy.

numerous works, not many have come

in the year

his

us

to

in

their

original

language.

Some

which have perished are preserved in a Latin translation executed by Rufinus towards the end of the
but the accuracy and fidelity of
fourth century
these translations have been questioned, and appa:

rently not without reason.

not the object of the present work to enter

It is

Both
and modern times he has had many ac-

into a minute investigation of Origen's tenets.

in ancient

cusers

and defenders

not only has he been charged

with holding visionary and unfounded opinions concerning the preexistence of the soul, the resurrection
of the body, the nature of angels, &c. &c. &c. but
his faith concerning the Trinity,

and the divinity of

and the

the Son, has often been called in question

Arians have

laid claim to the high authority of Ori-

gen as supporting their own doctrines. If Origen

was really heterodox upon these fundamental articles
of Christianity,
traces of
I

it

it is

scarcely possible, but that

would be found

can only say, that after a careful perusal of

them,

some

in his existing writings.

cannot point out any passage, which

all

of

when

taken in conjunction with the tenor of his writings

would lead me

to conclude, that

Origen was an

Arian.

We

must remember, that he wrote before the

great controversies concerning the Trinity had dis-

The curious and presumptuous speculations of the unlearned or unstable

tracted the Christian church.

;
:

ORIGEN,

282

A. D. 240.

had not yet caused the meanings of words to be dewhich the sub-

fined with that scrupulous precision,

tlety of opposing sects afterwards

and Origen,

in

his

made

necessary

voluminous writings,

many

of

remembered, were taken down from his

own copious and unpremeditated delivery, may have
used terms in a sense, which the catholic church a
which, be

it

few years afterwards excluded them from bearing,

and anathematized as heterodox. But we must
judge of Origen, as of every author, from the whole
tenor of his writings, and not from particular parts
of them, or from single words, which have changed
their meaning.
Thus Origen may have fully believed in the consubstantiality of the Son, and in his
eternal coexistence with the Father; and yet he
may have spoken of the Son as in some sense inferior to the

Father

a doctrine, which, as bishop Bull

has plainly and unanswerably shewn, has been held

by the

catholic church

to our

own.

But

it is

from the days of the apostles

not fair to argue, because Origen speaks

of the Son as inferior to the Father, that he therefore believed

believe

him

him

to

to be created, or that he did not

have existed from

all eternity.

We

must take Origen's doctrine in Origen's own words

and if any of his expressions seem opposed to each
other and incompatible, we must see which of them
contains a sense, which cannot be mistaken and if
one of them admits of different interpretations, we
must decide which is correct by observing the meaning of the other expression which is simple and unequivocal.
Thus if Origen says that the Son was
begotten of the Father, we must see that when he
;

says he

was produced,

(yewrrog,)

he did not mean that

ORIGEN,

283

A. D. 240.

he was created, like the objects of this material

world, but that he derived his origin from the Father; a doctrine, which

perfectly scriptural

is

and

sound.

So also when we find him saying that the Son is

of one substance with the Father, and that he is by
nature very and eternal God, we must see that any
expression, which

marks the

inferiority of the Son,

we
if we make

cannot mean an inferiority of nature.

try the

If

his exby this test, i. e.

which admit of no doubt, explain those
which may receive two interpretations, I have no
hesitation in saying, that we shall have no reason
whatever for questioning his orthodoxy. Upon this

tenets of Origen
pressions,

subject I have satisfaction in fully subscribing to the

sentiments of bishop Bull

come

to

my

not as presuming to have

conclusion by an equal acquaintance

with the subject, but venturing to express

conviction with more confidence,,

when

my own

I find that

the extensive reading and judicious reflection of that

great

man

led

him

to

pronounce the same favourable

opinion concerning this calumniated Father.

BullDefens. Fid. Nic.

Having

said this, I

II. 9. 22.

See

must explain myself

as refer-

ring only to the doctrine which Origen held con-

cerning the Trinity, and the divinity of the Son.

His opinions upon other subjects have no connection

with the present discussion.

Of

all

the works which Origen wrote, there were

none which brought upon him more abuse

b

See also Waterland,

IV.

p. 322, &c. where he shews

that the most learned writers,
till

the end of the fourth cen-

for the

had not disapproved of

Origen's doctrine concerning
the Trinity,

tury,

ORIGEN,

284

A. D. 240.

heterodox notions which they contained, than the

De

treatise

Principiis

c
.

It

was

said particularly

to convey blasphemous opinions concerning the second and third persons of the Trinity. Didymus d
defended Origen from these charges, and contended

that the doctrines contained in this treatise differed

entirely

from the Arian notions.

fended Origen, but in a different

Rufinus also de-

way

he acknow-

ledged the existence of the offensive passages, but

contended that they were interpolations.

The original work was written before

when Origen left Alexandria 8 and

231,

since perished, except a

the year

has long

few fragments, which have

been preserved by later writers.

In the year 398,

Rufinus undertook to translate the whole into La-

tin

.But

and
it

his version has

come down

to us entire.

seems quite certain, that we must not receive

as giving us the genuine sentiments of Origen.

it

Rufinus himself says in his preface, that

if

he found

any thing which contradicted the opinions expressed

by Origen in other works, he did not preserve it
and particularly, if he met with any thing which
opposed what Origen had written elsewhere concerning the Trinity, he omitted
the concise

it

as spurious

or if

manner of Origen had made any of

his

expressions obscure, they were rendered plainer in

the translation by the addition of passages taken

from other works of the author himself but Rufinus
:

asserts,

Tlepl

he introduced nothing of his own.

that

apx^v.

lates this title,

Rufinus trans-

De

Principiis vel

de Principatibiis, v. Photius cod.

8. Pamphyl. Apol. Hieron. Epist. 38, 40. adv. Rufin. epist.

94.

Justinian.

Imp. Epist. ad

Menam.
d

V. Hieron. Epist. 41. et ad

fin. II.
e

adv. Rufin.

Euseb. H. E. VI. 24.

ORIGEN,
Jerom

A. D. 240.

285

positively denies this latter statement,

and

mentions instances where Rufinus had not only

softened

down

the offensive doctrines of Origen, but

had actually interpolated sentiments of

The Latin translation of Rufinus

tains many passages, which directly

his

own.

certainly con-

contradict the

and though there are some expreswhich seem rather to lower the divinity of

Arian doctrines
sions,

the Son, they

may

perhaps be

all

explained so as to

This very circum-

agree with the catholic tenets.

stance confirms the charge brought by

Rufinus, that

he suppressed

would have been thought

many

heretical

Jerom against

passages which
for it

can hardly

be doubted, after the evidence which has been adduced, but that Origen's

own work

appeared not

pressions which

did contain ex-

To

to be orthodox.

which it may be added, that wherever any fragments of the original Greek have been preserved,
they differ considerably from the version of Rufinus,

much more diffuse.

Jerom himself also made a translation of the whole
work, and he tells us that it was strictly literal,

the latter being

preserving even the heretical opinions of Origen.

This

too,

whatever portions of

served, differs very

much from

it

have been pre-

Ru-

the version of

finus.

This being the

case, it is not safe to

quote any

passage from the Latin translation as supporting

the doctrine which I am endeavouring to establish.
,

shall therefore only

may

be found in

p. 53.
ib.

I. 2. 1. p.

10. p. 58.

p. 89, &c.

and

praef.

53.
I.

mention, that such passages

ad

lib. I. . 4. p.

ib. . 2.

3.

1.

ib. . 3.

48.

I. 1.

ib. . 9. p.

p. 60. II. 6.

1,

at III. 2. 4. p. 140. St. Paul's

3,

8.

57.
6.

words

ORIGEN, A.D.

286
Kara

ryjg

240.

yvucrew tov eov (2 Cor. x. 5.) are translated,

adversus scientiam Christi.

There are however two passages, which have
been preserved in the original Greek, which seem
decidedly to support the divinity of Christ.

Origenis de Principiis,

177-

vol. I. p.

1.

IV.

c. 1.

2.

158.

Having mentioned some passages in which Christ

which the Christians would
66
meet with, he says,
At the time perhaps it was
" natural to think, that he spoke at random when he
" uttered these sayings, and that they were not
foretold the persecutions,

" true
but when the things, which were spoken
" with such authority, came to pass, they prove
" that God truly took our nature upon Him, and
;

" delivered doctrines of salvation to

Origenis de Princip.

178.

vol. I. p.

" It
<

men

IV.

1.

f ."

28.

c. ult.

189, 90.

time to recapitulate concerning the Father

is

" and Son and Holy Ghost, and to go over a few

" things which were then omitted concerning the
:

66

Father, that being incapable of division and parti" tion he is yet Father of a Son, not emitting him,
" as some think for if the Son is an emission of the
:

" Father, and if the Father begets of himself like

" the generation of animals, it follows that both He,
"

who

This
f

emits,

last

ore

and

he,

who

is

emitted,

is

corporeal s"

passage will at least shew, that Origen

e/c/3e/3>j/ce

ra

aera,

SieljeXOeTv, nept

uv

Tlarpoq, &q ahaipe-

koa a\xepiaroq

ylverai

Toa-avryq e^ovaiaq elpvj^eva, i[A(pavei

roq

Seov ScXyOaq ivavOpunrjo-avra <ruTq-

Ylarvjp, ov itpofiaXav avrov, uq o\ov-

pta "hoy^ara roiq avOpamoiq napa^e-

rat

riveq'

SuKevai

vloq

rov

g "lpa iiravaXa[36vra
rpoq kou vlov Ka\ dylov
IXiya.

rav

rore

itep)

Ha-

Ylvev^aroq

TcapaXeXei^f/.evcov

avrov

el

yap

vlov

TtpofioXf]

e<rrtv

llarpoq, Ka) yevvq, fxev e

oitoia

ra rav tpuv

yevv/jfiara,

avdyKf] aoj^a elvai rov itpoftaXXovra

kou rov

Ttpo^efiXvjy.evov.

ORIGEN,

A. D. 240.

287

could not have conceived Christ to have been a mere

man

he certainly held that the Son was begotten

of the Father, not that he was a

man adopted

God: and when he mentions the

corporeal nature

by-

of Christ as a conclusion which proved the absurdity

of the reasoning which led to

it,

he must have

thought that the true nature of Christ was

spiritual.

Either of these notions must lead to the divinity of

Christ.

179-

Origenis Exhortatio
vol. I. p.

Origen wrote

Maximus

of

this treatise

and

ad Martyrium,

his object

during the persecution

was

to excite his bre-

thren to stand firm to the gospel, even

persecuted unto death.

9-

280.

if

they were

In the following passage he

reminds them of the threats which God had given of

His jealous anger against idolatry, and

says, "

Like

" as a husband urging his wife to live discreetly,

" devoting herself entirely to her husband, and in
" every way guarding against submitting herself to
" any one else except her husband, although he
66

is

man, yet would shew jealousy, using such

sensible

a semblance like a medicine towards his wife so

" our legislator, especially if he seem to be the first" born of every creature, says to the soul, which is
:

" his wife, that he

is

a jealous God, drawing off his

" hearers from all fornication with devils and those

" who are thought to be gods and like God when
;

" thus jealous, says of those who go after any strange

" gods whatsoever, They have moved me to jea" lousy with that which is not God" &c. (Deut.
xxxii. 21
h

ovtco 6

.)

yjf^ar'iCpV) kou

pa-

vou

itda-fiq

KTicreco^

(py]<r)

npo<;

rv\v

ORIGEN, A

288

This passage

is

with the Father

remarkable, as identifying the Son

expressly calls the former

it

D. 240.

and represents him

as uttering words,

evidently spoken by

God

a mere man,

it

which were

the Father. If Christ were

would not have been

his death, to prevent idolatry

worship of Christ would

his office, after

on the contrary, the

itself

have been an aban-

donment of the one true God.

180. Origenis Exhort, ad Mart.

may

It

be mentioned, that at Matt. xix. 28. in-

When

"

of,

Son of man

the

" throne," &c. Origen reads, "

MS. has

no

Since

14.

283.

vol. I. p.

stead

God

this

shall sit in the

When God

reading,

is

it

shall sit."

probable

But the

that Origen quoted from memory.

substi-

tuted word would hardly have presented itself to

Origen,

he had not been in the habit of con-

if

Son of man and God

sidering the terms

as synony-

mous.

Origenis contra

181.

vol. I. p.

There

no need

is

Celsum,

of Origen's celebrated

later.

from

first

56.

371.

work against

in the year 243,

Neither does the

it

1.

in this place to give

that some writers have supposed

composed

1.

any account

Celsus, except

to have been
and others a few years
quotation which I make
it

require any introduction or comment.

" It

" has escaped Celsus and his friend the Jew, and all
" who do not believe in Jesus, that the prophecies
" speak of
".

<itu<r r/]c, tv}$ npoi;

Kai

two advents of Christ the first, parhuman feelings and humble, that Christ
:

taking of

to, tamoi/tcc itopvelaq

rove, vofAityfAevovi;

cttccc,

ehat Geovc acpi-

revs txKpoauevovq.

Koc\

coq

eot;

7T0T6

0Tt1<T6l>

@WV

fcTepWV eK7C7t0piV'

Korav, Avro) irape^Xaaau k. t. A.

ORXGEN, A.D.

289

240.

" being with

" to God

men might teach the way which leads

The other, glorious and merely divine,
" having nothing of human feelings mixed with the
" divinity.
To quote these prophecies would be
" tedious, and for the present that passage from the
" 45th Psalm is sufficient
in which he is plainly

" declared to be God in these words, Grace is poured

" into thy lips, therefore God hath blessed thee for

" ever, &c. &c. ver. 2

5. and attend carefully to
" what follows, where he is called God.
For he

" says, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever

" the sceptre of thy kingdom, &c. 6, 7. and observe,
" that the prophet addressing God, whose throne is
" for ever and ever, and the sceptre of his kingdom
" a sceptre of righteousness, this God, he says,

was

"anointed by God, who was his God

1 re" member pressing the Jew, who was thought clever,
" very hard by this passage and being perplexed
" by it, he said, as might be expected from his Jew" ish notions, that the words, Thy throne, O God,
" is for ever and ever : the sceptre, &c. were ad" dressed to the God of the universe and the other
u words, Thou hast loved righteousness and hated
;

" iniquity, therefore, &c. to Christ

Origenis

182.
I

c.

Celsum,

have already given at

"EXaOe 8e tov KeXaov, Ka) tov

nap avTu 'lovdaTov, Kai irdvTaq oaoi
1

tS> 'I'/j&ov
Tipocp'/jTtTat

yJrj

TtenuTTevKxtTiV, ort at

dvo

Xiyovaiv

raq

thai

npoTtpav

Xpicrrov enid-rj^laq' rrjv

dvOpwnoitaOea-repav Kai raiteivorepav,

I'va

<rvv

dd^T)

Kai
ncev

dvQpunotq

tvjv

|U,7jSevi

(pepcvcrav
toov iv

ccv

ra

XpitTToq, di-

itpoq
/3;o?

eov

odov,

tZv dvOpa-

d-noXoylaq KaraX'mri tgtcov,

ovk iyvooKoa-t nep)

rvjq

aq

taopivqq Kpi-

1.

1. $.

p. 83.
<reuq.

."

60. vol.

the

first

I. p.

375.

part of the

t\v he irepav evdo^ov Ka)

Qeiorepav,

ovdev

(aovov

enn:e'KXey(j.evov

rr\

6eioT'/]Ti eyjzvcrav dv8pccitOTia6eq.

paQeaQai Se

dv

ely'

tea)

apKei

8'

raq

Ttpoty-qreiaq, icoXv

ini rov ivapovToq to

duo tov TecrcrapaKOcrTov Ka) rerdprov

ipaXfAOv

evBa Kai

eoq dvyyo-

pevrai aa(paq did tovtcov, 'Ee%u8'/i

k. t. X. Ttpoa-y^eq

8'

iiti^eXcvq Toiq e^qq,

ev8a eoq eipyTai, 'O Opovoq

k. t. X.

ORIGEN,

290

A. D. 240.

following quotation concerning the offerings of the

wise men " They came bringing presents, which,
" if I may so say, they offered as symbolical to one
:

"

who was compounded

<

gold, as to a king,

God and mortal man

as to one who was to
God they offered these,

of

myrrh

" die and incense, as to

" when they learnt the place of his birth but since
" the incarnate Saviour of mankind, who was supe" rior to the angels, that assist men, was God, an
;

" angel repaid the piety of the wise

" ping Jesus, by warning

Origenis

183.

We

c.

Celsum,

may form some

in worship-

1.

66. vol.

1.

I. p.

380.

opinion as to what was the

concerning Christ's divinity in

doctrine

received

men

them k &c."

those days, by observing what Celsus himself understood of the Christian tenets

and

it

does not ad-

mit of a doubt, but that Celsus was fully persuaded

the

that

The

looked upon

Christians

Christ as

God.

passages which Origen quotes from Celsus, and

which prove this, need not be transcribed at length

and some of them will be found in the quotations
which follow. They occur in lib. I.
66. II. . 9,
18, 20.

IV.

and

sages,

God

in

VII.

3.

many

53.

In

all

these pas-

more, Celsus speaks of Christ

nor was it this dochim a stumblingblock it was

the human sufferings of God which he professed
as the

trine,

of the Christians

which was

to

himself unable to believe.

184.

Origenis

c.

Celsum,

1.

1. .

66. vol.

I. p.

Celsus had objected, that the flight into

was unworthy of a God, who ought

able to confound his
k

ScXX' ewe*

Seoq

vjv,

to

380.

Egypt

have been

enemies without flying from

vnep

rovq fio'/iQovvTaq av^pdmoic, ayyeXovt;

ivvndp^av

ararvjp rov ykvovc,

Opoonuv, ayyeXot; k. t. X.

rav av-

ORIGEN, A.D.
Origen shews that this

them.

240.
flight

sistent with the divinity of Christ,

who

" his divinity,

(<

who

believe Jesus,

/ am

(John xiv.

life,

was not incon-

and observes,

and

the truth,

and concerning

Now

"We

says himself concerning

the way,

6.)

" in a human body.

291

ye seek

to kill

and

the

his being

man
40.) we

me, a

" that hath told you the truth, (John viii.

" say, that he was something compound
At the
"
end of the section he says, Any very extraordinary

" and overpowering assistance operating in his be" half would not have furthered his wish to shew as

" a man approved by God, that he had something

" divine in the visible man, which was properly the
" Son of God, God the Word, the Power of God
"
"

and Wisdom of God, which was

But it is not time now to treat of

called Christ.

the compound
" nature, and of the parts, of which Jesus, who be-

" came a man, was composed

Origenis

185.

c.

Celsum,

111

."

I.

1.

68. vol.

I. p.

383.

Celsus being unable to deny the miracles of Je-

acknowledged them as

sus

but attributed the

facts,

working of them to magic. Origen refutes this, and

principally by pointing out that all the miracles of
Jesus were worked for the purpose of leading men
" But if the life of Jesus
to virtue and holiness.
" was of this character, how could any one with
" reason compare it to the profession of jugglers, and
1

gov

avrZ

'HpeTq
Trept [/,ev

Aeyovri,

rr,q iv

'Eyo)

Tturrevovreq

avra

k. r. A.

(pdvKOvri,
<rvv6erov

NSv

%pyj[^d (papev

avrov

To yap

vjv

ravra
k. r. A.

ra (3ovM<r6at

avrov ye-

iv

rZ

^Xeico^eva dvdpccTta'

irdvv Trapdho^ov rrjq

etc-

Ka) ewt itXeov iy.(pa-

oirep tjv o

Kvplaq vloq @eov, @eoq Aoyoq, Seov

tvva^iq koi eov

voq Xpia-roq.

(3o'/)6elaq,

^p'^aifxov

pevov vno rov @eov e%eiv rt Oeiorepov

Se

yovevai.

ovk

rov

rjv,

t^reire

veq,

avrov hitd^at aq avQpamov [/.aprvpov-

icep)

ort iv avBpunivcp (reofAari

'frj-

Seiorvjroq

Ov

rov avvBerov, Ka)

<ro(pia, 6

KaAovpe-

Kaipoq he vvv
?

irep)

av crvveKeiro

ivavOpanvjcaq 'l^GOvq, hi^y^aaa-8ai.

IT

ORIGEN,

A. D. 240.

" not believe, according to the promise of his being

" God, that he appeared in a human body for the

" benefit of mankind

n ?"

Origenis c. Celsum, 1. II.

" Celsus says, that this charge

186.

8. vol. I. p.

391.

brought against

is

who believe in Christ, that they

" do not believe in Jesus as God. I have explained
" myself upon this point before, where I shewed
" how we conceive him to be God, and in what
" the Jews by those

" sense

we

call

him man

."

It is clear

from these

words, that the idea entertained of Christ was that

He was called man only Kara n,

some particular sense.
he was God

Origenis

187.

in

c.

Celsum,

II.

1.

9. vol. I. p.

392.

Celsus objected the disgrace of Jesus being seized

by

officers,

and deserted by

his

"

disciples.

To

" this we say, that neither do we suppose that the

" body of Jesus, which could then be seen and felt,
" was God. But why do I say the body ? Neither

My

" was his soul concerning which he said,

soul
" is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death, (Matt.
" xxvi. 38.) But like as in the religion of the Jews,
:

he that said, / am the Lord, the God of allflesh,

" (Jer. xxxii. 27.) and before me there was no God,
6(

66

neither shall there be after me, (Isaiah

"

xliii.

10.)

God, who used the soul and body

is
" of the prophet as an instrument
so with us
believed to be

Et Se

roiovTOc,

vjv

rov 'lyo-ov

naq evAoyaq av riq avrov rrj

npoaipeaei rav yoyruv napafidXoi,
Ka\ jxr) Kar iizayyeklav rov @eov
/3/o,

dvai, KHrrevoi iv avOpccnivto (pavevra

(Talari
TjjAuv

in

evepye&ia

rov

ykvovq

dq rov Xp7Tov
yeaOai

iticrrevovroov Tcpoad-

'lovdafoiq, eVet

Kacriv &q elq

eov rov

nepi rovrov

'

8e rovro

eyKXypa ano rav

Tceitiarrev-

Ka)

iv roTq avcorepco itpo-

aneXoyqa-dpeOa, heiKvvvreq apa, icaq

[A,ev

Seov avrov voovpev, Kara ri

avOpanov Xeyopev.

^ur\

'Iyjq-ovv.

ORIGEN, A. D.

293

240.

t God the Word, and Son of the God of the uniiC

verse, said in Jesus, / am the way, and the truth,
" and the life, (John xiv. 6.) and I am the door, &c.
" (x. 7.)
Now we charge the Jews with not con" sidering him as God, who in many places is spoken
" of by the prophets as being the mighty Power and
" God, like the God of the universe and Father p.
" For we say, that in the creation as related by
f Moses, the Father gave command to him, when
" He said, Let there be light, and let there be a

and that He said to him, Let

"firmament, &c.
" us make man after our image and likeness : and
" that the Son having received the command did
" whatever his Father commanded him

These words are translated

post
rerum omnium
Deum et Patrem loco Deum
p

secundo

But

not the proof Kara.

If
Origen had called Jesus @eov
{/.era, rov rav oXav Geov, the transesse.

per

this

is

signification

lation

might have been right

and we
p. 789.

find this expression at

where, speaking of an-

gels or daemons,

he

says, aXXovq

but
speaking of the Son, he says,

rivdq (/.era rov in) naai <9eoV

which Hippolytus says

of our Saviour, (I. p. 226.)
means, that he was really born
and became a man like ourselves :
and Origen himself
speaks of Christ, ISioitoiovpevoq ra
avBpomoq,

Kad' %v

ing

e'tXycpev

those

avBpanov

makown
human

irdB'q,

his

sufferings

which

belonged to the
nature that he had assumed,
N. 232. below.
^ Upog ravra Se (p'fj<rGij,ev, on oCtf
vno\a[A(3dvo[Aev ro fiXenofAevov

y[Ai<;

p. 75 1 * K T0 ^ BpqcrKeveiv rji^ccq [/.era,

TOV &60V rOV VtOV aVTOV K. T. X.

Tore Kai alcrBrjrov rov 'I^cou crapa

elvai

@eov' Kai rl Xeya ro crSfxa

Kara rov rav oXcov Qeov

can only mean God after the
pattern of the God of the uni-

dXX'

ovde rrjv ipvyjrjV,

eos

God in the same

; i. e.
sense and meaning of the word,

verse

as dvBpcoirov

icaff rii/.aq Bvt\rov

means

a mortal man like ourselves,

Dionys. Alex. p. 237. and ryq
KaQ*

'f\\A,ac,

dvBpcoirivyjt; (pvcreat;

means

the human nature like our own,

Melito (Rel. Sacr. I. p. 115.)

and

/ca0'

Tj/xas

ahriQac,

ywopevoq

Krai to, TleplXvnoq

Kal
iv

ovrco

KaB^

ov

rav

ra

'I^croS

oXav

Aoyoq eoq,
vfb$,

eov,

'lov'Saiotq
viro

rovrov

rav

'EoXXayjiv ^[/.aprvpyjiAevov
XrjV

eXeyev

to, 'E<y ely.i k. r. X.

''EyKaXov^ev ovv
vof/,io-a<Ti

k. r. X.

io-riv

v\y.a<;

XeXe-

itefi

[ayj

irpoiprjrav
ac,

f/,eya-

ovra fivvapiv, Kai &eov Kara, rov

ray oXav Seov Ka)

yap (papev

itarep.%.

Tovrco

Kara Ma<rea

itpoardrrovra

fAOiroii'a

iv ttj

rov

ko<j-

ttarepa

ORIGEN,

294

Let us

we

believe, if

A. D. 240.

please, that Origen lowered

the divinity of the Son by making him inferior to

the Father

which has often been brought

(a charge

against Origen

but

;)

still

we cannot put

aside the

he believed the Son to have been present

fact, that

with his Father, when

He

doctrine which

incompatible with any mo-

is

totally

dification of the Unitarian

created the world

which conceives

creed,

Jesus to have had no existence before he was born

Bethlehem.

at

Origenis

188.

c.

Celsum,

II.

1.

31. vol.

I. p.

413.

In the following passage he refers to the latter

part of the last quotation, " In which

was proved,
creature took upon
it

" that the firstborn of evert/

" him a human body and soul and that God gave
" commands concerning such and such things in the
*

and they were created and that he who re" ceived the command was God and the Word r ."

" world,

Origenis

189.

c.

Celsum,

44. vol.

II.

1.

I. p.

420.

Celsus had mentioned the disgrace of Jesus being

acknowledged criminals
and Origen, in the notice which he takes of this remark, alludes to the prophecy of Isaiah liii. 1 2. and
says, that "

At

God was numbered with

Origenis

190.

with

together

crucified

2 Thess.

c.

ii.

Celsum,
8.

we

50. vol.

II.

1.

And

read,

transgressors
I. p.

s ."

424.

then shall that

wicked one be revealed, whom the Lord (o Kvpio$)

shall consume with the Spirit of his mouth, and
shall destroy with the brightness
to, Tev/jd^ra <paq k. t. A.

elpyKevoik

npocnayfiivTa.

Kevai navrcc oaot

tgv Aoyov
6

nctTrjp

TztTtoivj-

avra

iv-

Te/AaTo.
r

ktI<Jcc<;

of

kou ipv%rjv avOpa^ivrjV' kou oti

[xcc

eog evereiKaro
iv

k6(T[/.g>,

kou

iv

QIC,

Sc,TriKVVTQ o Ttaafiq

avetA^aq aZ-

s
1

cr6v]

erret
o o's.

kou oti

eo$ Koyoq

^tcc

twv toctovtuv

itep)

eKricrOvj'

ivTOAYjv Xocj3cov 6

npoToroKoq,

his coming.

q ttjv

'\v.

avojAuv

iXoyi-

ORIGEN,

A. D. 240.

295

There can be no doubt that the Lord in this place

means Jesus Christ, because there is allusion to his
second coming.

Lord

the

Many MSS.

read Kvpiog

'tyaovg,

Jesus, and the Unitarians evidently un-

it so, for they admit this reading into the

Origen quotes, " Whom the Lord God will

derstand
text

*.

" consume"

ov

Kvpiog

done

SO; (as

stances,) if

which he seems to

Seog avekei,

have done from memory

but he would not have

have observed before in similar in-

he had not considered the

Lord Jesus

and the Lord God to be identical expressions.

Origenis c. Celsum, 1. II.
191.
ult. vol. I. p. 446.

The

question contained in the latter part of this

quotation I leave to be answered by those

may

concern.

whom

it

Celsus had finished his arguments by

saying of Jesus, " He was therefore a man, and

" such a man as the truth declares him to be, and
" reason proves." To which Origen replies, " But
"

I know not whether a man, if he attempted to

" spread over the whole world his own religion and
" doctrine, could do what he wished without God,

" and prevail over all, who opposed the spreading

" of his doctrine, both kings and governors, and the
" Roman senate, and the rulers and people of every

" country.

And how

could the

" had nothing superior in

" multitude u ?"

Whom

the

Lord Jesus

will

human

coming

the

to

nature, if

of Antichrist.

consume he. Improved Version.

Irenseus once reads, Dominus
Jesus ChristUS, p. 182. and he

Hippolytus reads, K^o$

observes the repetition of

y^a-ac, iTTianeTpcu navvi

ova-la,

ring

in this passage, as
first

Christ,

to

the

itccp-

refer-

coming

and immediately

of

after

it

convert such a vast

it,

vol. I. p.
11

Owe

r^v kt

'I^o-oS?.

31.
ola $e,

el

avOpoonoq, ro\~
TTj

oikov lAMy

uvtov Oeooefieiav Kai

Soca-KaXtav, Mvarcci

aOeei

fiovXeTcu, k. t. X.

Ila>$ e

Si-

noiyjc-cci.

kou av-

ORIGEN, A.D.

296

Origenis

192.

Celsum,

c.

240.

29. vol.

III.

1.

I.

p. 465, 66.

" I would say of Jesus, that

"

it was expedient for

him as Son of God, God coma human soul and body x ."

mankind

" ing in

to receive

Origenis

193.

Having

Celsum,

c.

observed

that

1.

III.

I. p.

467.

made

the

31. vol.

Christianity

more pure than any heathen assembly,

and the heads of the churches more moral than
churches

persons of authority among the heathen, he says,

" But if this be so, why is it not reasonable to con" ceive of Jesus, who has been able to establish this,

common

" that there was no

him ?" and

divinity in

he proceeds to contrast him with such persons as

who were worshipped

Aristeas and Abaris,

as gods.

We

must certainly understand the words no comTvyovaa QeiOTYis, in the same sense
which Celsus, i. e. a learned heathen, would have
attached to them and if we suppose the argument
reversed, if Celsus had said, that Jesus was a mere
man, but Jupiter and Apollo were gods, in whom
7H071 divinity, ov^ y

was no common divinity, we could only have understood him to mean, that Jupiter and Apollo were
really gods, not

men who were

called gods, but pos-

sessing a real inherent divinity.

Origenis

194.

c.

Celsum,

1.

37. vol.

III.

I.

p. 471, 72.

Origen observes, that

many

of the gods of the

heathen were profligate in character, and recently

admitted into heaven

Qpaicov (pvuiq, jWTjSev 'iy^ovaa KpeTrrov

iv

airy, hvvarai roo-ovrov inHnpi-

xpai irXy]6 oq
}

x Hepi Se tov 'Ivjaov ewotfAev ay,

and yet that they were

iirei

yevei

<TV[A,(pepov

v\v

ra ruv

itapade^acrOat

avOpcoitcov

avrov

uq

viov

eov, @eov iXyXvOora iv avOpccnlvrt

ORIGEN,

A. D. 240.

297

worshipped with the same honours that were paid

and Apollo. " But the Christians, who

" have learnt that their eternal life consists in
" knowing the only true God, who is over all, and
" Jesus Christ whom He hath sent, (John xvii. 3.)
" who have learnt that all the gods of the heathen
to Jupiter

" are voracious

" &c.
and
" God are of a
" all the spirits

daemons, hovering about

that the divine
different nature

sacrifices,

and holy angels of

and principle from

that are upon earth, will not endure

" a comparison to be instituted between them and
" Apollo or Jupiter
There is much to be said

" also

concerning the heavenly angels, and con" cerning those who are opposed to the truth, but
" who have been deceived, and by deceit proclaim

" themselves to be gods, or angels of God, or good

" daemons

" be

and because such notions can never

accurately proved, it was

thoroughly and

" thought safe that man should entrust himself to

" no one as thinking him a God, except only Jesus
" Christ, who is over all as a governor, who has

" seen into these mysteries, and delivered them to

" a few r."

Origenis

195.

Celsum,

c.

p.

"

But

1.

41. vol.

III.

I.

473,74.

since Celsus objects to us, I

" often, concerning Jesus, that

we

know

not

how

him a

consider

" God, though consisting of a mortal body, and that

" in this

we

think

" to say any

wtcc

a(T(paAt;

eavTOV

ttXvjv

y.wov

ro

/x.77-

av8pcoi:oy

rov

iiri

it is

this point

However

ivoy/iG-d'/j

iyivio-revo-ai

@ea>,

act piously,

more upon

" been said above.

Sevt

we

let

for

much

has

the objectors know,

itaciv
rccvrcc

superfluous

diair'/jrovy

kou

Tzctpahovroi;,

rcc

Oeap'ficccyzoq

(3a6vrarcc

kou oKlyoiq

lr^ov 'Kpxrrov.

ORIGEN,

298

A. D. 240.

who we think and are persuaded was from

" the beginning God and the Son of God, the same
" is the very Word, and very Wisdom, and very
" Truth and we say, that his mortal body, and the
" that he

human soul in it, not only by a communication

" with him, but by an union and intimate mixture,
" has been advanced to the highest honours, and by
" partaking of his divinity passed into God z ."
"

Origenis

196.

c.

Celsum,

IV.

1.

5. vol. I.

p. 504, 505.

" Afterwards the most noble Celsus brings a

diffi-

" culty against us, which he got, I know not from

" whence because we say, that God himself comes
;

"
"

"
"
"
"

"

down

men

and he thinks it a consequence of

this, that He must leave His own seat.
For he is
not acquainted with the power of God, and that
the Spirit of the Lord filleth the world ; and that
which contain eth all things hath knowledge of
the voice. (Wisdom i. 7.) Nor can he understand,
Do not Ifill heaven and earth ? saith the Lord.
to

" (Jer. xxiii. 24.)

Nor does he see, that according

doctrine, In Him we all live and

" to the Christian

" move and have our being, (Acts xvii. 28.) as Paul
" said in his address to the Athenians.
If therefore

z
Tjdrj

iyKaXeT

E7re<

rov

Oy/jTOv o-cay.aTOt;

kou

iv

tqvtco

nvepicra-ov

yeiv'

ovra eov vo^i^o^ev,

evacre:

kou

p$v

ocria

en

yccp

'lyjcrov,

boKovj^ev,

tovto

Ttpoq

iv Tolq

'Ke~

avuTepa

'liTTcccrav ol

iy-

KahovvTeq, oti ov pev vo^i%o^ev kou

Treireio-fAeQa,

vlov
tj

Qeovj

oiiToq o

a.vTQ(TO(pta
$V'/jT0V

apy^Bev elvai &eov kou

kou

aVTOV

avroXoyoq icrl kou

Yj

avToaXrfieia'

(TafACt,

KOU

TVjV

to

av-

avrcS

iv

BpccTvlv/jV

OV

"Opvq

XeXeKrai.

ot8'

on

iKiiVOV

to

[*.ev

itXeiova

vjfuv, ovk

e/c

oitocraKu;, irep)

[AOVOV

ipvyfyv,

avoi.Kpa.o-ei,

to.

cpapev Kpoo-eiXycpevai, kou

Trpoq

[/.eyicrTa,

t%<; ckcivov

OeiorrjToq KeKOivav/jKOToi elg

TafSePyKevai.

T77

aXKa KOU

KOlVUVtOC,

&eov

(A-

Bishop Bull ob-

serves, that the expressions avToXoyoq,

avToo~o(pla,

&c. are bor-

rowed from the works of Plato,

who

speaks of the avToayaOov.

Defens. II. 9. 6. vid. Athanas. c.
Gent. 46. vol. I. p. 46.

ORIGEN, A.D.240.
" the

"

God

own

299

come down by His

of the universe should

power together with Jesus into the

of

life

" man, and if the Word, who was in the beginning

" with God, being himself also God, should come to
" us, He is not dethroned, nor does He leave His
" own seat
but the power and divinity of God
" travels where it pleases, and wherever it finds a
" seat; since God does not change His place, nor
<e

empty and

leave His throne

another

fill

from the argument,

It is plain

when Origen

the quotations, that

he means the most high God who

Origenis

197.

Celsum,

c.

p.

He
"
"

from

as well as

Christ God,

calls

fills all

IV. ad

1.

a ."

space.

fin. vol. I.

577.

May

ends the fourth book with these words, "

God grant by His Son, who is God the Word and

Wisdom and Truth and Righteousness, and what-

" ever the holy scriptures say of his divinity, that

" we may begin the fifth volume, to the benefit of
" our readers, and finish it well, assisted by the pre" sence of His

Word

Origenis

198.

in our soul b ."

Celsum,

c.

p.

<joc,

itpoq

Mexa
ovk

ravO'

o'terai

yevvaioraroq KeX-

onoQev Xafoav, eita-nopet

otS'

'f\\^aq

Kccreia-i

on avroq

aq XeyovTaq,

npoq avOpunovq

Seoq'

aKoXovBetv rovra, to

tyjv

/cat

lav-

ebpav

"bvvay.iv

Seov,

/cat

on

nvevy.a

Kvplov ntTtX'fipwKe k. t. a.
0

17. vol.

Seoq rotvvv rav

oXcov

ko\v

hvvdfxei o-vyKaraj3alvrj

ra

rov rav av6pa%av

Kav

[3 tov,

eavrov

rf,

'Irjcrov
b

elq

iv apyjq

ei:ihrjue7

OeoTyq Seov
o)

evpto-Kci

itov,

ov$

Kevr,v,

I.

oq

he

hvvafAtq

ov fiovXerai,

St

%apav, ovk

koi

kou Iv

a[/.et(3ovToq

%apav

eKke'movToq

ro-

avrov

koi aXX'i\v nA'/jpovvroq.

b Seoq he

rov ehpav avrov KaraXmetv' ov yap

elhe

VI.

But our Saviour and Lord, the Word of God,

"
a

1.

643.

hoi'/)

hia tov vlov avrov,

ecri Seoq Aoyoq, koi <ro(pia, kou

aXrjQeia, /cat hiKaioo-vvv], Ka) itav

ri TTOTe BeoXoyovcrai itep)

avrov

o,

<pacr;v

lepa) ypacpa), ap^acrBat vjjAaq Ka\ rov

Tte/ATtTOV

TOfAOV

W.6Ta

rr\q

TOV

npoq rov Seov Aoyoq, Seoq

uv,

ep^vjTat

upoq rjyaq,

/cat

avroq

ovk e^ehpoq

y'werai, ovhe KaraXetitet r\v eavrov

Aoyov avrov
eTTihyj^taq ,

elq

r\v rj^erepuv

KaAuq.

-fyvyriv

ORIGEN,

300

A. D. 240.

" shewing the greatness of the knowledge of the

" Father, that it is comprehended and known in its
"

full extent and primarily by him only, but in a

" secondary sense by those who have their reason
t(

enlightened by him

"

No

who

Word and

is

one knoweth the Son, &c. (Matt.

God,

says,

xi. 257.) for

" no one can know him who is uncreated, and be" gotten before every created nature in its full extent, so well as the Father who begat him
nor
" can any one know the Father so well as the ani" mate Word, who is His Wisdom and Truth c ."
66

We

may

observe, that in this passage

pressly said, that Christ

is

it

is

ex-

uncreated: and yet

it

has been asserted, that Origen believed him to be a

creature.

Dr. Clarke

tells

us that Origen expressly

reckoned the Son among the ^YjixioupyYjfMaTa or created things 6 But no such express declaration can
-.

be produced
Christ

is

and here we

find

it

expressly said, that

One such word

uncreated.

as this is

more

from which Dr.

own doctrine. In drawing

decisive than a thousand sentences,

Clarke might infer his

we may

such inferences from indirect expressions,

easily

be mistaken

Christ uncreated,

'AWa

kou

Scti-njp

but

if

we must
vj/awj/

kou

Kvpioq, Aoyoq rov eoS, ro peyeOoq

Origen has once called

suspect the soundness of

avrov Kai aA^6eia.

d

Scripture Doctrine of the

Trinity,

p.

282.

condemns Origen

Epiphanius
in

no mea-

sured terms for speaking of

Christ as yevqrov eov. (Haer.
LXIV. 8. vol. I. p. 53r.) But
if Origen used the terms yevyroq
and yewyroq indifferently, the
censure of Epiphanius was manifestly unjust.
See note a at
p. 26.

ORIGEN,

any inference, which makes him

sage contradict himself.

301

A. D. 240.
in

any other pas-

Xpia-ro^ to ayevvjTOv fypiovp-

yr^a, Christ the uncreated creature,

is

a sentence,

which contains a contradiction in terms

but the

contradiction, though not so apparent or so palpably

absurd,
if

is

equally fatal to the testimony of Origen,

the two terms are predicated of Christ in different

parts of his

works

Socrates,

who had more

of

Origen's books to read than Dr. Clarke could command, tells us that " Origen every where acknow" ledged the Son to be coeternal with the Father f f

and Origen himself says

"

who

199.

is

above

Origenis

another place, "

in

all

created things became

c.

Celsum,

1.

VI.

47. vol.

I. p.

Origen observes in several places, that the

when

God

man
669.

Word

became incarnate, assumed a soul

so that the soul became intimately united with the Word. He illustrates this
union by instances from scripture of things, " which
" are two in their own nature, being reckoned and
" actually being as one that it is said of man and
" wife, they are no longer two hut one flesh, (Gen.
" ii. 24.) and that he that is joined unto the Lord
of God,

as well as

it

a body

" is one spirit ; (1 Cor. vi. 17.) but if so, who is

" joined to the Lord, to the very Word, and very
" Wisdom, and very Truth, and very Righteousness,
" more than the soul of Jesus, or even so much? If
" this be so, the soul of Jesus, and God the Word,
" the firstborn of every creature, are
" two h ."
e
f

See Waterland,
VII. 6.
eo?

h'fppuT>Yi<T(;V.

II. p.

140.

VKtp nrdvra roc y^vjru

in Joan.

28. vol. IV. p. 87.

h
%yj<;

tom.

II,

t/?

75

no longer

paWov

t5js 'tyo-ov

-^v-

TtapocwX^a-laq KeKoXXyrai

nq,v

tS Kvp[a, ta avTokoy, koi avroaocpta,

kou avTOaXfiBeia, kou ocvto-

diKaiotrvvvj

onep

ovruq t%ei> ovk

ORIGEN, A.D. MO.

302

200. Origenis c.Celsum,

He
ix. 2.

I.

VI.

66. vol.

683.

I. p.

thus quotes and illustrates the words of Isaiah

" The people which sat in darkness, the Gen-

"

tiles, saw a great light : and to them which sat in

" the region and shadow of death light is sprung up,
" the God Jesus ."
i

201. Origenis

c.

Celsum,

1.

VI.

69. vol.

I.

p.

684.

Celsus having misunderstood what Origen and

all

the early Fathers taught, that the Father could not

be seen by any one, but had made himself visible in

his Son, pretended to give this as the substance of

their doctrine, " that since

" comprehensible,

He

God was great and inown spirit into a body

hither, that we might hear

put His

" like to ours and sent

it

" and learn from

Origen shews that

it."

this is a

misrepresentation of the doctrine; and he particu-

guards against the notion, that the Son was

larly

incomprehensible, or less invisible, in his divine

" The God of the uni-

less

nature, than the Father.

" verse and Father is not the only one who is great
" according to our doctrine: for He hath imparted of
" Himself and of His greatness to the only-begotten
" and firstborn of every creature : that he being
" the image of the invisible God might preserve the
" image of the Father even in greatness.
" allow then, that God is incomprehensible

We
:

"

but he

but
is not the only one who is incomprehensible
" also His only-begotten for God the Word is in" comprehensible.It does not follow therefore,
" because God is incomprehensible, that therefore
;

"

He

i<r)

Ivo

nciavj;

yov.

sent his

7)

tp v XV

r v

Son a comprehensible God

'fy

KTta-eaq npwtoTOKOV

"KptS

T v

eov Ao-

%up?>

K0"

kcu

ctki$

T0 '?

but as
KaQvjfAevoii;

Oavurov

eVetXev, o eoq 'lyjcrovq.

(paq

iv

av-

ORIGEN,

" we have proved, the Son

"

sible,

God

as being

Speaking of that

being incomprehen-

among

Celsum,

c.

also,

Word, by whom

the

" were made, hath divelt

202. Origenis

303

A. D. 240.

us

VII.

1.

all things

k ."

43. vol.

I. p.

725.

lie that hath seen me hath

9-) and having said that

text,

seen the Father, (John xiv.

it

cannot be understood of seeing with the eye, he

Any one, who perceives how we are to un" derstand of the only-begotten God, Son of God,

adds, "

" the firstborn of every creature, that the Word

" became flesh, will see how any one that beholds
" the image of the invisible God, will
" ther and Maker of all this universe

know

the Fa-

203. Origenis

Celsum,

c.

I.

VIII.

17. vol.

I. p.

755.

Celsus having alluded to the absence of statues

and images in Christian worship, Origen observes,

that Temperance, Righteousness, &c. &c. were the
images set up by true Christians, " by which we are
" convinced it is fitting that the prototype of all
" images, the likeness of the invisible God, the
" only-begotten God should be worshipped ."
111

204. Origenis

Celsum,

c.

vol. I. p.

The
k

Ov

iariv

povoq
t'hoov

piyaq KaO* y[Aaq

Ka)

eoq Ka) Uar'/jp'

eoq,

y.erebKe ydp eavrov Ka)

\eior-f\roq

ryjq

peya,'

tv

eiKCov

avroq rvy-

yjdvuv rov aopdrov eov

Ka) iv ra

y.eye6et cruCfl rv\v etKova rov Ylarpoq.

Ecttw

hv]

Ka)

hv<r6ea>pY]Toq

eoq, aXX' ov [Aovoq dvaOeap'^roq ecrrl

nvi,

dXXd

IvtrQeapyjToq

Ov
vai,

obq

avrov'

Ka)

[Aovoyevvjq

yap

eoq Aoyoq

did to dv<T6eup'qroq ovv

evQeap'qrov rov

eire^ev

dXX\ wq

42.

eoq

eov rov

b vloq

vlov

dirohedaKa[xev,

IvaQe&pvjToq av, are Aoyoq

rd

ov

Ttdvra eyevero, koi

No^<x<; riq ovv irSq

)<

aKoveiv

povoyevovq eov vlov rov eov,

<nep)

rov izpccroroKov T.dar^ Krlo~eo>q, Ka6-

on

Aoyoq yeyove

(rap!;,

tyerai nuq

Xtav riq rr\v eiKova rov dopdrov

yvacxerai

rov

izarepa

eov

Ka)

<novt\ry\v

elvai

TreTre/o"-

rovtis rov itavroq.

m
el-

di

io-Krjvoocrev iv vj[MV.

ra povoyevet Kai uparoroKCO

KrtTeaq'

TtdtTYiq

VIII.

which Origen used the term God,

sense, in

rwv

3.

772.

peQa

olq

itpeicov

ri[/.dar6ai to

upoororvnov navruv

aya"h[Adrccv, r\v eiKova rov eov rov

dopdrov, rov

(xovoyevvj

eov.

ORIGEN,

304

when

applied to Christ,

A. D. 240.

may

be collected from the

following passage, in which he

sertion of Celsus

is mentioning an as" After this he (Celsus) says,

(thinking that we call the crucified and tortured

" body of Jesus God, and not the divinity within
66

when

66

him, and that he was considered to be God,

ce

he was crucified and tortured,) that they who cru-

cified and tortured your God when upon earth,

" suffered nothing for having done $o n " Origen
6(

proves that this

inasmuch

totally false,

is

as the city

of Jerusalem shortly after was levelled with the

ground but I quote the passage merely to shew, that

Origen expressly mentions the divinity of Christ as
something really inherent in him.
205. Origenis c. Celsum, L VIII. . 67.
:

vol. I. p.

792.

we should seem more to wor" ship the great God, if we sung hymns to the Sun
and to Minerva but we know the contrary for
" we sing hymns to the only God, who is over all,
" and to his only-begotten Word and God and we
" sing hymns to God and His only-begotten, as the
" Sun and Moon and Stars and all the heavenly host
ee

Celsus says, that

6i

do."

Origenis e libro primo in Genesim,

206.

vol. II. p. 1.

What
the Son,
n

to

has been called the eternal generation of

or,

'E^'/j?

which

(raua, tov

the same thing, the eternity of

'It}<7</IJ,

kcu

KoXct^oyevov

kcu ov t\v iv avrcp

T,y.cxq

Xeyeiv, kcu ot

KctTereiveTO kou IkoXccC^to^ eov vevo[AioOou, or i Tovte crov

KOkTOLTeivovTeq
ol

Tovroiq Xeyei, oUfxevoq

Karareivoj^evov

OeoTfjTa, Qcov

is

0eov

itapovTou

kcu KoXdfyvTeq

TocvTa dpdo-avTtq nenovQaari.

ovhev

in)

v/xvovq yccp

<kuq-i

elq [xovov

Xeyopev @eov, kcu tov

tov

\/.ovo-

yevy uvtov Aoyov kcu eov' kcu vy.vov[/.ev

tov,

ao-rpcc,

Tid.

ye eov kcu tov

coq

kcu yXioq, kcu

kcu

itoicra

vj

[Aovoyevvj

av-

o-eAvjvvj,

kcu

ovpctvi'cc

o~rpot-

ORIGEN,

305

A. D. 240.

the Son, seems to be plainly asserted in the followingpassage.

quoted by Pamphilus in his Defence

It is

of OrigenP,

who adduces

it

as a proof of Origen's be-

was not before the Son, but

that the Father

lief,

The

that the Son was, coeternal with the Father.

passage

Greek by

also preserved in the original

is

" For

and is as follows.
God did not
" begin to be a Father, having been prevented, like
" men, who become fathers, by not being able yet to

Eusebiusi,

God

is

always perfect, and

" the power of being a Father

is

present with

i{

become

fathers.

For

if

Him

" and

if it is good for him to be the Father of such a

" Son, why does He delay it, and deprive himself of
" what is good ? and why not, if we may so say, be
" Father of a Son from the time that He is able to
" be so ?
must say the same also concerning the

We

"

Holy Ghost

1'."

Origenis Selecta in Genesim,

20?.

Upon

vol. II. p. 43.

those words in Gen. xxxii. 24.

and

ivas left alone,

And

man

there wrestled a

Jacob

with him

&c. Origen has this commentary 6i Who else could

" it be that is called at once man and God, who
" wrestled and contended with Jacob, than he, ivho
:

" spake at sundry times and in divers manners unto

" the Fathers, (Heb. i. 1.) the holy Word of God,
p

C.

Adv. Marcell. Ancyr.

iii.

ndAov

p. 25.
I.

22.
1

fcaro,

avTo

Ov ydp

@eoq naTrjp elvai

Kcc'Avo[/.evoq,

coq

ol

7T0)

re/.eioq 6

r.arepeq elvai.

ec{,

't\p-

yivouevoi

irarepei; dvQpu-KOi, vtto tov (M]

cQa'i

ov

p.

hvva-

E* ydp del

koi i:dpe<TTiv avTa

(TTYjpiTKei, Ka),

dvvaTai
y.evToiye

UvevpaToq
uses the
I.

p.

KaXov to elvai

KaXov avTa elvai naTepa tov toiovtov

Xdv

iv ai-Ta.

i<a)

i:epi
.

tov

To

dylov

Athanasius

contra Arianos, 27. Vol. I.

431. and 28. ^p. 433. el ydp
7jv

dva(3d\AeTai,

Ka)

AeKTeov

de) de

t'i

elireiv,

same argument, Orat.

Ovvauic rov TtaTepa avTov elvai, Ka)

vlov,

&q ecniv

icaTVjp elvai vlov

eavTOV tov

ainov naTepa, ovk

iraTTjp, ovk de)

dpa to ku-

ORIGEN,

306

A. D. 240.

"

who is called Lord and God, who also blessed Ja* cob, and called him Israel s , saying to him, Thou

God ?

66

hast prevailed with

66

men

66

our Lord's apostles did,

"from

was thus that the

It

of those days beheld the

Word

of God, like

who said, That which was

we have seen with our
and looked upon, and our hands have handthe beginning, which

" eyes,
" led, of the Word of life : (1 John i. 1.) which
" Word and Life J acob also saw, and added, / have

" seen

Godface

It has

to face 1

.'"

been observed already, that

considered

it

to

the Fathers

all

have been Jesus, who revealed him-

and we may observe also that

in this passage Origen refers to Christ what in the
first verse of the Epistle to the Hebrews is unquesself to the patriarchs

tionably said of

God

the Father.

Origenis in

208.

Numeros Horn. XXIV.

vol. II. p.

.1.

362.

Of Origen's Commentaries upon the Books of Moses,

Which means seeing God.
may add here a similar passage in Origen's fifteenth Ho" His name
mily on Genesis
s

We

" was no longer written Jacob,

" but Israel, as one who saw in
" his mind the true Life, which
" is the true God, even Christ."
tanquam qui mente videat
veram Vitam, qua est verus Deus
Christus. Horn. XV. . 3. p. 100.

it as a posiof the divinity of

Christ
e. g. Vol. I. p. 99. 283.
558. 569. 637. 684.

several places uses

tive assertion
:

Tlq

aXXoq

otv

kou

e\'f\

avBpaitoq o^ov kou Seoq,

Xeyo(Aevoq

<rvy,irotXotic0V

away zov 1^0 pevoq ra

'Ia/ciy/3,

ij

noXvpepaq kou TvoXvrponaq XaXrjtraq

rotq

narpdaiv

lepoq

rov Seov Koyoq,

Kvpioq kou Seoq y.p^arit^v, %q kou

5

evXoyr\craq rov I/cw/3, 'IcrpavjA avrov

on

In these last words there seems

to be an allusion to 1 John v.
20. eo~[Aev ev ra ScXvjOiva, ev ra via

avhpeq rov rov Seov Koyov, aq kou ol

avrov

(pycravreq rov Kvpfov yjfAav cvnovro-

'lycrov

Hpicrip'

oiiroq eo~riv

avo/xacrev,

eitentav,

pera. Seov

aXyQivoq

Seoq,

The passage

kou

^oorj

alcovioq.

not quoted expressly by any of the Ante-NiAthanasius in

cene Fathers.
is

Xoi,

Koyov,
'Ia/c]S

Seov

evlayycraq

ovraq de eapcov

air

ocpx^q k.

ol

t.

Tore

X.

kou Zavjv Beacdpevoq kou

ivKpepei

Xeyav,

Tipoa-conov itpoq

Eidov

npoeoMOv.

ov
6

yap

ORIGEN,

307

A. D. 240.

several Homilies are extant in Latin,

which appear

by Rufinus u

Part of the

to have been translated

second Homily upon Genesis

ginal

Greek

is

preserved in the ori-

and by comparing

the translation of Rufinus,

this

we may

fragment with

perceive that he

adhered closely to the original, and endeavoured to

give the literal meaning, without indulging in the

li-

berty of altering or interpolating, as he did sometimes.

We

may

therefore quote these Homilies as

containing the real sentiments of Origen.

At

and 132, two extracts have already

been given from the Commentary upon Genesis in illustration of the words of St. Paul, Phil. ii. 6 and if
p. 121,

we are justified in trusting to this translation, we

may also quote from the version which Rufinus made
of the Homilies upon the Book of Numbers.
In the twenty-fourth Homily we read, " If there
" had been no sin, there would have been no neces" sity for the Son of God to become a Lamb, nor

" would there have been need

for him to be in the

" flesh and be put to death
but he would have re" mained what he was in the beginning, God the
" Word x ."
;

209-

Origenis in

Numeros Horn. XXIV.

vol. II. p.

. 2.

364.

Speaking of vows made to God, he observes, " To

" offer oneself to God, and to please him, not by the
" labour of another, but by one's own, this is more
" perfect and more conspicuous than all vows and
" whoever does so is an imitator of Christ.
For he
;

11

Vid. Huetii Origeniana, p.

298.
x Si
non
non necesse

Agnum

fieri, nec opus fuerat eum

carne positum jugulari, sed
mansisset hoc quod in principio

in

fuisset

peccatum,

fuerat Filium

Dei

erat

Deus Verbum.

ORIGEN, A.D.

308

240.

" gave to man the earth, the sea, and all things
" therein, &c. &c.
But after all these he gave him" self.
For God so loved the world, that
gave

He

"

His

onhj -begotten Son (John

iii.

16.) for the life

" of the world. What so great things then will man

" do, if he offer himself to God, to whom God him" self first offered himself 7?"

Or igents

210.

in

Jesum Nave Horn. VI.

vol. II. p.

.3.

410.

Twenty-six Homilies of Origen upon the Book of

Joshua are extant in Latin, translated by Rufinus

and since he

tells

us himself, that he expressed the

original exactly as he found

much

it,

and did not employ

we may quote any

labour in the translation,

passage as containing the sentiments of Origen.

To

which we may add, that the beginning of the 20th

Homily is preserved in the Greek, and if we compare

it

with the Latin of Rufinus, the difference

is

not considerable.

In Joshua v. 13, 14. we read, And it came to

pass when Joshua was by Jericho, that he lifted
up his eyes and looked, and, behold, there stood a
man over against him with his sword drawn in
his hand: and Joshua went unto him, and said

unto him,
ries ?

And

host of the

Art

thou for us, or for our adversa-

he said,

Nay

but as captain of the

come. And Joshua

Lord am I now

fell on his face to the earth,

and did worship,

Sic enim dilexit

y Semetipsum Deo offerre, et

non alieno labore sed proprio
placere, hoc est perfectius et
eminentius omnibus votis quod

ut Filium suum
unigenitum daret pro mundi huQuid ergo magnum
jus vita.

qui

faeiet

facit,

imitator est Christi.

enim dedit homini terram,

&c. sed post hsec omnia semetIlle

ipsum

dedit.

Deus munclum,

ferat

homo, si semetipsum ofDeo, cui ipse se prior ob-

tulit

Deus

ORIGEN,

and said unto him, What

servant

upon which

" therefore not only

" that he was God

my

lord unto his

Origen remarks, " Joshua
saith

knew

that he was of God, but

for

he would not have wor-

" shipped,

309

A. D. 240.

known him to be God.

Captain of the host of the Lord,

he had not

if

<s

For who

66

except our Lord Jesus Christ

else is

?"

This exactly agrees with the sentiments of

Fathers, that the

man

God who appeared

211.

was Jesus

Nave Horn. VII.

vol. II. p.

following

except that

Joshua

"
"

"

either in a hu-

Christ.

Origenis in Jesum

The

"

the

form, or in that of an angel, to any of the pa-

triarchs,

"

all

" In

vii.

415.

quotation requires no comment,

relates to

it

. ult.

our

Achan's theft mentioned in

we

disputations

are accus-

tomed to say, that we do not call Christ a mere

man; but we confess him to be God and man.
But that which is stolen from Jericho is said to
be pure, i. e. without God* : which was the cause
Therefore let us have
of sin to him that stole.

" no human thoughts concerning Christ, but let us

" confess him to be equally God and man
be;

" cause the Wisdom of God is said to be manifold

" that by this means we may deserve to be par" takers of the
" our Lord, to
" and ever

Wisdom

of God,

whom

glory and dominion for ever

is

Deus

orasset,

est.

nisi

is

Christ Jesus

b ."

z
Cognovit ergo Jesus non
solum quod ex Deo est, sed

quia

who

Non enim

agnovisset

ad-

Deum.

What made the act sinful

Achan was, that it was con-

to

trary to the
b

command

Denique

of God.

et nostris in dispu-

Quis enim alius est princeps

militiae virtutum Domini, nisi
Dominus noster Jesus Chri-

tationibus moris est dicere, quia

stus

confitemur.

Christum non purum hominem

dicimus, sed

Deum

et

hominem

Illud autem^

quod

ORIGEN,

310

A. D. 240.

Origenis in Reg. Horn.

212.

Origen, like

many other

497.

II. vol. II. p.

of the Fathers, considered

and in this place he

expresses it by saying, "that Joshua (Jesus) was a
" type of the true God c ." And whoever reads the

Joshua to be a type of Jesus

Homily

will be convinced that the true

God means

See N. 214,

Christ.

Origenis in Psalm, viii. 5, 6. vol. II. p. 584.

In this place he speaks of the " incarnation of our

213.

"

God and Saviour d ."

Origenis in Psalm,

214.

ix. vol. II. p.

585,

At the beginning of the Commentary he says,

The unutterable knowledge of the mysteries con" cerning Christ the true God is secret e ."
"

Origenis in Psalm,

215.

The

xviii. 11. vol. II. p.

607.

method of interPsalm and in

mystical and allegorical

pretation adopted by Origen in this

many

other places cannot affect the plainness of his

Thus upon

testimony to the divinity of Christ.

those words,

He

made darkness His

His pavilion round

and

thick clouds

"

light,

is

how

about

of the

is

He

Him

skies,

secret place
were dark waters,

he says, " If our God

But
Him in the same
known is covered by

covered with darkness

" I imagine that darkness covers

" way that a thing which

de Jericho furatur, purum esse
dicitur, id

est,

sine

Deo, quae

utique furanti extitit causa peccati.

et

Et

ideo nos nihil

humanum

amus, sed

hominem

purum

de Christo sentipariter atque

Deum

fateamur, quia et sapi-

is

cui est gloria et

imperium in

ssecula saeculorum.
c

Tov a'A^6ivov Seov Tvvoq

i-

Ketvoc 6 'lyo-ovs.

Txvra

koI pera,

tvjv

Ivav-

Qpanya-iv voeTrai tov Seov kccI 2&>rypo<;

entia Dei multiplex dicitur; ut

per heec mereamur participium

sumere Sapiential Dei, qui est
Christus Jesus Dominus noster,

tv

Kpvcpid
Ttepi

ecm

jvacriq anoppyTos

Xpicrrot tov uhrfiwov @eou

^va-T^pioov.

ORIGEN,
" ignorance

which

is

A. D. 240.

311

him
But

said with reference to

"

who knows, and not to the

" by His pavilion he meant

thing known.

the flesh, in which

" Christ sat he also called it a pavilion on account
" of the temporary duration of His incarnation.
" For though, he says, we have known Christ after
u the flesh, yet now henceforth knoiv we him no
" more, (2 Cor. v. 16.) He may also mean by the
:

God

"pavilion, the bodily nature, in which

" through the Word f "

Origenis in Psalm,

216.

There can be no doubt, that

It is God that avengeth
the people under me, he meant
the Almighty neither can there

when the Psalmist

To me

it

is

me and subdueth
the one only God,

be any doubt, that

who says,
and recompense, which

the Almighty,

belongeth vengeance

Paul quotes, Rom.

seen

612.

xviii. 47. vol. II. p.

said,

in Deut. xxxii. 35.

is

and yet Origen's

Psalm is, " Christ,
" having received vengeance from God, says, Ven" geance is mine : I will repay s."
Origenis in Psalm, xxii. 9. vol. II. p. 620.
217.
This Psalm is always supposed to have been
St.

commentary upon

xii.

19

this verse of the

spoken in the person of Christ, and so Origen

understood

it

me

hope,

El

when

0eo$

for

OlfAGCl

OlrtCO KCc)\VTTTl (TKQTGq,

u<; <xpo<;

iv

8e
fi

avrov

to (pdvou

T>J <T<XpK&<Ti.WC,'

W$ KOU

v\v "kiytlV KOU TYjV crufAaTiKrjV

T7j

rlv yivacrKOvra, kou

Xpio-roi;

tyjv

crctpKa

iKaOe^ero'

8*a to np6(TKcupcv

itrri, ttS?

ovitposToyivucTKOfAevovXeyeTcu. 2/ojvvjv

Thou art

6 OTi O.V-

ayvotq, to yiVMCTKOf/.ei'ov avaKaXvTtre-

tcu, yru;

9th verse,

the

at

out of the womb, thou didst make

I was upon my mother's breasts,

7]y.av (paq

KOtkviZTTOU <TK0Tl

TQV

me

he that took

avojAcccrey,

en

iv

rj

crKf\v\v

Seoq

s Aocfiuv

fivVOCTOtt

6 (TKYj(pv<riv,

tov Aoyov opccTou.

ano

&eov

iK^iKr]aii<;

'Kpitrrot; <pyj<riv, 'E/xot iKbiK'f\<rei<;,

avTanobuvu.

$e kcu

iya

ORIGEN, A.D.

312

240.

he says, " For when God was born, His Father

" brought him into the world and him alone, I
:

" imagine, of

that have been born

all

Origenis in Psalm, xxvi.

218.

Upon

those words,

because he

" alone was of the Holy Ghost

630.

3. vol. II. p.

have walked in thy truth,

he says, " If Truth is Christ our God, as he said, /

<e
am Truth, (John xiv. 6.) and David followed God

God

" in Truth, therefore David pleased

"for
" walk

this account,

he says,

God

in

have made haste

to

Truth instead of in thee : for speaking

a periphrasis, he calls the Truth of God, God
in thy

" in
" himself

."

Origenis in Psalm, xxvii.

219-

Upon

those words,

me

shall hide

in

His

" Christ a pavilion, in

In

whom God

At

the

He

He

even dwelt

calls

k ."

2. vol. II. p.

verse of this Psalm, he says, "

first

634.

of trouble

pavilion, he says, "

Origenis in Psalm, xxxiv.

220.

5. vol. II. p.

the time

648.

These

" words are spoken by Christ, who liveth for ever,

" and existeth without change 1 ."

Origenis in Psalm, xxxvii. 32.

221.

vol. II. p.

676.

The wicked watcheth the righteous and seeketh

Upon these words Or gen observes,
to slay him.
" Which without doubt they did against the Saviour,
" who killed the prophets, and crucified God, and
i

11

ydp

eoJ/

yevofAevov

kou

oly.ou $e

ipaievo-ctro'

^>xr\p

[aovqv

rav

rovro,

(pTjGiv,

dK'rjOela

gov,

earnevaa evapcareiv

dvri

ydp

rov,

el;

yeveaiv iXyjXvQorav, ine) kcu [ao-

(ppacrriKaq

voc,

t dylov Hvevyarot;

Seov avrov Ka'AeT rov eov.

Ei

eo<;

ak'/]Qeid.

rj

vjjAcov,

uX'ffitiar
<TT'/)cre

v}pea~rei

iv

AatiiS
apa,

obq

8e

Xpunoq
'EyS elpi

itrri

einev,
ttj

r\v.

dKvjOela.

k ^K'f\vr\v rov

o
rj

evyjpe-

rS e, iv ra @e evAid,
b Aa,v} ra @e.

co

rvjv

'0

yjAV
CpVjJl.

iv itavr\

d\r,6e.tav

Kpiarov

kou Kocreo-KTfVao-ev

Kuipa

dyer dizi cor oq

Trj

Tcepi-

crol'

rov

ovo[/,d^ei,

iv

Oeo?.
'Cpv

kou imdp-

Xpiarot;

ravrd

ORIGEN,

813

A. D. 240.

" persecute us even now, and the people of God,

"

is

Christ m ."

The

strong expression of

God

who

being

crucified had already been used by Tertullian. N.

119. p. 223.

Origenis in Psalm, xlv. 5. vol. II. p. 711.

Thine arrows are sharp in the heart of the
King's enemies, ivhereby the peopleJail under thee.
Upon these words Origen says, " Those who fall
" under Christ are in the heart and thoughts of the
" enemies of Christ, who is the King and evidently
222.

" Christ

is

God

n ."

Origenis in Psalm, xlv. 14.

223.

Upon

this

"

verse he says,

" King, i. e. of Christ,

" also God."

is

712.

vol. II. p.

The

palace of the

also his temple, since

he

is

224. Origenis in Psalm, xlvii. 5. vol. II. p. 715.

God

is

gone up with a shout

the

Lord

with the

sound of a trumpet.

It is plain, that Origen understood this of the ascension of Jesus Christ. " As
" the Lord will come with the voice of an angel,
" and will descend from heaven with the trump of

God, so God went up with a shout p."

Origenis in Psalm, xlviii. 12. vol.
225.

66

II. p.

717.

Walk about Zion and go round about her

tell the towers thereof: that ye may tell it to the
generation following. For this God is our God
for ever and ever he will be our guide even unto
}

m Quod fecerunt sine clubio

adversus Salvatorem ilii qui
prophetas occiderunt, et Deum
crucifixemnt, et nos persecuti
sunt etiam nunc, et populum
Dei qui
n

ntmovreq
paalv

oi

iv

alai

vTtQKarcu)
tt;

Kccpblq,

<ra(pccq e

eo?

Xpic-T&V
c

OdXccpoq Se rov ^aa-iXeaq,

rovrecrTi Xpiarov, kou vacs, i<rriv avrov,

p

est Christi.

Kai

oq itrrt [3a<TiXev<;'

iite) kg.)

"Q&nep

Seo;

ia-ri.

Kvpioq iXivaerai

iv

tov Xpiarov

<pwr) ayyeXov, Kai iv aaXmayyi eov

Kai To7q

Kara^a-erai

vo'f\-

tuv i%dpuv tqv Xptarov,

e'jQij

@eo<; iv

air' ovpavov, ovrcoq

xXaXayiAu.

av-

ORIGEN, A.D.

314

240.

death.
Origen says, " This was fulfilled by the dis" ciples dividing the world among them to announce
" that Christ is God, that guides us a."

Origenis in Psalm. 1. 2. vol. II. p. 721.

226.
" Out of Zion, the perfection of beauty, God hath
" shined. Our God shall come, and shall not keep
" silence, &c.
Since Wisdom
" of the Lord, this is in Sion
" we say, Emmanuel is come

the perfect beauty

is

He,

at

visibly,

whose birth
and does not

" keep silence, but speaks by whom he will, since

" he is our God
but fire and tempest are upon
" those who do not attend to his coming, and to the
" Word, who will come from the heavenly Sion,
" being of equal power with the Father for he was
" the God of heaven, even when he came visibly,
:

"

when he became

e.

i.

flesh

he became

for then

" visible
when he is come, he will not keep si" lence, but will convince the world of sin, or de:

" clare the will of his Father

" Angel of great counsel;

he

for

is

called the

being in the power

" and might of divinity, although born in the flesh,
" like a fire and tempest he fell upon his adversa" ries, the Devil and his angels r ." The prediction in
Tavra

tS

in)

nXypovvrai in) ruv [xa-

ryv

pepCCppevuv

Q'/jruv

icrriv

on Xpurroq

})irfyri<Ta<r6ai

Seoq

oiKOVjAevfiv,

noifAaivav

7j[/.5v

Ylmep

Kvpiov

7}

evnpeneia Ka)
(Tocpla icrriv,

Ovroq,

1,iuv icrriv.

Xeyopev,

vetrei

v}Xde,

yet

<pv

ov

'E(/.[/,avovrjX

OeXei,

iire)

iv tSj

ye-

rr\

ipcpavaq

dXXd
&eoq

XerjfAav

nvp Se Ka) Karaiyiq in)

iari.'

rovq

avrr)

i<f>

Ka) ov napacriundL,

St'

cbpaioryq

//.y]

npoae^ovraq avrov

tyavela, Ka)

rS Aoya,

rrj

oq rfeei

iK

iniryjq

2twv,

ovpdvioq

ydp

Tore

<rdp%.

rrjv

rjv

j3ovXY}(Tiv

ore yeyove

5jTot

rvjv

yeyovev'

dXXd

rov

dpaprtav, qyovv

dvayyeXet rov narpoq.

KaXeTrat yap [AeydXyq

iv i^ovcrla Ka)

Xoq

ra
Ka)

oparoq

ov napacricon^crerai,

koo-[/.ov iXeyijei

uv

Seoq,

IcrocrOevyq

ydp

ore vfXOev ipcpavaq,

iXQuv

'/}[/.dq.

inovpavlov

Uarpi'

dyyehwdpei 6eo-

fiovXrjq

rqroq uv, Kalnep yeyovaq iv crapK) t

KaBdnep

ri

nvp Ka) Karaiyiq npocr-

eftaXe ro7q dvriKi(A,evoiq

/3oXo?

Ka)

dal//,Q(jiv.

avra tia-

ORIGEN, A.D.
verse 2

nasius

referred to the

is

315

240.

coming of Christ by Atha-

s
.

Origenis in Psalm.

227-

And

6. vol. II. p.

1.

His

the heavens shall declare

722.

righteous-

God

is judge himself; upon which OriHere he evidently calls Christ God, for
" the Father hath committed all judgment unto the

for

ness,

says, "

gen
"

Son" (John

v.

22

.)

Origenis in Psalm,

liii. 1. vol. II. p. 727.

22S.
" The fool hath said in his heart, There is no

" God.
The fool thinks that there is no God
" therefore he says it in his heart but he does not
" declare it with his mouth, for fear of men.
Or
:

" the foolish people, which denies that Christ is God,

" according to the former explanation about the

"

fool, is considered to say,, not with his mouth, but

" in his heart, that there is no God n ."

Origenis in Psalm,

229-

God

shall hear

and

lv.

afflict

19. vol. II. p. 732.

them, even he that

abideth before the worlds.

Even this is referred
by Origen to Christ " If all things were made hy
:

" him, he is truly said to exist before the worlds

" and hence we know that the worlds were brought
" into being out of nothing x ." That this is applied
:

is evident from the rest of the commentary,

the quotation of John i. 3.
from
The Unitaand
rian translators say, that the words iravra fo* avrov
eyaero, which we render All things were made by
him, do not apply to the creation, but signify that

to Christ,

s
t

Ad Marcel.

5. vol. I. p. 983.
''EvravOa Ttpobrfkuq tqv Xpia-rlv

Aeyei

ehuKev

eoV vaa-av yap

0 Tzaryp tS via.
rj

acppuv

ttjv

npiariv

Xao?, o$ dpvei-

rai Xpto-rov elvat @eoy k. t. X.

x Ei

ndvra 8/ avrov

Xaq Xeyerai

vw.

Kai

ivrevOev

alwveq airo rov

yeyovcuriv.

iyevero,

vTzapyjiiv irpo

Tav

yivuvtcofAev,

aaal&>-

%ri

ovto; el; to elvai

ORIGEN,

316

A. D. 240.

all things in the Christian dispensation

by Christ,

i.

e.

were done

by his authority and direction.

If

Origen interpreted St. John as the Unitarians do,

he would have reasoned thus in the above com-

mentary

Christ truly existed before the worlds,

because all things in the Christian dispensation

were done by him !

I am aware that the Unitarians would try to
lessen the absurdity of this reasoning by saying, that
what we translate the worlds, aluves, means the dispensations.
Origen would then say, that Christ
existed before the dispensations, because all things

were done by him:

in the Christian dispensation

which words,

much

less

if

they have any meaning, are not

absurd than the former.

But the fact is,

mean dis-

that Origen did not understand almeg to

we

pensations, as

see

by

his

and the verse upon which he

our translation,

words quoted above

is

commenting

God shall afflict them,

even

is

in

He that

ahideth of old.
In another place Origen says, that
" the church is able to behold the divinity of Christ,
" because all things were made by him " see N.

undertake to

assert, that there is

not

one single passage in any writing of the three

first

238.

I will

centuries,

where the words

in

John

i.

3.

have any

other interpretation given them, than that all things

were created by Jesus Christ?.

y

Dr. Priestley had the bold-

make the following comment upon the words of St.

John "In this celebrated pasness to

"
"
"
"

is no mention of
and that the word hogos means Christ is not to be

sage there

Christ,

taken for granted.'' (History

ot early Opinions, vol. I. p. 68.)

due to the Unitarians to

not many of them have
adopted this method of evasion.
Still less, I imagine, would they
It is

say, that

follow Dr. P. in saying, that the

Christians, for

whom

St.

John

wrote his Gospel, never imagined

that Christ was meant by the Logos.

(Ib. III. p. 160.)

We

may

ORIGEN,

317

A. D. 240.

230. Origenis in Psalm,

" Be merciful unto me,

732.

lvi. 1. vol. II. p.

God, for man hath

" trampled upon me. Christ says to his Father,

" Be merciful unto me, for man hath trampled
" upon me, who am God z ."
231. Origenis in Psalm, lxviii. 4. vol. II. p. 752.
" Sing unto God, sing praises to His name
the ivay for Him that rideth upon the
" west; the Lord is His name.
for although
" He entered upon our poverty, and obscured His

"prepare

"

own

His

glory, as if rising out of the west, yet

" name is the Lord for though made man,

" not lose being the Lord God a ."

He

did

232. Origenis in Psalm, lxix. 2. vol. II. p. 755.

" / sink in deep mire, where there is no stand" ing

I am

come

into

deep waters, where the

"floods overflow me. God Himself, the Word, sends

" forth a prayer to his Father, making those suffer" ings his own which belong to the human nature he
" assumed

he shews also the region of

whither

hell,

" he alone descended and passed through

13

."

233. Origenis in Psalm, xcix. 5. vol. II. p. 780.

" Exalt ye the Lord our God, and worship at

remember, that Irenaeus always

understood the Logos to mean
Christ; and Irenaeus had been
a disciple of Polycarp, who had

Xelaq ini^rj,

seen St. John.

It is well observed by Waterland, " St. John

Xav, aAA' oiv Kvpioq

" in his Revelations seems to

" have determined, thato Aoyoq is
" the name of a person, not an
" attribute, the person of Jesus
" Christ: Rev. xix. 13." Third
Letter to Mr. Staunton, vol. IV.
P-

384.
7

repa,

Et

kou ryq

Yj(j.eTepaq

koi

CKiace hoav,

yap avdpznoq
to thai Kvpio<;

tyjv
e/c

ovofAa.

e6q.

8e

nra-

oiKelav avve-

Zv<rf/.Sv

yeyovooq

ovra

[j.e

avareX-

ccvtS' kou

ovk ccneftaXe

Origen

fol-

lows the Septuagint.

b
X'/jv

Avroq rolvvv

av aire [Aire i
to,

[xevoq

%uQf\'
~Kpi<xroq Aeyet irpoq rov Tca-

pe' eov yap

Karen ccT'/jtre.

'EXevjcroi/

avBpccnoq

k'vda

@eoq Aoyoq evnarp),

Ka6' %v

S'/jXo?

jt*OJ/0S

ra

ibioitoiov-

elkvjfev avOpconov

tov

aftov

yupia,

avrlq Karafiaq li^rfkQev,

ORIGEN,

318

"

His footstool. Some

"

is

A. D. 240.

have said that

the flesh of Christ, which

His footstool
worshipped

to be

is

" on account of Christ but Christ is to be wor" shipped on account of the Word of God which is
" in Him c ."
:

234. Origenis in Psalm, cv. 15. vol. II. p. 784.

" Touch not mine anointed, &c. These anointed

" persons (Christs) are called anointed (Christs) be-

" cause they partake of Christ but Christ is called

" Christ, as partaking of his Father and by Christ
:

" I mean the Lord

who dwelt among men in conjunction with God the Word d ." This explanation
of the term Christ is given also at Psalm cxviii. 2.
p. 797.

235. Origenis in Psalm, cviii. 9. vol. II. p. 786.

" Over Edom will I cast out my shoe.
The

" flesh is the shoe of Christ, which the Lord

" use of, and sojourned in the life of man e ."
236. Origenis in Psalm, ex.

made

787.

3. vol. II. p.

Origen translates this verse according to the Septuagint, the last words of

womb

which

Out of

are,

before the morning have

upon which he observes, " Instead

the

begotten thee;

of,

have be-

" gotten thee before every reasonable creature : for

" to inquire deeper into the birth of Christ and of
" the morning is not within our ability for reason" ing upon the subject is vast and incomprehen" sible f ."
This prudent reserve of Origen may be
:

TlVq

To

vvottohiov

eiVGtl

(TTOV,

VftlC,

irpo<7Kvvrjr^'
ro<; hia,

rov ev

d OvTOl
eyovrec,

hlOC

ot

rav nohuv

(TcipKO,

T'/JV

TQV

eiitov

TOV X/5J-

T7JI/

XpiGTOV

<TTi

he ~Kpicrro<; npoo-Kvvq-

aroq rov

Ylarpoq

<rapl;

Xpia-rov, f

XpitTTO; 'KpKTTOV [AtT-

h'/jiAfjcre

he Xpt-

<pvj/>

rov

pera

rov Qeov Aoyov eitihrn^'fia-avra Kvpiov.

avrS Aoyov &eov.

Xeyovrai Xpurroi'

pereypv Xeyerat

X/ho-tgV yLptcrrov he

ra

'E/c

icrri

to vnohypa. rov

%pY)<ra,[Aevoi; 6

fiiw

Kvpioq ive-

rav avOpairav.

yaarpli;

irpo eacrcpopov

eyev-

ORIGEN,

A. D. 240.

319

compared with the following declaration of Irenseus

" If any one should ask us, In what manner was
" the Son put forth by the Father ? we answer, That
:

" no one knows that putting forth, or generation, or

" giving of a name, or manifestation, or by whatever
" term one may express his generation which cannot

" be described,
neither Angels, nor Archangels,
" nor Principalities, nor Powers, except only the
" Father

Son who was born s."

whether the person,
who could write thus, believed Jesus to have been
born as an ordinary man.
237. Origenis in Cant. Cant. v. 10. vol. III. p. 98.
It

who

would be

The

begat, and the

trifling to inquire,

object of this

work does not

require

me

to

enter into the discussion, whether Origen and the

writers of those days were correct in their interpretations of scripture.
ascertain

are endeavouring to

what were the doctrines which they de-

duced from

remark

We

scripture, taking

it

applies particularly to the

as a whole.

This

Song of Solomon

about the true interpretation of which the learned of

every age have given very different opinions. Origen

and his church

in which he has been followed by most commentators
and though we might think, that he has carconceived that

it

related to Christ

poem

ried his figurative interpretation of this

too

some instances, yet we cannot mistake his

meaning in the expressions which he uses and if it

far in

be plain, that he considered the poem to relate to

equally plain, that he considered Christ

Christ,

it is

v/jcra o~e.

'Aj/t* tov, ITpo Ttao-<\$ 'ho-

yiKyq

(pv<reu<;

eyevvrpa

ere.

To yap

fiaQvTepov itepiepya^ea-Qai t\u

div tov

Xpia-Tov

Kai tov

yeve-

ecoo-(j)6pov,

ov ttjs ^{/.erepot^ 1<tt\

hv<;

yap

Kepi

tvvd[Aaq' no-

tovtov Koyo<;

tvo~Beup'fito$.

II.

28, 6. p. 158,

koi

OMGEN, A. D.

320

white

is

Thus upon

God.

to be

"

240.

My

those words,

beloved

and ruddy, he says, " White, because he

true God
and ruddy, on account of his

is the
" blood which he shed for the church
:

11

."

238. Origenis in Cant. Cant. vi. 5. vol. III. p. 99.

" Turn away thine eyes from me.
The church
" looks at the comeliness and beauty of Christ, being

" enabled by her greater advancement to behold his

" divinity inasmuch as all things were made by
" him ."
;

239- Origenis in Isaiam

112.

vi. 3. vol. III. p.

In this place Origen expressly says, that Christ

But the passage

God.

is

much

not of

is

weight, be-

down

cause the Homilies upon Isaiah have only come

Jerom and Rufinus

Jerom altered and omitted many things
which seemed adverse to the doctrine of the Trinity,
and added passages, which he thought favourable to
to us in the Latin translation of
tells us,

that

that belief.

Origenis in Jeremiam, Homil.

240.

p.

I. vol.

128.

Then said I, Ah, Lord God !

not speak for I am a child, (i.

behold,
6.)

are spoken in the person of Christ

words

He who

is

the

and

in the be-

upon them he

ginning of his commentary

can-

Origen sup-

poses, rather fancifully perhaps, that these

ec

III.

says,

wisdom and power of God, who

" brought to us the fulness of the Godhead which

" dwelt in him bodily, how can the words, / cannot
<

speak, be applied
h

AevKOt;, eVeiS^ 6

izvppoq Se, <cb

to

Oeo? akrjBiv%'

tc al^a. vnep

ty<$

gk-

iKKXvjaia.

ty/

[/.evrj

avrov

ttjv

irXeiovi

npoKOTtrj

GeoTrjTa, ko,6o

KarufoeTv

navTa

avrov iyevT0.

KXYjfriaq yyftiv.

tu KaKKet

He

him, the Saviour k ?"

t?5

u>pociorv}Ti

ivopa tov ~&pi<TT0v f

kou

Swa-

"Octk; eVri

Zvvtx^ic,

&eov,

%<;

a-ocpla,

'qveynev

oanq

vjf/av

ecrri

to ttX^-

ORIGEN,
way

A. D. 240.

321

which they might be applied

after which he observes, " If you ascend to
" the Saviour, and see him the Word, who was in
u the beginning with God, you will see that he can"not speak: and if you compare the tongues of
" angels with the tongues of men, and know that he
then points out a

in

" is greater than angels, as the apostle bore witness

" in the Epistle to the Hebrews, you will say that he
" was too great even for the tongues of angels, since
" the
66

Word was God

Being in

with the Father

the majesty of the glory of God, he does not speak

" as men, he knows not how to talk to those below:

" but when he comes into a human body, he says at
" once, / cannot speak, for I am a child: i. e. he
" was young with respect to his corporeal birth
" but he was old, inasmuch as he was the firstborn

" of every creature : he was young, because he

" came at the end of the world, and sojourned late
" in

human

1 ."

life

Origenis in Jerem. Horn. IX.

241.

p.

The Word
Lord,
came

Jeremiah, or to any

OeoTYjzot;.,

pccfAoc

tSjs

avr)

o-afAariKcoq,

dppo^eiv to,

176-7.

came to Jeremiah from the

Wherever it is said that the Word
that

(xi. 1.)

to

KaTcpK'/)<rev

mcoq

ovv

Ovk iiziara^ai

iv

hvvarai
XaXeTv.

P. T30. 'Eav avafiyc iiii tov

aurypa, Koi et'S^ avrov Aoyov iv
1

lav 8e koi ayyeXav

<rrarai XaXelv'

yXwcrcraq arvyKplvTjq avOpuirwv y'hacr<raiq,

Ka\

e'ttyq

on

koi

[Ae't^uv rjv,

'Ei/ T77

OTt-

ore Seoq

yXa(rarv)$

Ka-

Xeyei Kara rac, apyjxq, Ovk eWGra^ai XaXeiv, on vearepoq eyco elfju'

vov,

vearepoq Se dia r\v yeveciv r\v acc\KariK\v,

irpea^vrepoq

UparoTOKoq

Tta<rv)<; rrjq

koi varepov

ayyeXav

ryjq

Se epyerai elq (rZ/xa avOpairi-

on

rrjq

[AeyaXeior^n

Opaitiva, ovk oie cf)9eyyea-6ai ro7q

ra'

repot;,

ipaprvprpev

prophets,

tov &0v Tvyyjxvav ov XaXei av-

rfxQe,

epeiq oti

ean

the

iv t5j

ooq

itpoq'Efipalovq

'

ovroq [Aeltyv

Ylarepa
ho^fjc,

of

AizoirToXot; iitta-roXri,

Ka\ ayyeXav,

vol. III.

[AVJK.

Aoyoq vpoq tov

he

en) crvvreXeia
rep

Kara

Krltreooq'

to,

veu-

tv ouavuv

filcp

ein&eSyj

ORIGEN,

322

A. D. 240.

Origen understands it of Christ the Word of God.

" I know no other Word of the Lord, but him, of
"

whom

the

In the beginning was

Word was with God, and

Word was God.

It is particularly neces-

the evangelist says,

Word; and

" the
" the

sary for this to be known by us ecclesiastics, who

" conceive, that there is the same God of the Law
" and of the Gospel, the same Christ, both then, and

" now, and for ever.

There are some who separate

" the divinity, which preceded the coming of the

" Saviour, according to their own conceptions, from

" the divinity which was announced by Jesus Christ

" but we know one God both then and now, one
" Christ both then and

now m ."

242.

Origenis in Jerem. Horn. XIV.

Woe

is

212.

p.

me,

my

vol. III.

On

mother, xv. 10.

principle of interpretation, he refers these

Christ

and shews, that

He

to utter them.

it

the same

words to

was not unworthy of him

adduces his lamentation over

Jerusalem, (Matt, xxiii. 37.) and he puts into his

mouth the complaining words spoken by Micah

He

1, 2.

also considers Christ to

words of the Psalmist,

blood,

What

when I go down

which he paraphrases thus

projit is there in

to

"

the pit?

What

" derived from so great a thing

" done worthy of the blood which

m
plov,

rovrov nep) qv tlpf\Kev

he (/.akiara

eKKKYjcricccrriKOvi;

vcliiUKeaBai,

ko,6'

kou

eU icdvraq

rcu

ol

tj/x,$

avayKaiov

o'lnve^

Beko[A.ev

ecrrt

yi-

rov

av-

rov elvat eov vopov kou evayyeXiov

rov avrov XpicrrQV,

K/xi

rore kou vvv

rrjpoq, ocrov
a-Tto

my
9.

have men

rovq alavotq.

"E<rov-

hiaKoixrovreq r\v Beor^ra r\v

wpecr{3vrepa,v

rovq

xxx.

what have they

I shed for them ?

Kv-

ye\io-ry<; to, 'Ev a,p%ri K. t. A.

Tavra

profit

evay-

'E>yw qvk o!ta aXhov Xoyov

7j

vii.

have spoken those

rvj<;

e7tidrju,la<;

etti ttj

rvjq Beorvjroq

rov

<roo-

euvrSjv vnoX'/jipei,
ryj<;

eitovyyeXkojAe-

Xptarov' rj^elq Se

eva.

ofyapev Seov, kou rore kou vvv'

eva.

vvjq

vtto 'lyja-ov

Xpi<rrov kou rore kcu vvv.

ORXGEN, A.D.
" what
"
"
"
"

"
"
"
f*
66

my

323

240.

my

coming
down from heaven ? I came down I came upon
earth
I have given myself to corruption
I have
borne a human body what good thing worthy of
this hath been done to men ?
Similar to this
what
the
Saviour
is
says in this place, Woe is me,
my mother, what a man hast thou home me ?
profit is there in

blood, in
;

He does not speak this as God the Saviour,

Woe is me, my mother, but as man so in the
prophet, Ah, my soul I for the good man is
:

"perished out of the earth; (Micah vii. 2.) his

" soul was human for this reason it was trou" bled for this reason also it was exceeding sor" rowful : but the Word, which was in the be66
ginning with God, he is not troubled: neither
" would he say, Ah me ! for the Word is not subc<
but it was the human nature which
ject to death
;

" submitted to

we have often proved ."

XV. p. 2M. he says, " These
11

this, as

So also in Horn.
" words are not unworthy of the divinity of our Sa" viour,
" say,

when he beheld

the sins of

men

but to

Ah me ! belongs to the Saviour, not in that

" he is God, but man
not inasmuch as he is Wis" dom, but a Soul 0 ."
:

T<

uHpeXrjcre rrfXiKOvro

Bpaizovq

tov

Ti d^iov

rovq dv-

aipocroq,

elep^ea vnep avruv, Treirot^/cacrt

axpeXeia, iv

vai

e|

/xe

\hBov in)

ov
riq

rZ cupari, ra KaTaffiovpavav

rrjv

Kara,j3e^YjKa,

yyv, inidaKa ipavrov

dXX'

4* v Xy>

duo ryq
toSto

KTai
ovt\

Toiovro

Xeyouevov

ro'

rlva
o

]U,e

(rcoTYjp

oi^oi

iya

ereKeq dvtpa
Xeyei ro,

o'lpoi

koi

i<rn

ovv

nparov imo tov

crarvjpoq

[A-qTyp,

ovy)

aq

kcci

vj

to

iv

cbq

irpocpyTTj,

dnoXuXev evXaByq
de

koci

neplXwoq

dvBpwirivrj

rerdpaKrcti, Sia
fy'

Aoyoq,

tov Seov, ov rerdpa-

iKeTvoq, ovk

ydp

dXXd

dv Xeyoov to,

ol^oi'

Aoyoq eTTiSe^eTai Bdvarov,

dvBpuTtivov

iTrihe^dfA-evov,

icrri

aq noXXuKiq

to tovto
irapeo-T'/j-

o-a{/.ev.

eoq

iya ^rrjp,

<yf\q'

6 iv dpyjri Tcpoq

dia^Bopct, i^opecra crapa, dvBpairivov^

to ivBuZe

OTi

rovro

did,

i\v'

t/ ctvrav d^iov KarapBarai ro7q dvBpaitoiq

av&panoq,

3j

o'i'[xot

rov

ovk
ucorripoq

dXXorpiov
r^cov

ianv

Beior^roq,

rvjq

kccB-

ORIGEN,

A. D. 240.

XV.

Origenis in Jerem. Horn.

243.

p.

vol. III.

226.

Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, ch.

xvii. 5. " Let us treat of these words with refer" ence to those

who think that the Son of God, the

" Saviour, was a man.
For among many human

"

evils, they have dared even to say this, that the

" only-begotten, the firstborn of every creature, is

" not God

cursed

for

is

man

he that trusteth in

"

it is plain that they are accursed, who put their

" trust in man.
I would say, that I do not trust in
" man, when I trust in Jesus Christ.
I know him

" not as man not only have I not known him as

" man, but I have known him as Wisdom, as very
" Righteousness a man, by whom all things were
:

"

made

"

man p."

heaven and in earth, whether visible or

" invisible, &c. (Col. i. 16.)
For though the Sa" viour maintain, that he, whom he assumed, was
" man, yet though he was man, he is now no longer
in

Origenis in E%echiel. Horn. VI.

244.

vol. III.

p. 380.

Fourteen of Origen's Homilies upon Ezekiel have

come down
oowvToq tcc
icav'

awvl]poq
noq, ov%

Xeyeiv to,

ovyfi
rj

tccv avBpcc-

a[/.a.prri[/.a.Ta

to

vvv

to us translated by

@eoq, aXX*

trocptct,

EiWjWev

o'lpoi,

aXA

rj

tov

avBpa-

rj

ovv el$ to efvj? avayvcor

Tovq vo^'CCpvT aq

eV
on

eov

vlo$

rjv

avBpaitov, Ik tov

<ra>Typ'

vcov

kcikuv kou tovto

eoq

eToX^rjaav

tZv ttoXXZv tZv

\KeTOj

etTTi

oq

avBpooitoq [Aev tov

yap

StvBpairt-

elitelv, OTI

[Aovoyevrjq

OVK

<npuT0T0K0q

ndcrjq KTiaewq'

eniKaTapaToq yap

T7]v eXrclha eyjii

eV

avBpanov.

on

oq

A$j-

and

since he

eittKaTapaToi elaiv

Bpunov e%ovTeq

tt,v

oi

en av-

eXittha.

*Eyw

e'moiui oti ovk eii avBpomov

iXnlha, eX'KiC.av

"tyvyj/j.

oBev to, 'EitLKaTapaToq avBpaitoq

ivjv eA7TiSa eyjei

Xov

Jerom

g-tov

eiii

tov

'Irjcrovv

eya avBpaitov ovk

povov avBpuizov ovk o&a,

<plav

olha, TTjv

Bpwriov,

To7q

Xpi-

oifia.

Ov

aXXa,

cro-

avTobiKaiocrvvrjV,

av-

ov eKTlaBri

Si'

ttjv

eyfis

ovpavoiq kou

eVi

to,
Tr\q

isavTa ev
yr)q,

etre

opaTa etre dopaTa, etre dp^ai, eiTe

e^ovcrlai
k$v yap Typy o cr co-

TYjp,

oti

ov

ScXX'

el

kou

i<p6peaev,
v\v

avBpattoq

r)v %

dXXd

vvv

avOpunoq,

ovoapuq evTiv avBpconoq.

ORIGEN, A.D.

325

240.

that he adhered very closely to his original,

tells us,

we may

quote them as genuine.

In this place he is
commenting upon Ezek. xvi. 8.
et ecce tempus
tuum et tempus divertentium, which our version

renders, Behold thy time was the time of love;

upon which Origen says, " Our Lord Jesus Christ,
" our God, again visits the miserable Jerusalem, i. e.

" our sinful soul

Origenis in E%ech. ii. 1. vol. III. p. 408.

245.
" And he said, Son of man, stand upon thy feet.
"

As far as I remember, the words, Son of man,

" are said more continually to Ezekiel than to any
" of the prophets, and more rarely to Daniel, each of
" whom is in captivity a type of him who came to
" us captives, Jesus the Saviour who is God r ."

Origenis in Matt.

246.

p.

torn.

XV.

24. vol. III.

687.

you can conceive the Word restored after

" his becoming flesh
that he might be what he
" was in the beginning with God, being God and the
"

But

if

Word,

"

Word you

in his

own

glory, in the glory of such a

will see

him

sitting

on the throne of

" his glory, and not different from him you will see
" the Son of man, who in Jesus was considered to
" be a man
for it is made one with the Word in a
:

"

much higher degree than

"joined

to the

(1 Cor. vi.
(
J

17

Dominus
Deus

visitat
est,

.)

noster

aniinam

id

no-

strain.
r

Tvnoq

tov

Y]y.a,q

a-uTrjpot;

El 8e hvvao~ai

vevai

avTov

<rdpt<a,,

nvpoq

tov$

Aoyoq, av ev Ty

'Ioj-

toiovtov

Seov.

eiii

So'|t]

yeyo-

kou ova, yeyove

otio7o<;

tov @eov, &eoq kcu

"npoq

l^ekffAvQoToq

uv tov

tov Aoyov

//.era to

fva ytv^Tai

Toiq <yvv>jTo<V,
iv ccpy^

vorjo-ai

pev

di:oKa.Tct(TTa.vTa

y\v

auyj^oCh&Tovc,
(Tov

Jesus

rursum

miseram Jerusalem,

peccatricem

spirit with him."

noster

ChristUS

who from being

those,

Lord become one

Itia,

cnpei

ho%r\, an;

Aoyov

ainov Kade^oy.evov

Bpovov Sof^s clvtov, Koi ov^ erepov

ORIGEN,

326

Origenis in Matt.

247.

A. D. 240.

XVII.

torn.

20. vol. III.

p. 798.

" Having

made these remarks upon the words,

" The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man
" who is a king, (Matt. xxii. 2.) we can also find
" the cause of the Saviour constantly calling himself
" Son of man, by which he shewed, that as God in
" His government of men is figuratively called man,

" and perhaps even in a manner becomes

so,

thus

" also the Saviour, being primarily Son of God,

is

" also God, and Son of His love, and the image of
" the invisible God: but he does not continue in
" his primary state, but according to the dispensa-

" tion of him who

is figuratively called man, being

" really God, he becomes the Son of man, because
" in his government of men he imitates God, who

"

figuratively called,

is

" comes,

and

manner

in

really be-

man V
Origenis in Matt.

248.

882,

vol. III. p.

Origen wrote twenty-five volumes of

tary

upon

the nine

Matthew u

St.

first

volumes

is

lost

%a
'1y)<tqvv

avdpuitov

voovpevov'

yap ovraq tS Koyoo ytverai

[AaAAov

6ia

tcov

to

tv

ko.vtuc,

KoXkacrOai

tS

but eight volumes,

be Tta$

crcoTTjp

Kai yiveTui' ovTaq Kai

irpQYjyovi/.evu<;

eov Ka)
ayditvis

eo's

e<TTi t

tov dopaTOV'

ov fAevei

irpoYjyovfxevcoq,

dXka

'VifAOiaQy

'/]

(3ao-iAeta

avOpwircp [3a<Ti\e7}

elq to,

tZv ovpavav

GvvdpeBa Ka)

ttjv

Opconov, KaTa. to (Aipeio-6ai

QpuTtovi; olKOvofvrj

iv

eavTov

dovopaKevai,

u<ru:ep o

eo

dvOp&ivovc, oIkovo^oov

iv napafioXaiq

oti
ac,

avQpomoq XeyeTai, tcc-

tSjs

ev

ylveTai

vov avOpavov, ovToq e eov,

dv6paitov t

QyAovvTa

vloq

as

KaT

ecrr*

ot-

vlov tov

avBpaTZOv,

tov

Kovaplav tov iv uapa^o'Ka7q Aeyope-

aiTiav evpeiv tov avveyfic, tov /ruTyjpa

vlov

Ka)

av

vllq

avTov, koi eiKav tov Seov

Kvplcp yivopevuv ev uvevj^a itpoq av-

"Anal; Se TavTa elnovTeq

are

inclusive,

Tov.
1

Commen-

Almost the whole of

from the tenth to the seventeenth

tov

3.

dv~

tov eov, Aeyo^evov

napa^oAaiq Ka) yivopevov

Qpooitov.
a

vioc,

%iav dv~

Eus. H. E. VI. 36.

vcct;

av~

ORIGEN,

327

A. D. 240.

extant in the original Greek.

There

is

also

an old

Latin translation, which begins at Matt. xvi. 13.

and

is

so

much

the more valuable, because

it

sup-

which are no longer extant

in Greek.
This old version seems to have been
made sufficiently literal for us to depend upon its
plies the last eight books,

being a faithful representative

ments, where his

own words

of Origen's

senti-

are lost.

After quoting the declaration of our Saviour,

Lo

I am

the world,

with you alway, even unto the end of

and also, Where two or

(xxviii. 20.)

three are gathered together in

I
"
"

my

name, there

am

of them, (xviii. 20.) he says, " He

places himself in the midst even of those who

in the midst

who
know him

not, is the only-begotten of God, God

" the Word, and Wisdom, and Justice, and Truth,
" who is not confined by corporeal bounds. According

" to this his divine nature he does not move, but he

" moves according to the incarnate body which he

bore.
But when we say this, we do not separate
" the humanity of the body which he bore, since it
" is written in John, Every spirit that separateth
" Jesus is not of God, (1 John iv. 3.) but we give
i(

" to each substance

" every faithful man
"

is

one

its

who

peculiar
is

nature.

joined unto the

spirit, (1 Cor. vi. 17-)

For

if

Lord

how much more

is

" that human nature, which Christ bore by his in" carnation, not to be separated from him, nor to

" be said to be different from him ? Observe also

" how he says, Like a man travelling into a far
country, (xxv. 14.) because he was not man, but
" like a man ; and he may travel into a far coun" try like a man, who according to his divine na66

" ture was every where

For he
4

is

not a mere

ORIGEN,

328

A. D. 240.

" man, who is wherever two or three shall be ga" thered together in his name nor is a mere man
" with us always even to the end of the world,
:

mere man present wherever the

"

Nor

66

are

<c

in Jesus x ."

faithful

met together, but the divine power which was

The

quotation whieh this passage contains from

John

is

iv. 3.

from the text

so different

is

in our

printed editions, that I cannot help making a few

we have seen, or at
least his Latin translator, read it, Omnis spiritus,
qui solvit Jesum, non est ex Deo. The verse, as it
remarks upon

appears in
o

all

Origen, as

our printed copies,

iov 'lycrovv "Kpiarov

o[j.oXo<yei

fAY]

it.

Hav mevfm,

is this.

ev

crapici

eXfjKvQoTa, Ik

TOV SeOV OVK QTl 9 KCU T0VT0 IdTL TO TOV * AvTl^piGTOV,

Griesbach decides, that

o

[JLY)

hardly think, that

can

words
Qui

Dei

nitus

medio etiam neUnige-

in

scientium

se consistit,
est,

Sapientia, et
tas,

ekvjkv$0Ta is

o-apKi

ev

Deus Verbum
Justitia

et

et Veri-

qui non est corporeo ambitu

Secundum hanc

circumclusus.
divinitatis

naturam

suae

non

sed peregrinatur
secundum dispensationem corperegrinatur,
poris

quod

quod
factus

autem

suscepit.

Secundum

et turbatus est, et tristis

&c.
Htec
dicentes non solvimus

est,

dicens

hominem, cum
apud Joannem,
qui solvit Jesum

to read

Seov ovk eari,

O[xokoyei rov 'ivjaovv, K rov

we ought

but

itav 7rvevfxa 9
k. t. A.

this rejection

of the

supported by authority.
Domino unus spiritus est,
quanto magis homo ille quern
secundum dispensationem .cartur

Christus suscepit, non est

solvendus ab eo, nec alter est
dicendus ab eo ? Et vide quomodo ait, Sicut homo peregre
futurus : quoniam non erat homo, sed sicut homo: et quasi
nis

homo

peregrinabitur,

ubique secundum

turam

qui

divinitatis

Nec enim

est

erat

na-

homo,

qui est ubicunque duo vel tres

(i Jo. iv. 3.)

nomine ejus fuerint congreNeque homo nobiscum

est omnibus diebus usque ad
consummationem saeculi. Nec

sed unicuique substantia? proprietatem servamus.

Si enim
omnis homo Jidelis qui conjungi-

congregatis ubique fidelibus homo est prsesens, sed virtus divina quae erat in Jesu.

suscepti corporis
sit

scriptum

Omnis spiritus
non est ex Deo,

in

gati.


ORIGEN, A.D.240.
Socrates

tells

us?, that the passage had been cor-

who wished

rupted by those,

manity of Christ from

copies read

329

7rav

to separate the hu-

his divinity,

and that the old

Xvei tov 'lyaovv aito tov Seov

Trvevfxa o

which exactly agrees with Origen's quotabut the remarks which Socrates makes, would

ovk eo-n,

tion

almost lead us to think that his old copies read nav

Kvei

Trvtvfjia, o

tov

'Ivjcrovv

airo

tov Seov, Ik tov Seov ovk

if

6CTT/.

The Latin

version of Irenaeus agrees with Origen

Omnis spiritus qui

Jesum non est ex Deo, sed de Antichristo
The Vulgate also has the same reading all

preserving the old reading,

in

solvit

est

z
.

which seems

to

shew an agreement

Latin

in the

copies.

The
cludes,

authority for the words which Griesbach exev

nag

og av

[ayj

ofxoXoyyj 'lycrovv

Tlyj>i<TTog ea-Ti'

had read

ev

sion in his

yap

and

it

XptaTov

savs

a
,

uapKt ekyXvQevai 'Av-

might be thought, that Ignatius

from the following expresEpistle to the Smyrnseans, (c. 5. p. 36.) t/

6[xo\oycov

efxe e7raivei, tov $e

avTov capKO(popov

Kvpiov [xov /3ka<r-

Tertullian seems

Joannes apostolus, qui

to recognise both readings

jam

ev

when he

aapKi ekyXvOoTa,

[xe oxpeXei Tig, el

<pY)fxei f [XT]

Poly carp

aapKL AY)\v8oTa, is also very old.

evidently alludes to this passage,

antichristos dicit processisse in

mundum pre-

cursor es Antichristi spiritus, negantes Christum

came

in

Joannes
cat,

Jesum h and again,

maxime antichristos vo-

venisse et solventes
in Epistola eos

qui Christum negarent in

came

venisse, et qui

non putarent Jesum esse Filium Dei c

V

VII. 32. p. 381.

III. 16, 8. p. 207.
Ep. ad Philip, c. 7. p. 188.

p.

Cyprian

Adv. Marc. V. 16.

De

214.

Praescr.

p.

Haer.

480,
c.

1.

33.

ORIGEN, A.D.

330

Omnis

reads

240.

spiritus qui confitetur

Jesum Chri-

in came venisse de Deo est qui autem negat

came venisse, de Deo non est, sed est de Anti-

stum
in

christi spiritu d

quotes

el Tig

Dionysius of Alexandria at

opoXoyei 'lyo-ovv Xpio-Tov

ovv

eXyXvQoTa, ovTog evTiv

'AvTi%pio-Tog

and at

261.

p,

aapKi

ev

Tovg ovk

ev

he

p. 80.

expressly says, that in this Epistle John spoke

irpog

Epi-

aapKi cf>aaK0VTag eXvjXvOevai tov Kvpiov.

phanius twice quotes the passage with the words

crapKi eXvjXvOoTa,

or

eXy)Xv6evai

ev

G
.

All these authorities might lead us to question

the propriety of adopting Griesbach's reading
least I

do not see

aapKi eXriXvBoTa,

unless

we

ing,

Xvei tov

how we

which appear in
what Socrates

so

follow

'Iyjo-ovv.

at

can reject the words

may

many

ev

quotations,

calls the

old read-

add, that the antithesis

between the second and third verses would seem to

require that the words ev aapKi eXy\XvQoTa should
appear in both

and

in the

second Epistle,

v. 7.

we

have an expression very similar to that of the received text,

ttoXXo) nXavoi

el(jy}X6ov

elg tov

Koapov

ofj.oXoyovvTeg 'Ivjaovv ~Kpi(7T0v epyopevov ev aapKi'

6

ol

fJW)

ovTog ea-Tiv

irXavog kou o 'AvTi^piaTog.

249.

Origenis in Matt.

vol. III. p.

902.

My

soul is exCommenting upon these words,

ceeding sorrowful, (xxvi. 38.) he says, " He began
" to be sorrowful according to his human nature,
" which is subject to such feelings, but not accord" ing to his divine power, which is far removed
" from any feeling of this kind.

And we

say this

" of Jesus, that you may not suppose, as some here" sies, that he was a mere man but that God took
;

d
e

Test. II. 8. p. 288.

Haer. XXIV. 9. p. 75.

XXVI.

15. p. 97.

OR! GEN,

A. D. 240.

331

" the real nature of a human body, which might

" suffer together with our infirmities, since he also
" was clothed with the infirmities of a human
" body f ."

Origenis in Matt.

250.

vol. III. p.

920.

Origen observes, that the temptation, which

recorded by the three
tioned by St. John, "
" spiritual nature

evangelists,

first

is

is

not men-

who gave an account

of his

and the Life, and

" the Resurrection, and the true Light are not
" tempted
but he was tempted according to the
" human nature, which the only-begotten God as:

for the Truth,

"

sumed s."

We

same observation in the XXIXth

Homily on Luke, when he is commenting upon those
words, Man doth not live by bread alone, after
which he says, " We may see that the Son of God
" does not say this, but the human nature, which
" the Son of God condescended to assume for he
" answers as if concerning a man, and says, It is
" written, Man does not live hy bread alone : from
" which it is plain, that not God but man was
" tempted.
After diligently examining the meanfind the

" ing of scripture, I think that I have found the

" reason why John has not described the temptation
f
Ergo coepit quidem tristari
secundum hum an am naturam,

quoniam

quae talibus passionibus subdita

poris.

est,

non autem secundum

nam

divi-

virtutem, quee ab hujus-

modi passione longe remota est.

Et heec dicimus de Jesu, ut non
arbitreris,

reses,

Deum

sicut

quaedam

hominem eum

fuisse,

hae-

sed

veram humani corporis

suscepisse naturam, qui poterat

compati infirmitatibus

nostris,

et

ipse

erat infirma natura

secundum

autem, qui
fecit

circumdatus

humani

cor-

Joannem

spiritalis naturae ejus

sermonem, non tentatur

nec enim

tentatur Veritas, et

Vita, et Resurrectio, et

verum

Lumen

sed tentabatur secundum hominem quern susceperat

unigenitus Deus.
:

ORIGEN, A.D.

332

240.

" of our Lord, but only Matthew, Luke, and Mark.

" For John,

who made

exordium from God, by

saying, In the beginning, &c. and could not com" pose an account of his divine birth, but only exhis

6<

" pressed that he was of God and with God, added,

" and the Word was made flesh.
Consequently

whom

" because God, of

he was treating, cannot be

" tempted, therefore he does not introduce him as

" tempted by the Devil
If therefore the Son of
" God, who is God, became man for your sakes, and

"

who by nature

are man, ought

you are tempted h ."
Origenis in Joannem, torn. II. vol. IV. p. 85.
251.
Speaking of our Saviour and John the Baptist,
one of whom was called the Word and the other the
voice, he says, " In one word, when John points
" out Christ, a man points out God and the incor" poreal Saviour ." Compare Hippolytus N. 147.
is

tempted, you,

" not to complain

if

p.

259.
252.

Origenis in Joan.

torn. II. vol.

IV.

p. 87.

The same came for a witness, to he a witness of

men through him might believe.

the Light, that all

Simulque videamus quod

non Filius Dei,
sed homo, quern Filius Dei
quasi
dignatus est assumere
de homine enim respondet, et
dicit, Scriptum est, &c. ex quo
manifestum, non Deum, sed ho11

haec loquatur

minem
turae

fuisse tentatum.

sensum

lans, reor

Scrip-

diligenter eventi-

invenire

me causam

quare Joannes tentationem Domini non descripserit, sed tanturn Mattheeus, Lucas et Marcus.
Joannes enim, qui a Deo
exordium fecerat, dicens, In
principio &c. nec poterat divinse

generationis ordinem texere, sed

tan turn in odo

cum Deo
jecit,

quod ex Deo

et

esset expresserat, ad-

Et Verbum carofactum

est.

Porro quia Deus tentari non potest, de quo ei erat sermo, ideo
tentari ilium a Diabolo non introducit.

Si

Dei Deus pro

te

igitur

Filius

homo

factus

est et tentatur, qui natura

non debes indignari

es

tentaris. p.
1

"Ore

homo
forte

967.

'"laa.vvqc

tqv Xptcrrov Se/-

Seov teiKwa, kou

Kvvcriv,

ccvdpccizot;

trccT'ijpa

tqv aaa>[A.GCTQV,

Aojqv.

si

koli (pavvj

TQV

ORIGEN,
(i.

Origen informs

7.)

333

A. D. 240.

us, that

some

heretics objected

to this passage, because Christ, if he was God, could

have no need of any one to bear witness of him.
" We must say therefore in answer to such men,

" that since there may be many causes, which

" excite men to believe, (for some persons will not
" be moved by this demonstration, but will by that,)
"

God

is

able to afford to

men many

opportunities

" of persuading themselves, that God

" all created things, became man k ."

who

is

over

Origenis in Joan. torn. II. vol. IV. p. 92.

53.
" The only-begotten God therefore our Saviour,
" alone begotten by the Father,
" and not by adoption
but he
:

" very mind of the Father,

" mind.

For the

divine

is

Son by nature

is

born from the

like the will

nature,

i.

e.

is

from the
nature of

" the unbegotten Father,

is not divisible, as if we
" were to suppose that the Son was produced either
" by division or by lessening of his substance.
But

" whether we are to speak of the mind, or the heart,

" or the sensation of God, He became the Father of
" the Word, Himself continuing unaltered, putting
" forth the germ of His will which Word, remain" ing in the bosom of his Father, announces God,
" whom no one hath seen at any time, and reveals
;

" the Father, whom no one hath known except him

" only, to those whom his heavenly Father draws
" towards Him

AeKreov ovv wpo< avrovc, ~

%<v tov eov

nXeiwaq

Opairon; woipexeiv, u/<z

oq

virep navzcx.

oufjoppca;

av-

itapa^xOrj

on

tu ywqra

evyv-

Filius est

mente.

natus autem ex ipsa

Non

enitn divisibilis est

divina natura, id est, ingeniti

putemus vel divisione,

imminutione substantias ejus
Filium esse progenitum.
Sed
sive mens, sive cor, aut sensus

Bpccwqa-ev.

Patris, ut

Unigenitns ergo Deus Salvator noster, solus a Patre generatus, natura et non adoptione

vel

Patris mente, sicut voluntas ex

ORXGEN,

A. D. 240.

Origenis in Joan. tom. V,

254.

vol.

IV.

p. 99.

The next

quotation has nearly the same beginning

with the last. " The only-begotten Son our Saviour,
" who alone is born of the Father, is alone the Son

"by

nature, and

not

by adoption.

There

is

u therefore one true God, who only hath immortality,

" dwelling in the light, which no man can approach
" unto : the one true God, lest we should believe,
" that the name of the true God is applicable to
" many. So also they, who receive the Spirit of
the adoption of sons, whereby we cry, Abba,
" Father, (Rom. viii. 15.) are sons of God, but not
" as the only-begotten Son.
For the only-begotten
66

"is Son by nature, and always and inseparably Son

" but the others, inasmuch as they have taken upon

" themselves the Son of God, have received power
" to become the sons of God: who although they
" are born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh,

nor of the will of man, but of God, (John i. 13.)

" are yet not born of that birth, by which the only" begotten Son is born. Consequently the same
66

" difference which there is between the true God,

" and those to whom it is said, I have said, Ye are
" gods, (Psalm lxxxii.
" true Son, and those

between the
who are called all of them
" children of the Most High m ."
de

Deo

dicendus

6.)

est, indiscus-

sus permanens, germen proferens Voluntatis, factus est Verbi Pater

quod Verbum

in sinu

annunciat
vidit unquam, et revelat Patrem, quem
nemo cognovit nisi ipse solus,
his quos ad eum Pater ccelestis
Patris

requiescens,

Deum, quem nemo

attraxerit.

exists also

m Unigenitus

Filius Salvator

noster, qui solus ex Patre natus

est, solus natura et non adoUnus ergo
ptione Filius est
est verus Deus, Qui solus habet
Unus et verus Deus, ne
&c.
scilicet multis veri Dei nomen
convenire credamus.
Xta ergo
et hi, qui accipiunt Spiritum
adoptionis &c. fill i quidem Dei

ORIGEN, A.D. MO.

The two

335

preserved by

last quotations are

Pam-

and the second is

"
proving,
that
the
Son was born of the
adduced as
" Father, and is of one substance with the Father,
(C
and different from the substance of created things."
philus in his Defence of Origen

Origenis in Joan.

255.

Upon
the

VI.

torn.

vol.

IV.

p.

152.

those words of John the Baptist, JBeliold

Lamb

of God, which taketh away the sins of

the world,

(i.

29.)

Origen observes, "

He who

of-

" fered this Lamb for the sacrifice was God in man,
" the great High Priest, who shews this by saying,
"
one taketh away my lifefrom me ." (x. 18.)

No

Origenis in Joan. torn. X. vol. IV. p. 165.

256.
" As far as relates to words, we may say contrary
" things concerning our Lord, that he was born of
" David, and that he was not born of David

"

is

for it

true that he was born of David, as the apostle

of the seed of David according to the

flesh, (Rom. i. 3.) if we understand his corporeal
" part but this is false, that he was born of the seed
66
of David, if we understand it of his divine power
"for he was declared to be the Son of God with
" power. And perhaps it is for this reason, that the
" holy Scriptures sometimes call him a servant, and
" sometimes Son
a servant, on account of the

" says, born

66

non sicut unigenitus

Unigenitus enim natura

sunt, sed

habet ad

Filius.

Ego

Filius et

semper

et inseparabili-

cseteri vero pro

ter Filius est
eo quod susceperunt in se Filium Dei, potestatem acceperunt filii Dei fieri. Qui licet non
ex sanguinibus, neque ex voluntate &c. non tamen ea nativitate sunt nati, qua natus est
unigenitus Filius. Propter quod
:

quantam differentiam verus Deus

eos,

quibus

dixi, dii estis,

dicitur,

tantam

dif-

ferentiam habet verus Filius ad

eos, qui audiunt, Filii Excelsi
omnes.
n

Cap. V.

Se

apvov eVi
ncp

TTjV Ovc'iav, 6

ii>

tw

tov

ccvdpu-

eo, f^eyaq ap^iepev^, ocrriq

yjv

tovto

p. 33, 34.

Trpotrccyayuv tovrov

drjKoi

k. r. X.

S<a

rov,

Oi3&e<$

aipa

GRIG EN,

336

A. D. 240.

" form of a servant, and as the seed of

David

but

"

Son of God, on account of his firstborn essence

" thus it is true to call him a man, and not a man
" a man, with respect to that part which is capable
" of death
but not a man, with respect to that
:

" which

is diviner than man.

I imagine, that Mar" cion, perverting the sound doctrine which he re-

" ceived, and denying his birth from Mary, teaches

" with reference to his divine nature, that he was
" not born of Mary and therefore he has dared to
:

" erase these places from the Gospel. They seem to

" be something similar, who deny his humanity, and
" admit his divinity only and those, who are just
:

who

" contrary,
66

ceive

"

men

him

circumscribe his divinity, and re-

as a holy

man, the most righteous of

257. Origenis in Joan. torn.

But now
told

ye seek

you the

(viii

Oiov dX'/jBeq

plov

v\yav 9

Ka)

oi)

truth,

ex

GTcepy.oi.Toq

el

to

avTO

he

aplaB'/]

yap

Ka) Ta%a

etc

ex

Aa/3i,

dvBpui:ov

Aa/3;'

dX'f\Beq

kcctoc

o-dpKa,

el

eicl

Tr\q

&eov

ev

hvvdyei.

hid tovto al dyiai npo-

yaroq Aa/3/*

yev hovXov,

otiov he vlov

Mapiaq
rov

h'

aBerovvra avrov

yevecriv,

(pvo~iv

eyevvr\B'f\

to

olyai

Kara

ttjj/

dirO(pr]vao~Bai,

ttjv

eK

Belav av-

uq dpa ovk

Ik Mapiaq, Ka) hid tovto

reroXyrjKevai nepiypd^ai rovrovq rovq

roitovq

duo tov evayyeXlov' a irapa(palvovrai

neitovBevai

Tt\'t\<Tiov

dvaipovvreq avrov

Ka) yov/jv avrov

rrjv

ttjv

ol

dvBpanoTVjTa,

Beor'f\Ta_

itapa-

he^dyevoi' of re rovroiq evdvrioi, Ka)

Trjv

BeoTfjTa

tov

he

dvQpuitov, Kai ovk

Kara

MapKiava irapeKhe^dyevov

rov

vyieiq Xoyovq,

hovXov yev, hid

vlov he eov, Kara. rrjv

elite'tv

Kai

he

'Eyu

Beiorepov.

kou tov eK airep-

npcoroTOKov avrov hvvdyiv' ovraq av-

Tov dXyBeq

God

dvBpomov Kara to Bavdrov

cntepyaToq Aa/3/8*

hov'Aov yop(p)}v,

to kill him, since

ovk dvBpcoitov

tovto

avrov dvayopevovcri'
t\j

heKTiKOV'

avrov eKXdfioyev'

vloq

(pYjreiat oitov

me, a man that hath

have heard from God,

kill

dvBpoo-wov'

Beiorepaq hvvdyeccq aKOvoyev, to ye-

yovevai avTov

320.

Kv-

&.aB)h

o-cey.a,TtKov

p.

icpoq

yev yap to, yeyovev ex Aaf3)h, aq

koci o duoo-ToXoq (py&i, Tov yevoyevov
eK

IV.

vol.

aq

Ttep)

yeyovev

yeyovev

XX.

tov

ret,

elireTv

dvTiKelyeva
oti

to

which

They who seek

"

40.)

rrjv Xe^iv,

\pevheq

all

p."

avrov nepiypdipavreq,

dvBpcoizov

wq ayiov,

Ka)

ht-

Kaiorarov irdvrav dvBpanrav oyoXo- ^

yfjO-avreq.

ORIGEN,
"

is

"

And

not killed, even

if

they do

they seek to

if

337

A. D. 240.

kill

kill

him,

kill

a man.

him, but have not yet

" done it, they do not think the person, against

" whom they are conspiring, is God, and conspire
" against him as a man.
For no one, if he were
" persuaded that it is God, against whom he is con" spiring, would conspire against him

Origenis in Joan.

258.

vol.

It

is

IV.

p.

torn.

392.

expedient for us, that one

for the people, (xi. 50.)

remarks, " Since it was a

XXVIII.

man

should die

Upon these words Origen

man who died, but Truth

" was not a man, nor was Wisdom, and Peace, and
" Righteousness, and that of which it was written,
" The Word was God, God the Word and Truth
" and Wisdom and Righteousness, did not die for
" the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of
" every creature, was incapable of death r ."
:

Origenis in Joan.

259.

vol.

" First of
" created

all

IV.

all the
" manity

truth
:

and huHoly Ghost s

divinity

also believe in the

one God, who

and made all

we must also believe,

and we must believe

concerning his

we must

is

things,

all

" things to be out of nothing

" that Jesus Christ is Lord

XXXII.

429.

p.

believe that there

and arranged

"

torn.

There seems

sion here to the

recited

to be

an

common

by Christians,

allu-

creeds

ORIGEN, A.D.

838

240.

"

If any one believe that he who was crucified

" under Pontius Pilate sojourned in the world as

" something holy and the cause of salvation s but

" that he did not receive his birth from the Virgin

"

Mary and the Holy Ghost, but from Joseph and

" Mary, such a man would be deficient in what is
" most necessary for entire faith.
Or on the other
" hand,

if any one should in an

" mit his divinity, but taking
" manity should believe that
" human about him, and that

erroneous sense adoffence at his hu-

was nothing

there

he did not take a

" substance, such a man would come short of per" feet faith in no small degree or if on the contrary
" he admitted what concerns his humanity, but deu nied the substance of the only begotten, and of
:

the firstborn of every creature, such a man would

" not be able to say, that he had all faith
The

tc

reader

again referred to the assertion of Dr. Priest-

is

99 and 192.) that the Fathers never menand he extends this

tion the Unitarians as heretics

ley, (see p.

on

ty)ti

rd itdvra Krlaaq,

inep)

UpZrov itdvrov

etq

i<rnv

eoq

Tttcrevo-ov

kou Karapriaaq, Ka) voiy<raq

rov

e/c

rd itdvra. Xp7
on Kvpioq lrj<rovq

ovroq elq to elvai

jttTj

itpoaKoitrav

Kara,

rrjv

noTvjTa,

ndcy

Ka)

Hpurroq,

avrov

'nep)

e7 Se

akvfietq,'

djLOV

7IlO-TVtV

nq

Tcia-Tevccv

el

ttj

Beorrjra, Ka) rrjv dvBpco-

Ka)

UveVfAa.

on

elq

7J

to

TTCfcAlV

Utxpypa Ka)

in) Hovrtov

'hdrov aravpcoBe)q lepov

noi npoq

ndaav
,X

yjtvra.

r^v

dXh'
rovrcjj

Ka) Mapiaq,

ef 'Iwctj^

av

"kelitoi

e%eiv rv)v iricrnv

UdXiv re av

el

elq

to

ndaav

rd dvayKaiorara.
ryv

avrov TtapeKbeyfiLTo,

y,ev Beorrftd riq

ttj

e dvBpaito-

rd tk-

{/.ev irep)

rrjv

Se

npaKai

In the Benedictine

<nl<rnv.

tem

Ka)

rd

itpoaloiro,

edition, napeKbe%ono

"beldpevov

<pev,

rv]v Ttlariv ov

dvditaXiv

el

ovroq ov hvvairo Xeyeiv irao-av e%eiv

dylov Uvevixaroq

rrjv yevecrtv dvel~hf\-

vno-

roroKOv ndtryq Krlcreaq dBeroi,

d\X' qvk K ttapBevov ryq Mapiaq, Ka)

Koo~fA(p

vj

VTZoo-raaiv rov povoyevovq, Ka)

admittat

rep

avrov avBpcoTtiva

eTriSeS'/ypj/cej/'

acorripiov

dvBpwTttvov

arao-iv elkycpevai' Ka) rovra dv \el-

kou mcrreveiv

/AvjSey

avrov Kurrevoi yeyovevat,

dict

and

is

translated

translated respuen-

which meanings contraeach other, and are neither

of them right
to

is

at p. 165. irapeK-

receive

wrong
which

irapeK^exeo-Oai is

thing,

but

in

sense: or to pervert that

is

received.

ORIGEN,

A. D. 240.

339

remark in particular to Origen u , but he takes no

notice whatever of the present quotation, in which,
if words have any meaning, the fundamental tenets
of the Unitarians are condemned as heretical.
The Homilies of Origen upon the Epistle to the
Romans supply some strong testimonies to the divinity of Christ
but they have only come down to
:

us in the Latin translation of Rufinus, which,, ac-

cording to his

own

from the original

statement, differed considerably

and wherever any of the Greek

we find this to be remarkably
therefore not bring forward any of
:

has been preserved,

the case.

I shall

these testimonies

but they

may

be found in pages

541, 573, 599, 612, 624.

Origenis in Epist. ad Gal,

260.

The

following passage

is

vol.

IV.

690.

p.

preserved by Pamphilus

From those words

" of the Apostle, Paul, an apostle, not of men,
" neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, (i. 1.) we

in his

"

may

Defence of Origen,

p. 35. "

plainly understand, that Christ Jesus

" a man, but a divine nature.

was not

because he

knew

" him to be of a higher nature, he therefore said that

" he was not called by man x ." And shortly after

upon those words, But I certify you, brethren,

(i. 11.) he says, " Now observe what he writes
be" cause any one who connects this passage with the
" former may easily understand and prove to those
" who deny the divinity of Jesus Christ, and pro" nounce him to be a mere man, that Jesus Christ is
:

History of early Opinions,

tura.

Non enim

si

homo

esset,

vol. I. p. 292.
x
eo quod dixit apostolus,

Paulus hoc quod ait,

Paulus &c.
Quern utique

Paulus &c. manifeste datur in-

quia sciebat exceilentioris esse

naturae, propterea se dixit non

Ex

quia non erat homo Christus Jesus, sed erat divina na-

telligi

dixisset

assumptum

z 2

esse per hominem*

OBIGEN,

340

A. D. 240.

" not a mere man, but God, the Son of God. For
" the apostle says, that the Gospel which I have

"preached unto you

He

" Jesus Christ.

" Jesus Christ

is

not after men, but after

man but if he is not man,

God and further he will be
God and man y."
Epist. ad Titum, vol. IV. p. 695.

not a

" undoubtedly he
" nothing else but

261.

is

therefore evidently shews, that

Origenis in

is

Origen having given his definition of a heretic

proceeds to point out some particular heresies. "
" must have the same opinion of him, who conceives

We

" any false notion of our Lord Jesus Christ either

" according to those, who say that he was born of
;

" Joseph and Mary, like the Ebionites and Valenti-

" nians z or according to those, who deny him to be

" the firstborn and God of the whole creation, and
:

" the Word, and Wisdom &c.

" he is a mere man.
Those
" the

who say
who say,
known and

but
also,

Lord Jesus was a man before

that
that
pre-

" ordained, who before his advent in the flesh did

" not exist substantially and properly but that be" ing born a mere man he had in himself only the
;

" divinity of the Father

y Adverte ergo quid scribit,

quia convenienter quis et hsec

adjungens prioribus intelligere

potent, et ostendere his qui negant deitatem Jesu Christi, sed
hominem eum solum pronun-

quod non est homo, sed

Deus, Dei Filius Jesus Christus.
Sic enim dicit apostolus, Quia
Evangelium &c, Evidenter ergo
ostendit quia Christus Jesus non
si autem non est hoest homo
mo, sine dubio Deus est: imonon
aliud erit nisi Deus et homo.

ciant,

they cannot, without dan1

This

must be a mistake,

since the Valentinians did not

that Jesus had a real

body, or was born at all.
perhaps ought to read Cerinbelieve

We

The commentators have

not noticed the error
but a
similar insertion of the name of
Valentinus is pointed out by
bishop Bull in Jerom's work
thians.

against Helvidius,

225.
3-7-)

p.

(Def.

c. 17. vol. II.

Fid, Nic. II.

ORIGEN,

A. D. 240.

341

" ger, be reckoned in the number of the church as

" those also, who with more superstition than reli:

" gion, that they

may not

" nor on the other hand

appear to make two Gods,

deny the divinity of the

" Saviour, assert that there is oue and the same ex" istence of the Father and Son, i. e. that one hypo" stasis exists, which receives two names according
to

" to the difference of causes

i. e. one person
an" swering to two names and these are called in La;

66

tin Patripassians

a ."

might be thought at first, that Origen here

espoused the Arian doctrine of dividing the substance of the Father and the Son.
It is true, that
he condemns the doctrine as heretical which taught
but we must rethat there was only one hypostasis
member, that hypostasis, which was used by later
It

was taken in the time of Origen to signify person : and in this passage he alludes
to the Patripassian heresy, (to which the Sabellian
was nearly allied,) of confounding the persons of the
Father and the Son. In his work against Celsus b
writers for substance,

Sed nunc unum atque idem

credendum est etiam de eo qui
a

de

Domino
aliquid

falsi

cundum
Joseph
sunt.

sive

nostro Jesu Christo

sive

senserit,

eos qui dicunt

et

se-

eum

ex

Maria natum, sicut

Ebionitse et Valentiniani
qui primo:

secundum eos

genitum eum negant,

Deum,

et totius

Verbum et
sed hominem

habuerit deitatem, ne

dem
siae

sine

numero

illos

periculo esse
sociari

qui-

eccle-

sicut et

il-

magis quam
religiose, uti ne videantur duos
Deos dicere, neque rursum nelos qui superstitiose

gare Salvatoris deitatem, unam

eandemque subsistentiam Patris
ac Filii asseverant, id est, duo

et

quidem nomina secundum diversitatem causarum recipientem, unam tamen hypostasin

eos qui

subsistere,

mira

hominem dicunt DomiJesum praecognitum et

sonam duobus nominibus sub-

praedestinatum, qui ante adven-

jacentem, qui Latine Patripas-

tum carnalem

siani appellanttir.

creaturse

et

Sapientiam
solum eum dicentes.

proprie

homo

non

Sed

substantialiter et

extiterit, sed

quod

id

est,

L. VIII. 12.

natus Patris solam in se

z S

p.

unam

per-

750. eva

civ


ORIGEN,

342

A. D. 240.

he expressly calls those persons heretics, who deny

that the Father and Son are two hypostases and
he adds, " We worship the Father and the Son, who
;

" are two in hypostasis."

is

In these places hypostasis

The word

used for person.

in its proper signifi-

is applied to any thing which has an individual and substantial existence : thus we may speak
of the hypostasis of man by which we may mean
either the substance of man as different from the
substance of any other animal, taken generically or
we may mean the substance of any individual man,
In this latter sense the word
e. g. Homer or Cicero.
comes to signify person, always retaining the idea

cation

kou

tov

<TKV0[AV

vlov

Bepaitevo^ev

OVV

TQV maTepa

TTjq

prj-

Son

dXr -

tial

Belaq, kou tov vlov t\v ahr^Beiav, ovra

Zvo

t5j

vnoaTocaei nptzyfAocra,

T7j o/xovoia,

kou

TctvTOTvjTi tov

tJi

ei>

Se

avpipavla, KOU Ty

^ovK-^aroq.

It ap-

pears that Origen even used ova-la in the sense of person : thus
we find him saying d hepoq
kolt

ovalav kou vizoKelpevoc,

Kelpevov)

iariv

vlo$

tqv

(1.

vhq-

itaTpoc,.

to express his real, substan-

existence,

was

also allowed

by the Semi-Arians

see Epi-

phanius, vol. I. p. 860

and the
doctrine of Origen is still further declared in the following
passage, where he speaks of a
:

heretic,

hoy^ocrl^uv

lolav

tivo,

ovalav

p<je

i(peaTcivou

rov

dylov

Y\vevjAarQt; iripav r.apa rov itarepa

Ka) tov

vlov.

but he says of him-

(de Oratione, 15. vol. I. p. 222.)

in which he meant to say, that

self,

the Son differed in personal individuality from the Father.

That this is the sense in which
he used the word ova-la, is plain
from the following passage,
where he speaks of heretics who
conceived of the Logos as of a
word uttered by the mouth,
and thus giving no substantial
km) Kara
existence to the Son

pa, Ka) tov vlov, koi to ayiov Tlvev-

tovto vitoaTaaiv
oj56

avTcp

ov

^tboaaiv,

ovalav avrov aacp'/jvl^ovaiv, ov-

Sewcu <pa[/.h TOidvZe, y Toiuvfte,

07rs tcot ova lav. (in

aW

Joan. torn.

I.

That the
23. vol. IV. p. 26.)
word ova la was applied to the

Vj^dq pevToiye

Tpdc,

vTtoaTa-

aeiq iteiBo^evoi Tvyy^dveiv, tov nctre-

pa. (in Joan. torn. II. 6. p. 61 .)

Dr. Priestley was incorrect, when

he asserts that Origen expressly

Father and the Son
were different in their essence.
said, that the

of early Opinions, vol.

The essence of the
Father and the Son was not the
subject of controversy in Origen's days, but the personality
or individuality of the Son,
which was destroyed on the
Patripassian and Sabellian hy(Hist,

II. p.

353.)

potheses.

ORIGEN,

A. D. 240.

of individuality and substantiality

343

0
.

And

sense most of the Fathers used the term,

in

this

who wrote

before the council of Nice.

But since it might also be applied to God, and

mean either the substance of God, i. e. His distinctive essence,

other being

God

Him from every

person whom we call

which separated

or the individual

there arose an ambiguity in the term

and

persons speaking of the Trinity might say either

there were

that

three hypostases, meaning three

whom

had a substantial
existence, or that there was one hypostasis, meaning that there was one substantial mode of being,
which was common to the Father, Son, and Holy
Ghost.
Hence some persons were branded with the
individual persons, each of

name

of heretic, though they were only guilty of a

confusion of terms
lius

and when

it is said,

that Sabel-

held one hypostasis in opposition to the church,

which held three hypostases, the statement is calculated to mislead, because the same word is taken in
two senses. Sabellius believed that there was one
substance, meaning th.at there was only one person,

who was

substantially

in each of its senses.

said that there

mean

to

stance

God thus using hypostasis

But when the orthodox party
:

were three hypostases, they did not

deny that there was only one substantial

essence which was God, but they meant that there
were three persons, who, though individually and
numerically distinct, were united in this one sub.

Thus the catholics declared

Son to be IvwroVraTOf, or
icpea-raq, meaning that he was a
the

real

him

person
the Sabellians held
to be avvao<rtaroq, an un;

substantial emanation or

quaSee p. 338, note

and
p. r23, note
d
Dr. Priestley falsely accuses
the councils of Antioch and

lity.

z 4

ORIGEN,

344

What

Sabellius

A. D. 240.

meant by

later writers expressed

by

hypostasis,

ovala

imo<rra<rts,

and the orthodox

sense of the term was less equivocally conveyed by

7rpo(Tco7rov,

person.

But the Latin

writers contributed

by translating both ovala

by the same word substantia^ substance.
The Latins, from their dread of Arianism, would
never say that there were three hypostases, because
it sounded as if they said, that there were three subto increase the confusion,

and

liroaraa-ig

and the Greeks had an equal dislike to

acknowledging one hypostasis, for fear of countenancing Sabellianism, which denied that there were
three persons e At length however all parties began
stances

mere
word and in the council of Alexandria, which was
held in the year 362, it was wisely agreed, that the
word hypostasis might be used in either sense without impeaching the orthodoxy of him who used it f
to perceive, that they

were taking offence

at a

262.

The

Origenis in Epist. ad I Feb.

vol.

IV.

p.

697.

Son is clearly expressed in the

following passage, which is adduced by Pamphilus
in his Defence of Origen, as shewing that the Father
was not before the Son, but that the Son is coeternal
eternity of the

with the Father. " What else can we think eternal

" light to be, than God the Father, who never ex" isted when there was light without brightness be" longing to it ? For light cannot be conceived as
Nice of contradicting each other
concerning the consubstantiality
They only
of Father and Son.
differed in their use of the word
History of early
hypostasis.
Opinions, vol. II. p. 337. This
apparent difference is well ill ustrated by Athanasius, ad Antiochenses,

. 6. vol. I.

p.

773, 777.

Ata tovto

toXiko)

\tyovo-w,

tSv npoo-Sitav

vitaa-Tocc-eu; ot
I'va

ava-

ra? Ihor^Tccq

vcpearcoa-ai;

kou v-nap-

Semi-Arianorum Confessio apud Epiphan.

%ova-aq

Hser.

yvapl<ru<riv.

LXXIII.

17.

vol.

I.

p.

See Bull Defens. sect.

&c.
Waterland, II.

II.

863.
f

9.

1 1,

p.

ORIGEN,

345

A. D. 240.

" ever existing without its brightness. If this be true,

u there never was a time when the Son was not a
" Son. But he was not, as we have said of eternal
lest we should seem to maintain
two principles of light but like the brightness of
" unborn light, having that same light as its begin" ning and source, being born from it but there
" never was a time when it was nots."
We may

" light, unborn,

"

observe, that this passage denies the fundamental

was a time when

Compare Dionysius N. 300.
26S. Origenis in Epist. ad Heb. vol. IV. p. 697.
" We ask those who are unwilling to confess the

tenet of Arianism, that there

Christ

was

not. h

" Son of God to be God, how the

" alone, if it had nothing exalted in

human

nature

nor any

itself,

" thing of divine substance, could receive as an in" heritance every principality, and all power and
authority, and be preferred to, and placed over all
" those things by the Father.
Hence it appears
" certain, that he, who receives the inheritance,

if

247. IV. p. 415.

Suicer in

v.

vitoGiamq.
s

Lux autem

aliud

est

seterna

quid

quam
nunquam fuit

sentiendum,

Deus Pater, qui

quando luxquidem esset, splendor vero ei non adesset ? Neque
enim lux sine splendore suo un-

quam
verum

intelligi potest.
est,

nunquam

est

Quod

It is singular that Philo

Judaeus furnishes a refutation
of this tenet ; at least he shews

and
him God, would

that to say this of Christ,

yet

to

call

have implied a contradiction in

He is speaking of idolatry, and says, that the holiest of

terms.

si

all

quando

tov

commandments
KQcrfAOv

[Aepav

is

p^ev tZv

avroKpa-vrj

6eov

non Filius fuit. Erat autem, non sicut de seterna luce

VTzoXapficeveiv elvai' kou

diximus, innatus, ne duo principia lucis videamur inducere

tov

TreTrotYjKOTCx; a.TtaBa.vccTi^rjra.i,

VjV

7T0T6 XpOVOC.

sed sicut ingenitse lucis splendor, ipsam illam lucem initium

itpozepov (Av ovk ovra, Ka\ a-no tivq$

habens ac fontem, natus quidem

Xeyeiv ov OepiTov.

De

ex ipsa, sed non erat quando

culis, vol. II. p.

190.

Filius

non

erat.

yeveaa; Be (pQopaq

y^povov yevopevov

yap yeyove'
Kav npovola
kou

QT6 OVK VjV OeOV $6,

kou

[AT]

htaiavi^ovra

decern Ora-

ORIGEN,

346

A. D. 240.

" must be more exalted, and he must be so in kind,

" and in species, and substance, and existence or

" nature, and in every way whatsoever

264. Origenis in Epist.

Origen

illustrates the

."

adUeb. vol IV. p.

697.

con substantiality of the Son

with the Father, and his proceeding from the Fa-

by a comparison with vapour proceeding from

any substance, " So that we may conceive in a man" ner, how Christ, who is Wisdom, after the like-

ther,

" ness of that vapour which proceeds from any cor<c

poreal substance, rises like a sort of vapour out of

" the power of God thus also Wisdom, which pro" ceeds from him, is generated from the very sub;

" stance of God and thus, after the likeness of a

" corporeal efflux, he is said to be the efflux of the
" glory of the Almighty, pure and unmixed.
Both
;

" which likenesses most plainly shew, that there is

" a communion of substance between the Son and
" the Father.
For an efflux seems to be of one
" substance with that body, from which it is an ef-

" flux or vapour k ."

1

Interrogamus

piget confiteri

igitur eos

quos

Deum esse Filium

quomodo poterat sola humana natura nihil in se habens

Dei,

eximium, neque aliquid

divina?

cundum

similitudinem ejus vasubstantia aliqua

corporea procedit, sic etiam ipse
ut quidam vapor exoritur de

poris qui de

virtute

ipsius

Dei

sic

et

sa-

substantia?, hsereditatem capere

pientia ex eo procedens ex ipsa

omnem principatum, et omnem

potestatem, et virtutem, et his
omnibus praeferri ac preeponi a

Dei substantia generatur.

Patre.

quod

Unde rectum

videtur

prsestantior esse debeat

is

qui haereditatem capit, et genere

utique, et specie, et substantia,

Sic

nihilominus et secundum simili-

tudinem
esse

corporalis

dicitur

aporrhaese,

aDorrhsea

glorise

Omnipotentis pura qusedam et

sincera. Quae utrseque similitudines manifestissime ostendunt

omnibus quibusque modis debet

communionem substantia? esse

Filio cum Patre. Apon haea enim

esse prsestantior.

ofAoova-ioq

et subsistentia vel natura, atque

ut vel ex parte aliqua

inteiligere

possimus

quomodo

Christus, qui est Sapientia, se-

videtur,

substantia?

quo

cum

unius
corpore ex

id est,
illo

est vel aporrhaea vel vapor.

ORIGEN,
This passage, which
p. 33. in

is

347

A. D. 240.

adduced by Pamphilus,

proof of Origen's orthodoxy,

may

easily

be

conceived to have been one of those, which his ene-

mies might misinterpret and turn against him.

would have been well indeed,

own

his

It

he had adhered to

if

and

excellent observation given at N. 236.

not inquired into the mysterious generation of the

Son of God.

But

this passage,

taken in conjunction

with his other works, can never be said to prove

that his opinions were heretical

we

in whatever sense

explain them, he cannot have been an Unitarian.

We

may compare

the doctrine contained in

it

with

says in vol. I. p. 752. where he calls Christ

" the vapour of the power of God, and pure efflux
" of the glory of the Almighty, the effulgence of

what he

" eternal

and unspotted mirror of the energy

The two expressions, vapour of the
power of God, and efflux of the glory of the Almighty, are taken from the apocryphal Book of
light,

" of God."

and Dionysius of Alexandria, in

illustration of the generation of Christ as the Word,
observes, that a word is an efflux of the mind,

Wisdom,

vii.

25.

p. 93.

cannot help in this place making one remark

upon the Homilies of Origen. Dr. Priestley labours
I

at great length in his

History of early Opinions,

to prove, that though the clergy and most of the

learned in early times were Trinitarians, yet the

unlettered multitude, i. e. the great body of Christians,

were Unitarians, and did not believe in the

vinity or preexistence of Christ.

He

di-

extends this

remark even to the time of the council of Nice and

though he acknowledges, that no work of any Unitarian writer has been preserved to us, he draws his
;

CYPRIANUS,

348

A. D. 250.

manner

inference from the cautious

which the
doctrines of Christ's divinity were advanced by such
writers as Tertullian and Origen \
He brings one
or two passages from these Fathers, in which he
thinks

they describe the

that

much shocked

being

It is not

my

in

common

people as

at the Trinitarian doctrines

intention to examine his interpretation

of these passages

but he should have remembered,

that the Homilies of Origen were addressed to the

people at large.

amounted

These Homilies are

number

to a thousand in

said to

have

the extracts

given from them will shew, and Dr. P. himself admits, that Origen in his writings asserted the divinity of Christ

how

then can

it

be imagined, that

Origen held a doctrine which he knew to be

ferent from that of the laity

he publicly preached

dif-

and the unlearned,

this doctrine

in

all

his

if

Ho-

milies ?

Cyprianus.

A. D. 250.

Thascius Csecilius Cyprianus was by birth an

African.

His parents were heathens

and he was

converted to Christianity in the year 246

previous

which time he had delivered lectures upon rhetoIn the year following his conversion he was
ordained presbyter and his reputation was so great,
that the see of Carthage becoming vacant in 248,
he was chosen almost unanimously by the wish of
the clergy and people to succeed to the bishopric.
to

ric.

His election was however opposed by five presbyters,

whose turbulent conduct caused him considerable
trouble and vexation.
Cyprian soon found, what indeed he might have
1

III. p.

274. 292.

lb. p. 292.

318, 19.

CYPRIANUS,

349

A. D. 250.

been prepared to expect, that the

office

of a Chris-

The
tian bishop was not one of ease and security.
Decian persecution began about the year 249 and
the fury of it compelled Cyprian to retire for a while
;

from Carthage.

He

returned in 251, but dissensions

within the church soon succeeded to troubles from

without.
cil,

In that same year he presided at a coun-

which was convened

upon the conduct

to decide

of those persons, who, during persecution, had temporarily denied their faith.

In 252 another council

was held upon the same subject

Cyprian supported the lenient

in each of

which

side.

Between that year and 256 three other councils

were held to consider the question, whether baptism
administered by heretics was valid, i. e. whether persons so baptized ought to be rebaptized, when they
came over to the catholic church. Cyprian was decidedly of opinion, that such heretical baptisms were
and the

invalid

among

his works.

252 a

In

acts of the last council are extant

terrible

pestilence

succeeded to the

other calamities, which

fell upon the African Chrisand Cyprian, among other duties which he
fulfilled at that trying time, composed his book de
Mortalitate.
In 257, the persecution, which was
countenanced by the emperor Valerian, again compelled the good bishop to leave his flock, and he
was banished to Curubis. The same enemies who
banished him, shortly afterwards recalled him
but
it was only to bestow upon him that crown of martyrdom, after which he had long and anxiously
aspired.
He was beheaded on the 14th of Septem-

tians

ber, 258.

Many

of his letters are extant, beside some short

CYPRXANUS,

850

upon

treatises

of Cyprian

A. D. 250.

different subjects

and the authority

by those, who

will always be appealed to

think that the unity of the church

is

of vital interest

by tending to preserve among its members a pure and uncorrupt faith, as well as brotherly
love and concord.
If the question of Christ's divinity were to depend
to religion,

upon his receiving the title of God by the AnteNicene Fathers, the testimony of Cyprian alone
might be sufficient; for in most places, where he
mentions the name of Christ, he calls him our Lord
and God, and the Saviour, Jesus Christ: nor does
he do this in controversy only, or where it might be
suspected that he introduced the name of God on
purpose to support a doctrine of his

was
ing

own

but

it

evidently his usual habit of speaking and writ:

he called Christ God, as habitually as

or Saviour.

we

call

him Lord

The

numethem before
the reader in one connected series, without any introduction or separate comment upon each
and,
places in

which he does

rous and so very plain, that

this are so

I shall lay

having read them, each person will be able to answer

for himself,

whether Cyprian

that Jesus Christ

was God

no
and the meaning which

he attached to the word God

more

evident, if

we

bear in

really believed or

may

perhaps appear

mind the following

de-

which he makes when he is condemning

" There is therefore one
the worship of false gods
" God, the Lord of all
for that sublimity cannot
" have a companion, since it alone possesses all
<c
power ."
claration,

11

Unus

minus

est

igitur

Deus.

omnium DoNeque enim

ilia

sublimitas

consortein,

cum

potest
sola

habere

omnem

CYPRIANUS, A,D.
265. "
" our

We

sins,

351

250.

have an Advocate and Intercessor for

Jesus Christ our Lord and

God ."

266. " For what more glorious or happy privi" lege can any one receive from divine grace, than
" in the midst of his executioners, in death itself, to

" confess the Lord

God

?"

We

acknowledge, that we have offered

267- "
" and still offer, without ceasing, the greatest thanks
" to God the Father Almighty, and to His Christ

" our Lord and God

268. "

" taught
269. "

Our Lord and God

practised whatever he

V
What

will

be the glory and

how

vast the

to be admitted to see God, to be honoured

"joy

" with receiving the delight of salvation and ever" lasting light together with Christ your Lord
"

God s

!"

" but to

270.
66

4'

strive

our might,

all

we may conciliate Christ our Judge and

Lord and God by our obedience V
271. " If we cannot persuade some persons, so

that

De Idoloteneat potestatem.
rum Vanitate, p. 227.
Habemus Advocatum

et

Deprecatorem pro peccatis nostris Jesum Christum Dominum

Ep. VII.
et Deuni nostrum.
P-

with

'5.
p Quid

enim gloriosius qmdve

felicius ulli

hominum

dignatione

divina

quam

contingere,

inter ipsos carnifices

ipso interitu confiteri

Deum
(

Et

ximas

poterit ex

Ep.XXVI. p. 35.
egisse nos et agere
gratias

profitemur

Deo

ma-

cessatione

sine
Patri

tenti et Christo ejus

in

Dominum

omnipo-

Domino

et

Deo
r

nostro.

Ep.

Dominus

XLVII.

et

quicquid docuit et

LVI.
s

p. 61.

Deus noster
fecit.

Ep.

p. 92.

Quae

erit gloria

et

quanta

admitti ut Deum videas,

honorari ut cum Christo Do-

lsetitia

mino Deo tuo salutis ac lucis

gaudium capias! Ep.
LVI. p. 94.
*
sed quibus possumus viseternse

rions elaborare et velociter gerere ut Christum Judicem et

Dominum

et

Deum

promereamur obsequiis
Ep. LX. p. 99, 100.

nostrum
nostris.

CYPRIANUS,

352
" as to
" far as
"

make them
is

A. D. 250.

please Christ, let us at least, as

in our power, please Christ our

Lord and

u ."

God by

observing his precepts

272. " Yet since some either through ignorance

" or simplicity,
" cup and give

when they
it

to

consecrate

the Lord's

the people, do not do that,

" which Jesus Christ, our Lord and God, the founder
" and teacher of this sacrifice, did and taught x

273. "

What

is

dearer than he, who, that you

" might not endure any thing reluctantly, first suf" fered what he taught ? What is sweeter than he,
" who, when he is our Lord and God, yet makes the
"

"

man who suffers for him

dom of heaven y ?"
274. " For

if

a joint heir of the king-

Jesus Christ, our Lord and God,

is

"

" himself the high priest of God the Father

275. " Even our Lord himself, Jesus Christ, our
" King and Judge and God, observed the honour
z

" due to high priests up to the day of his passion a ."

276. " But what blindness of mind is that, what
" depravity, to refuse to acknowledge the unity of

"

faith, which comes from God the Father and

" delivered by Jesus Christ our Lord and God b ?"
u
Si quibusdam suadere non
possumus ut eos Christo placere faciamus, nos certe, quod
nostrum est, Christo Domino et

Deo

nostro, praecepta ejus ser-

Ep. LXII.

vando, placeamus.

non hoc

Jesus

Christus

Deus noster

faciunt

quod

Dominus

et

hujus auctor et doctor fecit et docuit

sacrificii

Ep. LXIII. p. 104.

y Quid eo dulcius, qui cum
ipse

sit

regni coelestis

Deus noster

et

Domi-

nus tamen patientem pro se ho-

efficit

De Laude

co-

Martyrii,

p. 349.
z

Nam

minus

si

summus

Jesus Christus

Deus noster

et

Do-

ipse est

sacerdos Dei Patris

Ep. LXII.

p. 104.
x

minem

haeredem

is

p. 109.

Dominus etiam noster ipse

Jesus Christus Rex et Judex et
Deus noster usque ad passionis
diem servavit honorem pontificibus et sacerdotibus. Ep.
p.

LXV.

113.
b

Quae vero est animi caeciunitatem

tas, quae pravitas, fidei

CYPRIANUS,

353

A. D. 250.

" and

how can he say, that remission

" of sins is there given in the name of Jesus Christy
" where the Father, and Christ the Lord God, are
" blasphemed 0 ?"
277.

" Cyprian to Nemesianus, Felix, &c. &c.

278.
" and to the other brethren condemned to the mines,
" martyrs of God the Father Almighty, and of Jesus
"
" Christ our Lord and God d
" Why do we weep and grieve for our de279-

" parting friends, as

" himself our

"

I am

if

they were

the resurrection &c.

That Cyprian gave the

when

lost,

Lord and God advises

us,

Christ

and

says,

"
title

of

God

to Jesus

Christ, cannot be denied, after these numerous in-

stances in which he applies

surely can

God
or

it

it

to

in a secondary or figurative sense,

by

Neither

him.

be said, that he believed Christ to be

by delegation

If he did not use the term God,

office.

when

applied to Jesus Christ, in the same sense which he

attached to

it,

when

applied to the Father, there

is

all certainty of interpretation

and we
must give up that established rule of criticism, that
the author's meaning in the use of any word is to be
illustrated by his usual style and by the context.
When Cyprian speaks of" God the Father Almighty,
u and His Christ our Lord and God," of " the faith

an end of

de DeoPatre et de Jesu Christi

Domini et Dei nostri traditione

venientem nolle cognoscere

Ep. LXXIV. p. 139.

d Cyprianus &c. martyribus

Dei Patris omnipotentis et Jesu
Christi Domini et Dei Conser-

vatoris nostri seternam salutem.

nomine

Ep.

Jesu Christi dicat remissionem

peccatorum dari, ubi blasphe-

et

illic

in

matur in Patrem et in Dominum Deum Christum? Ep.

LXXIV.

p. 140.

et

LXXVIL

p. 158.

ipso Christo

Deo

nostro

cente &c.

235.

De

Domino

monente ac

di-

Mortalitate, p.

CYPRIANUS, A.D.

354

250.

" which came from God the Father, and delivered

" by Jesus Christ our Lord and God," of " the mar" tyrs of God the Father Almighty and of Jesus
" Christ our Lord and God," we can never imagine

God is

word

that in the same sentence the

always

to be taken in two different senses.

Or when we find him using these expressions,

" Jesus Christ our Lord and God," " Christ our
" Judge and Lord and God," " Jesus Christ our
" King and Judge and Lord," are
that Christ

is

indeed

literally

and King, but that he

is

we

to be told

our Lord and Judge

not literally our

God ?

We

can never suppose that Cyprian was thus ignorant

of the meaning of words, or careless in the use of

them.

That Christ

Lord, that this

is

truly

the

is

and not

title

figuratively our

peculiarly belonging to

him, even more distinctively than to

ther,

is

God

the Fa-

undoubted, both from the works of the apo-

and from the universal practice of writers of

That Christ is to be really and literally
our Judge, that it is the Son and not the Father,

stles,

every age.

who

will

judge

denied, if

we

all

and of our Lord

Christ

is

ites first

men

at the last day, can never be

believe the declarations of the apostles

himself.

Nor

is it

figuratively our King.

true to say, that

When

the Israel-

took possession of the land of Canaan, the

Almighty was as much their King, and His word

was as much the law of the land, as if He had sat
upon a throne, and been visibly consulted by His
subjects.

Christ.

Nor are we less the subjects of Jesus

Though he differs from an earthly king,

because his throne

yet his

word

is

is

not on earth but in heaven,

our law, and

him, not figuratively, but

it is

our duty to obey

literally.

If Christ be not

CYPRIANUS,
literally

our King, he

J udge

for

A. D. 250.

355

not literally our Lord arid

is

these latter

are also of

titles

human

and we form our notion of their meaning

from human customs and human powers but excepting only the difference between a visible and inorigin

visible tribunal,

we

believe in the fullest sense of the

much more

expression, and indeed

human
Christ

than the

fully

application of the term admits, that Jesus

our Lord and Judge and King.

is

It fol-

lows therefore, by every rule of interpretation, that

who

Cyprian,

must

also

couples with these

have intended,

titles

in the fullest

that of God,
and most un-

limited sense of the expression, that Jesus Christ

is

God.

The

following instances are perhaps

and may admit a few remarks.

Cypriani Epist. LXXIII.

express,

280.

This

letter

was written by Cyprian

more

still

p.

133.

to Jubaianus,

an African bishop, upon the question, whether baptism administered by heretics was valid.

known
among

It is well

that Cyprian decided in the negative

and

other reasons for coming to this conclusion,

he says, " If any one may be baptized by heretics,

" he may also obtain remission of sins.
If he has
" obtained remission of

"

made
" made

the temple of

sins,

God

he

is

also sanctified

he

if

is

sanctified

and
and

the temple of God, I ask, of what God ? If

" you say, of the Creator, he cannot, because he does
" not believe in him.
If you say, of Christ, neither
" can that

man be the temple

God f."

who

of Christ,

denies

" Christ to be
f

Si

peccatorum

consecutus
est, et

est,

remissam

et sanctificatus

templum Dei

factus est,

qusero cujus Dei

non

credidit.

Si Creatoris,
in

eum non

Si Christi,

nec hujus

potuit, quia

a 2

CYPRIANUS,

356

A. D. 250.

Cypriani de Oratione Dominica

281.

p.

204.

It is only necessary to observe the title of this

understand that the following expression

alludes to Christ, " Let us pray therefore, my be^
" loved brethren, as God our Master has taught

treatise, to

" us

s."

Cypriani de Oratione Dominica

282.

p.

206.

The same may be said of the following passage

" God, the Master of peace and concord, who hath
" taught us unity, hath thus wished one person to
" pray for all, in the same manner that he himself
" bears us

all

in one

h ."

Cypriani de Idolorum Vanitate p. 228.

283.
" This is the Power of God, this His Word 1 and

Wisdom and Glory. It is he, who infuses him" self into the Virgin, the Holy Spirit puts on flesh,

"

" God

united with man.

is

This

is

our

God

this

"

<

is Christ, who being the Mediator of both puts on

" man, that he may lead him to the Father. Christ
" wished to be what man is, that man also might be
cc

6i

"

"
cf

"

"
66

what Christ is. The Jews also knew that Christ

was to come, for he was always announced to
them by the warnings of their prophets. But
when his twofold advent was declared, one which
would fulfil the duty and example of a man,
the other which would prove him to be God,
by not understanding the first advent, which was
obscured in suffering and is gone by, they only

fieri

potuit

Deum

templum, qui negat

Christum. Ep.

LXXIIL

voluit,

p. 133.
s

Oremus

itaque, fratres di-

lectissimi, sicut

Magister Deus

docuit.
h

Deus

Magister, qui docuit unitatem,

sic orare unum pro omnibus

pacis

et

concordias

quomodo

in

uno omnes

ipse portavit.
5

have

translated

Word, considering
same with Logos.

it

to

Ratio,

be the

CYPRIANUS,
" believe the
" power k ."

which

other,

357

A. D. 250.
will

be

manifest

Cypriani de Bono Patientice

284.

p.

248.

Having mentioned our Lord's exhortation

therly love, he says, "

Nor

in

to bro-

did Jesus Christ our

God

"

and Lord merely teach this in words, he also ful(i

and because he said that he came
filled it in deed
" down for this purpose, that he might do the will
:

" of his Father,

<e

"
u

"
"
"
"

among

other miracles of his power,

by which he gave tokens of divine majesty, he

also preserved his Father's patience by continued
suffering.
In short all his acts, from his very first
coming, are marked by accompanying patience,
that in the first place the Son of God came down
from that heavenly height to earth, and did not despise putting on human flesh, and, though he was

" not himself a sinner, to bear the sins of others.

" In the meantime, laying aside his immortality, he
" suffers himself even to become mortal, that the ink Hie est Virtus Dei,
hie
Ratio, hie Sapientia ejus et Glo-

Hie in Virginem illabicarnem Spiritus Sanctus induitur, Deus cum homine miHie Deus noster, hie
scetur.
ria.

tur,

Christus est, qui Mediator du-

orum hominem
perducat

ad

induit,

Patrem.

quem
Quod

homo

est esse Christus voluit,

ut

homo

et

possit esse

quod

Sciebant et Judsei Christum esse venturum.

Nam hie illis semper prophetis
annuntiabatur.
admonentibus
Sed significato duplici ejus adChristus

est.

ventu, uno qui exercitio et exem plo hominis fungeretur, altero qui

Deum

intelligendo

fateretur,

non

primum adventum,

tus,

unura tantum credunt qui

erit in potestate manifestos.

Instead of carnem Spiritus

Sanctus induitur, some read carnem Spiritu Sancto cooper ante
induitur.
Bishop Bull shews,
that the Son is often called
Holy Spirit. Defens. II. io. 2.
as does the editor of Lactantius,
II. 9. p. 143. note 8and this observation removes the seeming
contradiction between Cyprian
and Epiphanius ; for the latter
says, (Hser.
ov

yap

TTore.

a-dpKce,

LV.

vol.

I.

p.

472.)

ivedvaccro to Twev^a,

But Epiphanius

is

there

writing against the heresy of

Hierax, who said, that the Holy
Ghost, the third Person in the
Trinity, had

qui in passione preecessit occul-

a 3

become

incarnate.

CYPRIANUS,

358

A. D. 250.

" nocent might be put to death for the salvation of

" the guilty ."
1

This

is

the passage to which

alluded at p. 139-

as strongly illustrating the interpretation of Phil.

which

ii.

endeavoured to establish.
Cypriani de Bono JPatientice p. 254.
At the end of this treatise he exhorts the Chris-

7.

in that place I

285.

tians not to seek for revenge against their perse-

God. He then brings

day of vengeance would
come, when the Lord would punish his adversaries
cutors, but to leave that to

texts to prove that the

among other passages he quotes that of Isaiah xlii.

13. The Lord God of hosts shall go forth, and diminish the war ; He shall stir up the contest, and
shall cry over

His

I have

enemies with courage.

held my peace : shall I hold it for ever m f Upon

which Cyprian observes, " But who is this who says
" that he has held his peace before,

and will not

He, who was brought as a
" sheep to the slaughter, and as a lamb before his
" shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth?

6<

hold

it

(Isaiah

for ever ?

liii.

n
.)

fers to Christ

It is

It is plain, that

Isaiah in the person of

1

Nec hoc Jesus Christus

et Dominus noster tantum

Deus

verbis
factis.

docuit, sed

implerit et

Et quia ad hoc descen-

disse se dixerat ut voluntatem

Patris faceret, inter csetera mirabilia virtutum

suarum, quibus

indicia divinaj majestatis expressit,

paternam

Cyprian here re-

expressions which were uttered by

quoque patien-

tiam tolerantiae tenore servavit.

Omnes denique actus ejus ab
ipso statim adventu patientia
comite signantur, quod primum
de ilia sublimitate coelesti ad

God

the Father

and he

terrena descendens non aspernaturDei Filius carnem hominis

induere, et

non

esset,

cum
aliena

peccator ipse
peccata por-

tare.

m This

is

Cyprian's transla-

which difHebrew, but

tion of the passage,

fers

from

the

agrees with the

n

Quis autem

LXX.
est hie qui ta-

cuisse se prius dicit et

per tacebit ? Utique

sicut ovis &c.

non semille,

qui

CYPRIANUS,
goes on to say, " This
66

A. D. 250.

he,

is

who

359

in his suffering

held his peace, but hereafter in his vengeance will

" not hold it.

This is our God, i. e. the God, not of
" all, but of the faithful and believers, who when he

"

come

shall

" lence.

in his

God

second advent will not keep

si-

the Father has ordered His Son to

" be worshipped, and the apostle Paul, remembering

" the divine command, declares and says, God hath
" highly exalted him, &c. (Phil.

ii.

9.)

and

in the

" Apocalypse (xix. 10.) the angel resists John

who

" wished to worship him, and says, See thou do it

" not, for I am thy fellow-servant, and of thy bre" thren.
If

Worship Jesus the Lord 0 ."

we turn to the Book of Revelations,

or xxii. 9.)

we

from the received

text,

which

and of thy brethen

of Jesus: worship God:
servant

afieXcpoov

(xix. 10.

find that Cyprian's quotation differs

aov tuv lyovToov

ty\v

is,

/ am

thy fellow-

that have the testimony

vvvlovXog aov elfu, kou twv

fxapTvplav tov 'I^o-ou* tco @ea>

Cyprian perhaps quoted from memory,

which may account for his omitting the words, that
have the testimony of Jesus : but the purpose, for
which he quotes the text, shews that he must have
read in the latter part of it, Worship Jesus the
Lord. One MS. also reads the passage thus. It is
Trpoo-KvvYjcrov.

not improbable that Cyprian's copy had

(TOV TCOV )(OVTC0V TY)V fJLapTVpiaV

Hie

cum

TOV

'IyJ(TQV.

'i^CTGV TOO

stolus

Paulus

sione tacuerit, in ultione post-

memor

ponit et

mod um non

altavit ilium &c.

Deus

est,

qui

tacebit.

noster, id est,

in

pas-

Hie est
non om-

nium, sed fidelium et credentium Deus, qui cum in secundo

adventu manifestus venerit non
silebit
Pater Deus prsecepit
Filium suum adorari, et apo-

o&tXcpcov

divini

K.VpiCp

prsecepti

Deus exEt in Apo-

dicit,

calypsi angelus Joanni volenti

adorare se resistit et dicit, Vide
ne feceris, quia conservus tuus
sum et fratrum tuorum. Jesum
Dominum adora.

a 4


CYPRIANUS,

360

A. D. 250.

and the word 'tyo-ov being thus repeated

might have caused the copyists to omit it in one

7rpoaKvvYj(7ov }

place.

Cypriani Testimoniorum

286.

1.

II. p.

284.

The whole of the second book of Testimonies

against the Jews might be translated as proving
Cyprian's belief in the divinity of Christ, the prin-

book being

cipal object of the

of texts that Christ

God.

is

shew by a

to

But

it

citation

will be suffi-

cient for our present purpose to mention the argu-

ments of some of the chapters, and the most remarkable texts by which the doctrine is supported.

The

first

chapter

is

to shew, that " Christ the

" first-begotten is the Wisdom of God, by whom all

" things were made?." Cyprian applies Prov. viii.

we have already seen to have been

the opinion of many of the Fathers also Prov. ix.
1.
He refers to John xvii. 35. Col. i. 15. 18.
Rev. xxi. 6. / am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, &c. which words Cyprian refers
to Christ, and we may compare Isaiah xliv. 6^. He
22. to Christ, as

i. 22
24.
" That Christ is the

also quotes 1 Cor.

Chap.

Psalm

iii.

xxxiii. 6. cvii. 20.

John

i.

Word
1.

&c

of

s
.

God r ."

Rev. xix.

1113.
p

Christum

primogeniture

quotes the third verse

~-sine

esse Sapientiam Dei, per quern

ipso factum est nihil

omnia facta sunt.

So Plato, O

est.
In illo vita erat.
But I
have already observed, p. 156.
that all the Fathers divide these
words differently; and so probably did Cyprian for this passage might be pointed equally

aaitep

kou

/xev

Vq

TtaXaioq \6yo$,

re, Kai TeXevTyv kou

(Aecrot,

0ec$,
ccpyjqv

tojv

ovrav

De

Leg. IV. also

the Pseudo-Orpheus,
Zeiq apy))

aitavruv eyjuv,

factum
Quod factum est in

well thus, sine ipso

r

Quod

Christus

idem

sit

Sermo Dei.
s

This

edition

nihil.

vita erat.

of

Cyprian

quod factum

est
illo

CYPRIANUS, A.D.
Chap.

God

iv.

" That Christ

361

250.

the hand and

is

arm of

Chap.

v.

"That

Christ

is

an Angel and God u ."

Cyprian conceived the Angel, who called to Abraham, to be Christ, Gen. xxii. 11. and yet it appears
from ver. 12. that the Angel was God himself also
the Angel who appeared to Jacob, Gen.xxxi. 11
13.
and there the Angel expressly says that he was
God. It is said in Exod. xiii. 21. And the Lord
went before them by day in a pillar of a cloud, to
lead them the way, &c. Cyprian refers this to Christ,
as also xiv. 19. And the Angel of God which went
:

before the

camp of Israel removed,

&c.

He

con-

ceived Christ to be the Angel promised in Exod.

xxiii. 20, 21.

Chap.

vi.

Gen. xxxv.
the
cob,

" That

Christ

He

x ."

God

is

quotes

the Fathers did, that

1. believing, as all

God there spoken of, who had appeared unto Jawhen he fled from Esau, was Christ. He refers

Isaiah xlv. 14

16.

Christ;

to

Zech. x. 11, 12. Hoseaxi.

In

10. lxxxii. 5. Ixviii. 4.

9, 10.
all

also

so

Psalm

xl.

5.

xlv. 6. xlvi.

these quotations from

the Old Testament, there will undoubtedly be a difference of opinion as to the propriety of applying

them
work

to Christ

nor

is

it

the object of the present

to enter into this discussion

it

will be suffi-

remind the reader, that many of the pasquoted by other of the Fathers with the
are
sages
same view, and we have the authority of the writers
of the New Testament for referring some of them to

cient to

Quod Christus idem manus

brachium Dei sit.
u Quod
idem Angelus et
1

et

Deus
x

Christus.

Quod Deus

Christus.

CYPRIANUS,

362

The

Christ.

A. D. 250.

quotations from the

New

perhaps appear more to the point.

will

the beginning, &c. John xx. 27

29-

Testament
John i. In

Rom.

ix.

5.

which contains the controverted passage already

discussed at p. 93-4. and it is to this place that Unitarian writers have referred, when they say, that the

word God
the text.
it

omitted by Cyprian, when he quotes

is

But when we remember that he quotes

God, we could hardly
that the very word upon which his proof

to prove that Christ is

suppose,

depended would be omitted

in the

MSS.

that

was from accident or

it

and

we

of Cyprian,

if it

did not occur

should naturally infer,

Accord-

carelessness.

we find the following note in the edition of

Baluzius " It is certain that the word God is not
" to be found in the Codex Fossatensis, as the illus-

ingly

"

trious bishop of Oxford long ago observed.

"

is

"

me

"

lius.

found in many others, at

;

and

least in fifteen

in the editions of

But

in the

" of Gravius,

we

Manutius and Morel-

margin of the edition called that

find this note

It is strange that

" even in the oldest MSS. the word

" added,

when

it

God

occurs in the Greek."

agree in this expression of wonder

sions are not

But it
seen by

uncommon

and

is

We

not

may

but such omis-

at all events, since

Cyprian quotes the passage to prove that Christ

God,

it is

trifling

with criticism to draw any infer-

ence from the omission of a word,

actually contain

it,

when

several

MSS.

and the context proves that the

y " The Arians or the Mace" donians did the same good
" office for St. Cyprian's Epi" sties
and to circulate their
" amended copies more widely,
:

is

" they sold them at Constan" tinople at a low price-" Horsley's Tracts, p. 385. from Rufinus, Apol. pro Orig. p. 53.
vol. IV. Op. Orig. Append.

CYPRIANUS,
word must

A. D. 250.

363

have been inserted.

originally

quotes Rev. xxi. 6. John x. 34

Chap. vii. " That Christ, who

38. Matt.

He
i.

also

S3.

God, was to come

is

" to enlighten and save mankind 2 ." Isaiah xxxv.

Behold your God

come with vengeance,

even God ivith a recompense. Isaiah Ixiii. 9. which
Cyprian quotes thus Non senior neque angelus,
3

6.

will

sed ipse Dominus liherabit illos, quia diliget eos et

eis, et ipse redimet eos, Isaiah xlii. 6
8.

parcet

Chap.

viii.

" That

when from the beginning he

" had been the Son of God, he

was to be born a
" second time according to the flesh %" Psalm ii.
" 7, 8. Luke i. 41. Gal. iv. 4. 1 John iv. 2, 3.
Chap. ix. " That this was to be the sign of his
" birth, that he should be born of a Virgin, man
" and God, Son of man and of God b ,'' Isaiah vii.
10, &c. Gen.

iii.

14, 15.

Chap. x. " That Christ

is

man and God, formed

" of each nature, that he might be a mediator be" tween us and the Father 0 ," Numbers xxiv. 17, &c.
Isaiah

Ixi. 1.

Luke i. 35. 1 Cor. xv. 47 49.

" That he was to be born of the seed

Chap. xi.
" of David according to the flesh d ."
Chap. xii. " That he should be born at Bethle" hem."

Chap.

Quod

xiii.

"

Christus

That he should come humble

Deus ventu-

rus esset illuminator et salvator

lius

Quod cum
Dei

a principio Fi-

fuisset, generari

denuo

haberet secundum carnem.

b

Quod hoc futurum

signum

nativitatis

ejus,

esset

ut de

nasceretur

Deus, hominis
c

generis humani.
a

virgine

Quod

et

et

Dei

homo

at his

homo

et

Filius.
et

Deus

utroque genere
concretus, ut mediator esse inter nos et Patrem posset.
d Quod de semine David
seChristus,

ex

cundum carnem

nasci haberet.

CYPRIANUS, A.D.

364
fi<

first

iii.

advent V' Isaiah liii.

5. Phil. ii. 6, &c.

250.

1, 6, 7.

xlii. 2, 4.

All the other chapters might be quoted

reader

is

referred to the whole

Zech.

but the

work where, though

he will find some texts which

may

appear to be

must remember that this mode of interpretation was followed

by all the Fathers to which we may add, that since
Cyprian composed this treatise to convince the Jews
that Jesus was Christ, he would not have affixed any
sense to the Jewish scriptures, which the Jews themselves were not in the habit of receiving as true and
whoever is acquainted with the writings of the Fastrained out of their proper meaning, he

thers,

or with

the Rabbinical

commentaries, can

many

passages were bewhich we should not

venture to quote in the present day with that view.
Cypriani de Laude Martyrii p. 345.
287.
" He became mortal, that we might be immortal
54
and he, by whom all things are governed, endured
" the final consequence of humanity f ."
Concilium Carthaginense p. 329.
288.

hardly help admitting, that

lieved to relate to the Messiah,

The
256 or

was held A. D.
258, having been convened by Cyprian to

third council of Carthage

reconsider the question of the validity of baptism

administered by heretics.

The African

bishops had

already decided such baptisms to be invalid

which

was disapproved of by Stephen bishop of

Home, and he wrote letters expressing such disap-

decision

probation. Cyprian however convened another coune

Quod humilis in primo adventu suo veniret.
f
Mortalis factus est, ut im-

mortaies esse possemus, et husortis exitum pertulit per

quern reguntur humana.

manse

NOVATIANUS,

A. D. 257.

365

which was attended by 258 bishops, and they

confirmed the decision of the former council.
What I have said of Cyprian constantly adding

cil

name

the

may

God

of

to the other titles of Jesus Christ,

be applied also to some of the bishops assembled

and, as in the former instance, I

at this council;

merely give their own expressions, without

shall

making any comment upon them.

Fortunatus of Tuchaboris

said,

" Jesus Christ, our

" Lord and God, Son of God the Father and Creator,
" built his church upon a rock s."
Euchratius of Thense said, " Jesus Christ our God
" and Lord completed our faith and the grace of

" baptism

11

."

Venantius of Timisa said, " Christ our Lord and

" God, when he was going to his Father, commended
" his spouse to us ."
i

No vat Ian.
There

is

A. D. 257.

a treatise upon the Trinity ascribed to

Novatian, which

is

generally printed at the end of

the works of Tertullian

and though the name of

the author has sometimes been a subject of dispute,

little

doubt has been entertained as to

its

being a

composition of the third century.

Novatian

is

principally distinguished as a heretic,

and the leader of a heresy, which was called after

his name; but we must remember, that his opinions,
s

Jesus Christus

Deus

atoris Filius super

ficavit
h

Dominus

et

noster Dei Patris et Cre-

petram

ecclesiam suam,

Fidem nostram

p.

ssdi-

332.

et baptis-

matis gratiam et legis ecclesiasticae

regulam Deus

et

Dominus

noster Jesus

Christus suo ore

perimplevit, p. 333.
Christus Dominus et Deus
noster ad Patrem proficiscens
1

sponsam suam nobis commendavit, p.

335.

NOVATIANUS,

366

A.D. 257.

which were considered and condemned as heterodox,

related only to the discipline and practice of the
church, and not to her articles of faith.
This is
expressly said by Sozomen k and Socrates tells us,
;

that the Novatians believed in the consubstantiality

of the Father and the Son

Acesius, a Novatian

l
.

bishop, subscribed the Nicene Creed m

nocent at the beginning of the

fifth

Pope In-

century bore

testimony, that, with respect to the divine power of

the Trinity, the Novatians always maintained the

n

orthodox faith

and

this

testimony

is

more deserv-

ing of credit, because Pope Innocent persecuted this

and the church of

sect,

Rome had

a particular rea-

son for speaking of Novatian with reproach

for he

openly opposed the election of one of her bishops,

k

VI. 24,
I.

II.

38.

10. Soz. I. 22. It should

be mentioned however, that

Tillemont agreed with Spanheim in thinking, that though
Novatian believed in a Trinity
of persons and in the divinity
of Christ, he spoke in a dangerous manner of the Holy Ghost.
Bishop Bull considered his tenets to be orthodox. Epiphanius may be quoted as supporting the orthodoxy of the Novatians concerning the Trinity,
when he says of the Donatists,
that they agreed with the Novatians in their severe doctrines,
but erred much more grievously,

since they professed the faith

The Novatians there-

of Arius.

fore, in the

nius,

opinion of EpiphaEpiph.

were not Arians.

Haer. LIX. vol. I. p. 504-5.

Lactantius certainly mentions
the Novatians as heretics, who

were not to be called Christians.

But I cannot help suspecting
his text to be corrupt.
He
speaks of " Phryges, aut Nova" tiani, aut Valentiniani, aut
" Marcionitee." Instit. IV. c.
ult.
but he would hardly have
placed them in this order, since
Valentinus and Marcion preceded Novatian by so many
Epiphanius speaks of
years.
Novatus, as a Sabellian
Haer.
LXV. 1. vol. I. p. 608. He
seems to intend the same at
Hasr. LXXII. 1. p. 834: but
the authority of this writer requires corroboration and it will
be shewn presently, that Novatus was not the same person
with Novatian. Petavius thinks
that the name of Novatus is an
interpolation in this passage of
Epiphanius.
Ep. 22. ad Episc. Macedon, c. 5.
;

11

NOVATIANUS,

A. D. 257.

367

and even caused himself to be elected as a rival. In

his whole conduct throughout this transaction he
was highly reprehensible. He had adopted the notion, and had persuaded some others to agree with
him in thinking, that persons, who had committed
any great crime, and particularly those who had
fallen

away

in the time of persecution, (for Decius

was then persecuting the Christians,) were not only

to be excommunicated, but were never to be reThese
stored to the communion of the church.
severe and rigorous doctrines were opposed by a
great majority of the Roman clergy, and particularly by Cornelius, who in the year 250 was chosen
Novatian
to succeed Fabianus as bishop of Rome.
used all his influence to oppose this election and in
the following year he was excommunicated from the
church by a council, which Cornelius convened at
Rome. This exasperated him so far, that he caused
;

himself to be elected bishop in opposition to Cornelius

and though

his followers

were few,

his doc-

trine so far prevailed, that the sect of the Novatians

continued

till

the

century.

fifth

Socrates says, that

he suffered martyrdom in the persecution of Valerian

Some

writers have asserted, that his

work upon

the Trinity was composed before his quarrel with

Cornelius

but Lardner thinks, that the earliest pos-

257 and Baronius brought it down as

late as 270.
There have been disputes whether the
name of this writer was Novatus or Novatian but
it appears certain that they were two distinct persons.
Novatus was an African bishop, who came to
sible date is

IV. 28.

NOVATIANUS, A.D.

368

Rome and

257.

The 49th

joined himself to Novatian.

Epistle of Cyprian, which mentions the

may
From what

names of

be considered as decisive on this question

both,

has been said,

may

it

p.

be assumed, that

Novatian's opinions concerning the divinity of Christ

were perfectly sound, and

his

own

in accordance with those

events we may borrow

"
words, and say,
It will be allowed me to

of his contemporaries.

At

all

" seek for arguments from other heretics.

<c

a safe kind of proof, which

" adversary, that Truth

" enemies of truth

On

may

is

may

is

taken even from an

be proved from the very

V
concerning

this principle Novatian's treatise

the Trinity

That

be read, as containing a statement

of what was the belief in those days concerning the

divinity of Christ.
title

It

might be expected from the

of the work, that the unity of the Father and

the Son would be maintained; and so precise and

unquestionable are the terms in which Novatian lays

down

the doctrine of the divinity of the Son, that

We

extracts.
treatise

may

pass over the

which concerns the

ther; but the second part of

first

belief in
it

it

with copious

will be necessary to present the reader

part of the

God

the Fa-

begins thus.

Novatiani de Trinitate c. 9. p. 711.

u The same rule of truth teaches us to believe,
" after the Father, also in the Son of God, Christ
289.

p See
Petavius, Annot. in
Epiphan. Hser. LIX. vol. II.
p. 226. Beveridge in Can. p. 69.
Lardner in Novat. Jackson in
bis edition of Novatian.
We
may say generally that Novatus
and Novatian were confounded
by the Greek Fathers, while
Latin writers made the proper

between them.

distinction
^

Hoc

in

argumenta
haereticorum

Firmum

loco

etiam
parte

mihi
aliorum

licebit

ex

conquirere.

genus probationis,
quod etiam ab adversario sumitur, ut Veritas etiam ab ipsis
inimicis

est

veritatis

18. p. 718.

probetnr,

c.

NOVATIANUS,

A.D.

369

257.

who is the Lord our God, but the Son of

" God, of that God, who is one and alone, the Cre" ator of all things r ."
" Jesus,

Novatiani de Trinitate c. 11. p. 713.

290.
Having stated the incarnation of Christ, he says,
" But lest from our assertion of our Lord Jesus
" Christ, the Son of God the Creator, having ap" peared in the substance of a real body, we might
" seem to have yielded, or to have furnished any
" arguments to other heretics, who in this place only
" maintain the human nature, and therefore desire
" to prove that he was simply and merely a man, we
" do not so speak of the substance of his body, as to

" say that he was merely a man but that the di" vinity of the Word being joined in very union, we
:

" hold that he

is

also

God

according to the scrip-

" tures.

"

"
"

"
"

For it is great peril to say of the Saviour

of mankind, the Lord and Sovereign of the whole
world, to whom all things were delivered, and all
things conceded, by his Father, by whom the universe was ordained, the whole was created, all
things were arranged, the King of all ages and

" times, the Sovereign of all angels, before whom

" there is nothing except the Father, it is great
" peril to say, that he is merely a man, and to deny
" him divine authority in these things.
For this
" insulting language of the heretics will affect even
" God the Father himself, if God the Father
" could
r

Eadem

not

generate

regula veritatis donos credere post Patrem

etiam in Filium Dei Christum
Jesum Dominum Deum nostrum, sed Dei Filium, hujus
Dei, qui et unus et solus est,
cet

Son

who was God

Conditor
nium.

scilicet

rerum

\"

om-

s
Verum ne ex hoc quod Domilium nostrum Jesum Christum Dei Creatoris Filium in

substantia veri corporis exhibi-

B b

NOV ATI ANUS,

370

The remainder

A.D.

257.

of this same chapter

is

equally ex-

press.

Novatiani de Trinitate

291.

c.

12. p. 713.

In the 12th chapter he brings several texts to

prove the divinity of Christ, some of which

we

should perhaps not interpret in the same manner,

though many of the Fathers considered them as

applicable to Christ.
says; " If

God

He

says, that

quotes Hosea

i.

7.

and

he will save them by God,

but he saves them by nothing but in Christ, why

" should man hesitate to call Christ God, whom he
66

" sees by the scripture is named as God by the Fa" ther 1 ?" Isaiah vii. 14. and Matt, xxviii. 20. after

which he

says, "

God

therefore

is

with

us,

nay much

" rather is in us Christ is with us he therefore is

" the person, whose name is God with us, (Em" manuel,) because he is with us u ." Isaiah xxxv.
:

36. Habak.
turn

asserimus,

iii.

aliis

3.
hsereticis

omnium

Principem, ante quern

Patrem, hominem

hoc in loco hominem tantum

et solum defendentibus, atque

nihil praeter

ideo hominem ilium nudum et

solitarium probare cupientibus,
aut manus dedisse, aut loquendi

tatem

materiam
mur, non

commodasse

videa-

de substantia corporis ipsius exprimimus, ut sosic

lum tantum hominem ilium

esse

dicamus sed ut divinitate Sermonis in ipsa concretione permixta etiam Deum ilium secundum scripturas esse teneamus.
Est enim periculum grande Salvatorem generis humani, totius
Dominum et principem mundi,
;

a suo Patre omnia tradita

sunt, et cuncta coneessa, per
quern instituta sunt universa,
creata sunt tota, digesta sunt
cuncta, sevorum
omnium et

cui

temporum Regem, angelorum

tantummodo

dicere, et auctori-

divinam in his abnegare.

Haec enim contumelia
hsereticorum ad ipsum quoque
illi

Deum Patrem

redundabit,

si

Deus Pater Filium Deum generare non potuit.

Si Deus salvare se dicit in
Deo, non autem salvat nisi in
cur ergo homo
Christo Deus
t

dubitet Christum

quern
vertit

Deum

dicere,

Deum

a Patre animadpositum per scripturas

esse?
u

Est ergo nobiscum Deus,

magis etiam in no-

immo multo
bis est.

Nobiscum est Christus

nomen est, No;

est ergo cujus

biscum Deus, quia et nobiscum

est.

NOVATIANUS, A.D.
Novatiani de Trinitate

292.

371

257.
c.

13. p. 714.

Who therefore can doubt, when in the last place

" (John i. 14.) it is said, The Word was made flesh
" and dwelt among us, to say without hesitation,
" that Christ, whose birth it was, was both man, be"

" cause he was made flesh, and God, because he

" was the Word of God f Particularly when he ob" serves the evangelical scriptures, that both these

" substances united into one agreement for the birth

" of Christ x ."

There is only need to mention some of the texts

which he quotes, John Hi. 13. xvii. 5. after which he
observes, "

"

God

to

But

know

if,

when

it

belongs to no one but to

the secrets of the heart, Christ per-

" ceives the secrets of the heart

but if, when it
" belongs to no one but to God to forgive sins, the
" same Christ forgives sins
but if, when it be;

" longs to no man to come down from heaven, he

" descended by coming down from heaven but if,
;

"
"

when these can be the words

I and the Father are one,

of no

human

person,

Christ alone uttered

" these words from a consciousness of divinity but

" if, lastly, the apostle Thomas, furnished with all
;

" the proofs and circumstances of Christ's divinity,

" answered to Christ,
Lord and my God; but if

My

" the apostle Paul writes in his Epistles

Whose
" are the fathers, and of whom is Christ accord" ing to the flesh, who is over all God blessed for

" ever ; but

if

the same Paul says, that he was

x Quis igitur dubitet, cum in

extrema parte dicitur, Verbum

caro

factum

est

et

habitavit in

Christum, cujus est nativitas, et quia caro factus est,

esse hominem, et quia Verbum

nobis,

Dei,

Deum

esse?

an

incunctanter edicere

prsesertim

cum animad-

vertat scripturam

evangelicam,

utramque istam substantiam

unam

nativitatis

rasse concord iam

B'b 2

in

Christi fcede?

NOVATIANUS,

372

A. D. 257.

" apostle, not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus

" Christ; but if the same Paul contend that he
" learned the gospel not of men, nor by man, but
" by Jesus Christ,

it

follows, that Christ is

Novatiani de Trinitate

293.

c.

God z."

16. p. 717-

Having quoted Col. ii. 15. where he seems to

have read like other Fathers and some MSS. 7rhe says, that Christ put on

K^vo-a[Xvo$ rrjv vapKOL,

flesh

when he was born, and put it off when he died.

" But Christ would neither have put off nor put on
" man, if he had been merely a man. For no one
" is ever either divested of himself, or clothed with
" himself
It was therefore the Word of God who
" put off his flesh, and put it on again at his resur" rection but he put it off, since he had also put it
;

" on at his nativity.

It is therefore God in Christ,
" who is clothed, and he must also be divested

Quod

cum

sceeula

in

Dei, cordis nosse secreta,

Christus secreta conspicit cor-

quod

idem

quod si, cum nullius sit

Dei peccata dimittere, idem
Christus peccata dimittit; quod
si, cum nullius sit hominis de

per Jesum Christum, constitutum esse depromit; quod si

idem evangelium non se ab hominibus didicisse, aut per hominem, sed per Jesum Christum
accepisse contendit, merito Deus

si,

nullius

sit

nisi

dis

nisi

coelo venire, de coelo veniendo

descendit

quod

si,

cum

nullius

hominis haec vox esse possit,

Ego et Pater unum sumus, hanc
vocem de conscientia divinitatis
Christus solus edicit

postremo,
Christi

omnibus

quod

si

divinitatis

probationibus et rebus
Thomas
apostolus

instructus

Dominus,
quod
tneus et Deus mens dicit
si et apostolus Paulus, Quorum,
respondens

Christo,

inquit, Patres et ex quibus Chri-

stus

secundum carnem, qui

super omnia

Deus

est

henedictus in

si

suis

Uteris

scribit

se apostolum

non ab

hominibus, out per hominem, sed

est Christus.
z
Nos enim Sermonem Dei
scimus indutum carnis substan-

tially eundemquerursum exutum

eadem corporis materia, quam

rursus in resurrectione suscepit,

indumentum resumpsit.
Sed enim neque exutus neque

et quasi

hominem Christus fuhomo tantum fuisset.

Nemo enim unquam seipso aut
spoliatur, aut induitur.
Ex
indutus

isset,

si

quo merito Sermo Dei

fuit,

qui

NOVATIANUS,

A. D. 257.

Novatiani de Trinitate

294.

373

18. p. 718.

c.

In this chapter he uses the words quoted above

borrowing an argument from

and adds, " For it is so very plain, that it
is delivered to us in the scriptures that he is God,
that many heretics, moved by the greatness and
reality of his divinity, have extended his honours
beyond bounds, and dared to declare or to think,
that he is not the Son, but God the Father him-

to justify himself for

heretics,

"

"

"
"
"

" self.
Which although it be contrary to the truth
" of scripture, is yet a great and leading argument
" for the divinity of Christ
who is so decidedly
" God, but as being the Son of God, born of God,
;

" that many heretics, as we said, have so received

" him as God, that they thought he should be de" clared to be not the Son but the Father. Let
" them therefore consider whether he is God or no,
" whose authority has moved some persons to con" fess divinity in Christ in such a much more unli-

" mited and unrestrained manner, that they thought

" him, as we said above, to be actually God the
" Father

"

them

the

manifest divinity of Christ

to such a point, that the person,

" read of as Son, because they observed

" God, they thought to be the Father.

driving

whom

they

him

to be

Other here-

"

tics also have been so persuaded of the manifest

" divinity of Christ, that they said he was without
" flesh, and took away from him all the human
66

nature which he had assumed,

" destroy the power of the divine

" they joined the

human

exutus est carnem, et in resurrectione rursus indutus.

Exutus

autem, quoniam et in nativitate

name

nativity to

it

fuerat indutus

Deus

est

in

him,

if

which how-

itaque in Christo

qui

etiam exutus

b b 3

they should

lest

sit

induitur,

oportet.

atque

NOVATIANUS, A.D.

374

257.

" ever we do not approve of, but we use the argu" ment, that Christ is so decidedly God, that some
" persons have denied him the human nature, and
" thought him only to be God and some have be;

" lieved him to be God the Father himself, when

" the argument and tenor of the heavenly scrip<c

tures point out Christ as God, but as being the

" Son of God and teach us to believe, that he is
" also man, the Son of man having been assumed
;

* by

God a ."
Novatiani de Trinitate

295.

After quoting J ohn

I am from
of

viii.

c.

23. p. 721.

Ye are from beneath,

23.

above

this world,

ye are of this world,

:
he says b , " If every man

I am
is

not

of this

a
Nam usque adeo hunc manifestum est in scripturis esse

usque adeo Christi manifestam

Deum

tradi, ut plerique haereti-

amplexati sunt divinitatem, ut

corum

divinitatis ipsius

magnicommoti, ultra

dixerint ilium fuisse sine carne,

tudineet veritate
modum extendentes

honores
ejus, ausissent non Filium, sed

ipsum
vel

Deum Patrem
Quod

putare.

promere

etsi

scripturarum veritatem

contra
est, ta-

men divinitatis Christi argumentum grande atque prsecipuum est qui usque adeo Deus,
;

sed qua Filius Dei natus ex Deo,

ut plerique ilium, ut diximus,
hseretici

ita

Deum

acceperint,

ut non Filium sed Patrem pro-

nuntiandum putarent.

ment ergo an

iEsti-

hie sit Deus, cu-

auctoritas tantum
movit
quosdam, ut putarent ilium, ut
diximus superius, jam ipsum
Patrem Deum, effrenatius et

jus

effusius

in Christo divinitatem

confiteri

ad

hoc

illos

mani-

festa Christi divinitate cogente,

ut

quem Filium

Deum

legerent, quia
animadverterent, Patrem

putarent.

et

totum

Alii

illi

quoque

hseretici

susceptum detra-

xerint

hominem, ne decoque-

rent in

illo divini

statem,

si

nominis pote-

humanam

illi

socias-

sent, ut arbitrabantur, nativita-

Quod tamen nos non probamus, sed argumentum afferimus usque adeo Christum esse
Deum, ut quidam ilium subtracto
tem.

homine tantummodo putarint

Deum quidam autem ipsum
crediderint Patrem Deum, quum
ratio et temperamentum scri;

pturarum ccelestium Christum

ostendant Deum, sed qua Filium
Dei, et assumpto a Deo etiam
Filio hominis credendum et ho-

minem.
b

omnis homo
hoc
mundo est Christus, an homo
tantummodo est ? Absit. Sed
considera quod ait, Ego non
sum de hoc mundo. Numquid
Ideo autem

ex hoc

si

mundo est,

et ideo in

:;

NOVATIANUS,

" world, and therefore Christ

" he therefore a mere man ?
ergo
sit

sit, si

Aut

cum ex hoc
homo tantummodo

mentitur,

mundo

non mentitur, non

si

Non

hoc mundo.

est ex

ergo
quia ex

homo tantummodo est,

hoc mundo non est. Sed ne
lateret quis esset, expressit

unde

By

cum

enim

in coelo factus est.

non
Deus

de sursum est, et
hoc mundo non est

est ergo qui

idcirco de

quamquam etiam quodammodo

ex hoc mundo est, unde non
Deus tantum est Christus, sed
et homo.
Ut merito quomodo
non est ex hoc mundo secundum
Verbi divinitatem,

mundo

ex hoc

ita

secundum suscepti

sit

corporis fragilitatem,

homo

est

enim cum Deo junctus, et Deus

cum homine copulatus. Sed
idcirco nunc hie Christus in

unam partem

solius divinitatis

quoniam

incubuit,

caecitas

Ju-

daica solam in Christo partem

carnis aspexit, et inde in prsesenti loco silentio prseterita cor-

mundo

poris fragilitate quae de

processit ex
cessit

ham

illi

verant, ut

hominem

tummodo

crederent, in

illos

inclina-

ilium tan-

tantum

Christus posset ad divini-

tatem suam considerandam

here, ut

volens
circa

se

Deum

illorum
divinitatem

tra-

crederent

incredulitatem

suam omissa

interim commemoratione sortis

humanse

solius divinitatis

sitione superare.

tummodo
dicit,

Ego

Si

Christus,

ex

oppo-

homo

tan-

quomodo

Deo prodii,

qui pro-

Si

homo tan-

Christus,

quomodo

Deo.

fuit

ham

fuit

non

aut

etiam Deus

est,

dum

quod

fallit,

si

ante Abrafuisset,

nisi

cum ex Abraham
fuisset, ante Abraham esse non
Si homo tantummodo
posset.
Christus, quomodo ait, Et ego
agnoscam eas, et sequuntur me
consequenter

mece, et ego vitam

aternam do

nunquam peribunt in perpetuum ? Sed enim cum omnis

Mis, et

tuum

ut in

qui pro

est,

Christus, cum ex Abraham sit,

ante Abraham esse se dicit. Aut
mentitur igitur et fallit, si ante
Abraham non fuit, qui ex Abra-

quantum

dum

Ante Abraham ego sum ?

Nemo enim hominum ante eum
potest esse, ex quo ipse est, nec
potest fieri ut quicquam prius
fuerit ante ilium ex quo ipsam
Sed enim
originem sumpsit.

homo

est

Deo,

Sermo Deus

tummodo

de sua sola divinitate locutus est, quae de mundo non

est,

Deo

inquit,

non ex Deo processisse

ex Deo autem homo
quomodo non processit, sic Dei
Verbum processit Deus ergo
esse,

homo

non potest

hominem

is

But

no means.

constet

factum

cessit ex

venire

this world,

in

is

Ego, inquit, de sursum

esset
sum, hoc est, de ccelo, unde
:

375

A. D. 257.

mortalitatis

alligatus, et

sit

idcirco in

legibus

perpe-

non possit, multo magis in perpetuum

alterum servare non poterit. At
in

se ipse servare

perpetuum se Christus re-

promittit

Quam

salutem

daturum.

non dat, mendax est

Sed non falsi dat, Deus est.
lit, dat enim quod repromittit.
Deus est ergo, qui salutem perpetuam porrigit, quam homo
qui seipsum servare non potest,
alteri praestare non poterit.
si

et veni,

B b4

NOVATIANUS,

376

A. D. 257.

" consider what he says, I am not of this world.

" Does he therefore speak falsely., because if he is
" merely a man, he is of this world ? Or if he does
" not speak falsely, he is not of this world.
He is
" therefore not merely a man, because he is not of
" this world.
But lest we might not know who he
" was, he has declared whence he was /, he says,
" am from above, i. e. from heaven, from whence a
;

"

man

" It

cannot come

God

is

" fore he
" Christ

is
is

he

is

for

who

he
is

not of this world

is

not

So that

made

in heaven.

from above, and there:

although in one sense

of this world, because he

" but also man.

66

therefore,

in the

not only God,

is

same manner that

not of this world, according to the divinity

" of the Word,

is of this world according to the

body which he assumed for he is
" man joined with God, and God coupled with man.
" But Christ in this passage dwelt upon the divine

<c

so he

frailness of the

" part only, because the Jewish blindness looked

" only to the fleshly part in Christ and therefore, at
" present passing over in silence the frailness of the
;

" body, which is of the world, he spoke of his divin" ity only, which is not of the world that in pro;

" portion to their inclination to believe him only a

" man, Christ might so far draw them to consider
" his divinity, that they might believe him to be

"

God

wishing to overcome their incredulity con-

cerning his divinity, by omitting for the present

" any mention of his human condition, and opposing
" to it only the divine.
If Christ be merely a man,
66

how does he say, I came forth from the Father,

and am come [into the world f~\ (John xvi. 28.)
" whereas it is evident that a man is made by God,
" and does not proceed from God but in the same

"

"

DIONYSIUS ALEXANDRINUS, A.D.

"

way that

"

Word

of

man
God

260.

877

does not proceed from God, so the

did proceed from

God

Him.

" therefore proceeded from God, since the Word

" which proceeded is God, which proceeded from
"

If Christ be merely a man, how does he

God
" say, Before Abraham was, I am ? for no human
" being can be before him, from whom he is de-

" scended

but Christ, though he was descended

" from Abraham, says, that he was before Abraham
:

(t

he therefore either speaks falsely and deceives, if

" he, who was descended from Abraham, was not
" before Abraham or he does not deceive, if he is
;

" also God, for then he

if

he were not,

it

was before Abraham

follows, that since

which
he was de:

" scended from Abraham, he could not be before

" Abraham.
If Christ were merely a man, how

" does he say,

And I

will

know them, and mine

"follow me, and I give them eternal life, and they

" shall never perish ? (John x. 27.)
But since
" every man is bound by the laws of mortality, and
" therefore cannot save himself for ever, he will be
" still less able to save another for ever. But Christ
" promises, that he will give salvation for ever
" which if he does not give, he is a liar if he does
:

" give

it,

he

is

God.

But he does not

" he gives what he promises

"

who

gives eternal salvation,

deceive, for

he

is therefore God,
which a man who

" cannot save himself cannot give to another."

Dionysius Alexandrinus. A. D. 260.

The

history

with the

He was

rise

of Dionysius

is

closely

connected

and progress of the Sabellian heresy.

born of a good family in Alexandria, and

was himself converted

to

Christianity from

hea-

DIONYSIUS ALEXANDRINUS, A.D.

378

He was

thenism.

260.

a pupil of Origen, and became

president of the catechetical School at Alexandria

Heraclas had preceded him in

which he vacated upon being elected
bishop of Alexandria: and after his death in 248
Dionysius was also appointed to succeed him in the

about the year 232.

this

office,

The

bishopric.

persecutions of Decius and Valerian,

as well as the troubles concerning the Novatian

and

Sabellian heresies, happened while he occupied the

The

see.

first

persecution began about the year

249, and Dionysius was obliged to retire from the

city,

The

but returned in 251.

Valerian persecu-

which began in 257, fell upon him more openly,

and he was banished to Cephron in Libya. After
tion,

passing three or four years in exile, he returned to

when the storm had nearly exand passed away.

In the mean time he had not been inactive or
free from the duties of his office.
About the year
his bishopric in 261,

hausted

itself

255, (though some persons place

began to spread

He

Sabellius

it earlier,)

his opinions concerning the Trinity

c
.

held that there was only one Person in the God-

head, and that the Son and the Holy Ghost were

only energies, or unsubstantial emanations of the

Father.

This heresy began

city of Cyrenaica.

vouring to check

Dionysius
it

but

in

first

lost

when

Ptolemais, a

no time

in endea-

his remonstrances

were of no avail, he wrote a letter to Ammonius and

Euphranor, two neighbouring bishops, exposing the
error of the Sabellian tenets,

and urging

his col-

leagues to use every exertion in suppressing them.

He
c

also sent
In

what

an account of the heresy, and of the

follows,

principally depended

have

upon Atha-

nasius, de Sent. Dionys. vol.

p.

243, &c.

I.

DIONYSIUS ALEXANDRINUS,
steps

379

which he himself had taken, together with

copies of his letters, to Xystus,

of

A. D. 260.

Rome

who was then

bishop

d
.

In his anxiety to confute the Sabellian notions,

which confounded the three Persons of the Trinity,

he seems to have used expressions which laid him
open to the charge of adopting what was afterwards
the Arian heresy, and dividing the substance of the
He was also accused of speaking of
three Persons.
the Son as a created being, which arose, as Athanasius informs us, from his having laid great stress
upon those passages in the scriptures which prove
the human nature of Christ and he did this, because the tendency of the Sabellian doctrines was to
confound the Father and the Son, and to deny a
:

Some of
and separate existence to the latter e
the African bishops conveyed these accusations to
the bishop of Rome, who was also called Dionysius,
his predecessor Xystus having died in the interval.

real

The

bishop of

Rome, having summoned

a council,

immediately wrote against the Sabellians, and also

to the bishop of Alexandria, requesting

him

plain his opinions concerning the Trinity.

work

did in a

to ex-

This he

in four books, entitled his Refutation

and Defence, which completely satisfied the minds of

Rome and his clergy. This work has
not come down to us, excepting a few fragments of
it, which Athanasius has preserved in a book written
the bishop of

d
e

Euseb. E. H. VII. 6.
fv a rcc ccvBpannvoc tgv kv1

plov Set|a?

on

Ttei'cru)

o iraryjp

e<rnv

pj

Xeyeiv eKelvovq,

o yevo^evot;

avQpu-

which are the words put

mouth of Dionysius by
Athanasius. . 12. p. 251. and

again,
tovtq
Safest
vibe,,

el

kou t; Aefe*$

(pytriv elpfjKevcci,

on

(ay)

to

o irar'qp

yevvjrov

et'^/ce,

npoq to
ecrnv,

itoivjrov

into the

yeyevrjaOcu,

kou

uXa

kou ktkttov kou

ev^vad^evoq oafta'

not;,

Sta

[/.ovov

8<o

nevotfo-dai,

iicrfodai Xeyerou 0 wioV. p.

256.

Kai
kcu

DIONYSIUS ALEXANDRINUS, A.D.

380

260.

by him for the express purpose of shewing that Dionysius was not an Arian

The next

f
.

controversy, which engaged the atten-

was caused by the heresy of Paul

of Samosata.
This person had been bishop of Antioch from the year 260, and he soon began to
spread his belief that Jesus Christ was a mere man.
Dionysius lost no time in attempting to repress this
heresy. He wrote a letter to Paul and at his instigation a council was held in the year 264.
Dionytion of Dionysius,

sius did not attend the council in person,

of his

ill

health and extreme age

letter to the bishops

the last act of his

assembled there

life

for in the

on account

but he wrote a
;

and

this

same year he

was

died.

Paul contrived to escape any public sentence that

time

but in a council held at Antioch, in the year

269, he was excommunicated and deposed

Beside the fragments already mentioned, parts of

other works of Dionysius are preserved, which fully

prove

how groundless were the assertions

who accused him of denying the

persons,

stantiality of the

of those

consub-

Father and the Son, and in other

respects of not acknowledging the full divinity of

Christ.

Both

in

and modern times

ancient

charge has been brought against him.

this

Athanasius

and others refuted the objections of those days.

Bishop Bull as completely disproved the assertion
of Sandius, which Huetius had incautiously made
before him, that Dionysius believed the So?i of God
Notwithstanding
to be a creature made by God.
11

'

See also de Decret. Syn. Nic.

vol.

25. vol. I. p. 230. and de Synodis, . 43. p. 757.

Theodoret. User. Fab. II. 8.

IV. p. 222.
Def. Fid. Nic. II. 11. 2. &c.
Origenian. 1. II. c. 2. Quaest.

2. . 10,

25.

DIONYSIUS ALEXANDRINUS,

A.D.260.

381

the unanswerable arguments which bishop Bull ad-

vanced from the very words of Dionysius, we find

k
and

the same assertions repeated by later writers

Mr. Lindsey

were an acknowledged

tells us, as if it

Dionysius " hesitated not to call Christ a

" creature, made, and the like 1 ."

fact, that

Whether

these statements are true or no, the fol-

lowing quotations

may

perhaps serve to shew

and

we may

at least say to the Unitarians, as Athanasius

did to the Arians, " If the patrons of this heresy
" think that Dionysius agreed with them, let them

" also acknowledge the term consubstantial which

" he used in his defence, and that the Son is of the
s(

substance of the Father, and also his eternity m ."

296.

Dionysii de Martyrio

Having occasion

c. 7. p.

words which our

I will, but as

to notice the

Not

Saviour spoke in his agony,

33, 34.

as

thou wilt, (Matt. xxvi. 39.) Dionysius observes, that

Jesus spoke of his

own

will as different

human nature which

knew His perfect

his Father, in reference to the

he assumed.
" will

from that of

" He, the beloved,

and he often says that he came to do that,

" not his own will, i. e. the will of men for he ap" propriates the person of men, as being made man
" wherefore at that time he even asked not to do
;

" his own will, which was inferior but he asks that
" the will of his Father, which was greater, the di" vine will, might be done
which however with
;

" respect to the divine nature

" and the Father's n ."
k

Beausobre has the boldness

Dionysius, and Novatian, that they
have been more than suspected
of Arianism. Hist, de Manichee,
to assert of Justin Martyr,

is

one

will, his

own

115: but his work

of paradoxes.
1
Apology, p. 204.
m P. 260.

vol. I. p.

is

full

To

ovv 8\'/j[/.a

avrov to re-

DIONYSIUS ALEXANDRINUS,

382

Dionysii de Martyrio

297.

A. D. 260.

c. 9. p.

39, 40.

was the opinion of Dionysius, that when

It

Luke

St.

described our Saviour as sweating drops of

mean

blood, he did not

that

was

it

literally blood,

but that the drops were as thick and copious as

drops of blood 0 and he makes this remark: " The
;

" Saviour shewed, by his constant praying and by

" his great agony, as well as by the thickness of the

" sweat, that he was a man naturally and really, not
" in appearance and illusively, and that he was sub" ject to the natural and unequivocal sufferings of

" man.
Xeiov ai/Toq

By
o

the words,

ayctKYftb q

\nio-TaT0' kou

tovto iXvjXvOivat ivoXXaKiq

av&panaV

oiKeiovrat

avQpS-rtcov,

SjoVep

itoi-

(pYjo-)

to avTov, tovt<tti to tuv

rjcrav, ov

tuv

kou

yap to

itpotTatcov

aq yevofAtvoq avOpunoq'
to

to'tc

eXaTTov izapatTeiTai
to tov itaTpoq to
Oe'tKov 6eXrjjj,a'

eavTov to

y.ev

aWei

TtoieTv'

[/.etfyv

he

yevecrQai to

oitep TtaXiv

KaTa

tv)V

OeoTrjTa ev QeXfj^d ecrTi to ai/Tov kou

UaTpoq.
0

The words

lyLveTo Se

of St.

Luke

are,

Ihpaq avTov acre) Qpojxfioi

afyaToq, (xxii. 44.) which will certainly bear the interpretation of

Justin Martyr may

Dionysius.
have held the same opinion,
who omits the mention of blood,

and

says, fbpuq ua-ei

6p6fA(3oi

ko,t-

have potver

lay

to

down

and we may recollect the words

of Sophocles, aXX* opov peXaq
Op[3poq yaXaC^q afyaToq ireyyeTO,
CEd. T. 1279, which seems also
to have been a proverbial phrase,
and is illustrated by Pind. Isthm.
V. 64. and VII. 39. In the
Benedictine edition of Greg.
Naz. Orat. XXX. 16. p. 551.
the Latin translation has
de agonia, et sanguineo sudore,
atque oratione
but the Greek

'

IS

KCii

ayavlaq,

kou

6po[Aj3a>v,

which there

kou

no
mention of blood. Athanasius
however speaks of lOpOQTOOV Kai
in

wpoa-evfflq,

Opopfiov afyaToq, in

17. vol.
in

I.

p.

Psalm,

121.

Occursum

is

lxviii.

The Homily

Domini,

falsely

cum Tryph,

ascribed to Athanasius, mentions

103.) but Irenaeus might be

thought to have understood the
passage otherwise, since he says
that our Saviour thpcaae Opopfiovq

learn from Epiphap. 425.

nius, (Ancor. 31. vol.11, p. 36.)

e%fTo avTov. (Dial,

c.

al^aToq.

(III.

2 2,

2.

p.

9.)

Dionysius tells us, in which he

is followed by Photius and Theophylact, that al^aToq Upaariq,
oupaTct KXatet,

and

were expressions

applied proverbially to excessive

labour and excessive sorrow

merely OpopBovq

Ihp

utoov. ib.

II.

We

that the passage had been struck

out of some copies of St. Luke,

and the 43 d and 44th verses are

wanting

in

doret says,

some MSS.
v(pai[^ov

llpara tov a-co^aToq.

V.

Theo-

yeveorBai.

tov

Haer. Fab.

13. vol. IV. p. 284.

D10NYSIUS ALEXANDRINUS,

A. D.

383

"260.

" my life, and I have power to take it again, (John

" x. 18.) he shews that his suffering was voluntary,

and yet that the life which was laid down and
" taken again was one, and the divine nature which
" laid it down and took it again was another p."
"

Dionysii de Promissionihus

298.

c. 4. p.

77.

In quoting the beginning of the Apocalypse, Dio-

makes two remarkable variations from the

received text, which he would hardly have done, if
he had not considered it as indifferent, whether he
He says, " The
used the word God or Christ.
" Revelation of Jesus Christ, which he gave unto
u him to shew unto his servants shortly
and he
" sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant
" John who bare record of the word of God and of
" his testimony as to what he said." If we compare
the two passages together, we may observe other
nysius

variations; but I shall only notice, that instead of

Revelation of Jesus Christ, which

gave unto him, Dionysius omits the word

writing,

God

the

God, by which he

what

attributes to Jesus Christ

said in the received text to be

is

done by God: and

the word of God

Jesus
Christ, he reads,
of
his testimony, that is, the testimony of God. Thus in
one place he substitutes Jesus Christ for God, and in

who bare record of

instead

of,

and of

the testimony

another he substitutes

P 'EhyXov he apa
ttjs

Ka) hia

u<rirep

ivTerafAeyqq mpoa-evyj/ic, Ka)

noXXyq ayavlccc, ovra koi hia

Ihparoov

nayyTffCoc,,

wq

God for

rvjq

<pv<rei

TtaBe<ri'

to (Aevroi e^ovatav tyja Betvai

rrjq

rrjv

tpvynv [xov Ka) e%ov<rlav ey^a

rav

Xiv

Xa(3e7v

Kai

aXt\Baq, dXX' ovk enrihel^ei Kai (payracrla,

avBpumoq Te e^pvj/xaTicrev

2a>Tvjp,

Ka) ro7q

(pv<TiKo7q

Jesus Christ: which

rav av-

Qpairuv Ka) ahia^X'qroiq i-n'fipeTf\<TaTQ

avTyjv,

ev Tovtoiq

skovgiov ehat to itdBoq' Ka)

aXXr} y.ev

-q

^ivr, ypv^rj,

Xapfiavovva

nBe\Kevf\ Ka)

aXX-q

he

QeoT/jq.

vj

na-

hrjXo7

ert,

aq

Xa^ayo-

tiBeiaa koi

DIONYSIUS ALEXANDRINUS,

384

he never would have done,

if

A. D. 260.

he had thought that

such variations made any difference in the sense

but believing that the Father and the Son were one,
he thought that a Revelation given by God was given
by Jesus Christ, and that the testimony of Jesus

was the testimony of God.

Christ

Dionysii de Promissionibus

299-

c. 6. p.

81.

In this part of the work Dionysius points out the

which

close resemblance

between the Gospel

exists

of St. John and his First Epistle, both as to the doctrine

and expressions

common

and among other doctrines

to both, he mentions the ubiquity of the

Father and the Son. " The Father and the Son are
" every where
From these words it seems im-

possible to understand the ubiquity of the

Son in

any figurative or restricted sense, unless we conceive

the same of the ubiquity of the Father.

we

believe that the Father

is

But

since

really present every

where, we must conceive, that Dionysius meant to

assert the

The

same concerning the Son.

ubiquity of the Son

tian in the following terms

is

also asserted

by Nova-

4<

If Christ be merely a
" man, how is he present every where when invoked?
" For this is not the nature of man, but of God, to
:

" have the power of being present every where

300.

The

Dionysii ex Elencho et Apologia

r ."

p. 87.

following quotations are taken from the

work

mentioned above, which Dionysius wrote to his

namesake the bishop of Rome.
In the first book he expressed himself thus: " For
1

Hoc-trip

Koti

Tils

navva-

yfiv.
r

C. 14. Si
Christus,

modo

homo tantumquomodo adest

ubique invocatus, cum haec hominis natura non sit, sed Dei,
ut adesse omni loco possit ?
p.

707.

DIONYSIUS ALEXANDRINUS, A.D.

260.

385

" there never was a time when God was not a Fa" ther s ;" which is the same as saying, that there

never was a time when the Son did not exist

is

which

an assertion that denies in express terms the lead-

Other of the Fathers have

ing tenet of the Arians.

expressed the same doctrine in

nearly

the same

we have

Origen, as

already seen, (p. 345.)

"
There never was a time when the Son was
says,
" not a Son ;" and Novatian, " The Son was always
" in the Father, lest the Father should not always

words.

" be a Father

Father and son are relative terms

and the

exist-

ence of the one necessarily implies the existence of

the other.

and

filled

a father

Thus

man may have

various relations of

life,

lived

many

years,

before he became

but at the same instant of time in which

he was entitled to be called a

had existence and if we were

father, his son also

to say of

any man,

that he has been a father for twenty years,

it fol-

lows that at the commencement of that period his

we say that God has

we must necessarily
mean, that from all eternity He has had a Son. The
mind might perhaps conceive that God had existed
But

son was in existence.

been a Father from

from
ning

all eternity,
:

but then

does, that

and that His Son had had a begincould not have said, as Dionysius

we

God had been a Father from

The same sentiment

is

Ov yap
vid.

\v ore

Athanas.

eo$ ovk \v
vol. I.

p.

253.
*

C. 31.

tempus

est

Sed qui ante orane

semper in Patre fu-

all

eternity.

expressed in the two next

passages, which follow close

naTfip.

if

all eternity,

upon the former.

isse dicendus est.

Nec enim
tempus illi assignari potest, qui
ante tempus est. Semper enim
in Patre, ne Pater non semper
sit

Pater, p.

c c

29.

DIONYSIUS ALEX A N Dili NU S,

386

A. D. 260.

301. Dionysii ex Elench. et Apol. p. 87.

" For it is not, that God was without a Son, and
" then begat one, but the term

Son means

that he

" has his existence not of himself, but of the Fa" ther u "

302. Dionysii ex Elench. et Apol. p. 87.

" Being the effulgence of eternal light, it follows

" that he
" exists,

is

himself also eternal

it is

for if light

always

plain that the effulgence always exists.

" For the existence of light is conceived by its shin" ing; and light cannot exist without giving light
" for let us again come to examples.
If there is a
:

" sun, there is light, there is day if there be nei" ther of the latter, the sun cannot be present.
If
u therefore the sun was eternal, the day also would
:

" be without end

(s

"

but since

it

not

is

so, it

begins

when the sun begins, and ends when the sun ends.
But God is eternal light, neither ever beginning

" nor ending.

" from and

is

Therefore the effulgence proceeds

Him

with

eternally, without begin

" ning and eternally generated

This

is

x ."

the favourite illustration which the Fathers

used for explaining the union of the-Father and the

Son y and though it is better not to pry too deeply
:

into
u

oq

such subjects,

it

is

Ov yap hrj tovtocv ayovoq

eha inaihoizoivjcraTO' aXX'

oti

nap eavTov o vloq, aXX* <k tov

UaTpoq e%et to that. vid. Atha-

fjw)

nas. ib.
x 'Airavyas-pa
vavTuc, Ka) avThc,

vov,

aUvtov

i<TTt

avyaapa
Athanas.
?

2i.)

avap^ov

kou

aeiyeveq.

ib.

Thus

Tertullian, (Apol. C.

cum

radius ex sole porri-

summa, sed sol

quia solis est radius, nec separatur substantia,
Ita de Spiritu
sed extenditur.
gitur, portio ex

uv

cpcoToq aihtov

aCtioc,

io-riv ovroq

he

yap aii tov tyuTcq,

at) to amavyuc-pa.
0eo<;

perhaps the closest and

Ivfkov

cf>a<;,

ovre Kyj^ov 7tot'

TtpoKeiTai Kai crvvecrTiv

ooq

ovre

%<rttv

ye
ap^d^eo

ovkovv aluvtov

avTa

to ait-

erit in radio,

et de Deo Deus, ut
de lumine accensum.
See Hippolytus, p. 270. and
Origen, p. 344*
Spiritus,

lumen

DIONYSIUS ALEXANDRINUS,

A. D. 260.

387

which can be found. It is in

same which is used in the Epistle to the Hebrews, where the Son is called airavyaa^a t% lolw,
plainest illustration

fact the

the brightness or effulgence of his Father's glory

and

if it

be true, as it surely

not conceive the idea of

emanates from

and

sible

it,

fire

is,

that the

mind can-

without the light which

we have found among

then

two things which are

visible objects

though one proceeds from the other.

We

sen-

coeval,

can never

but

why in the nature of things fire produces light

we know, that it cannot exist without producing

it

for the fire does not exist first

tell

the light emanates from

neously, though the one

it

is

by

itself,

and then

but both exist simultathe cause of the other

z
.

So also though we cannot tell in what manner the

Son was generated of the Father, we cannot say, that

mind

the

ence

refuses the idea of. their coeternal exist-

and when we read the passage quoted above,

we must

surely allow, that Dionysius held in the

and highest sense of the terms the eternal generation of the Son, and his eternal coexistence with

fullest

the Father.

Dionysii ex Elench. et Apol. p. 88, 89.

303.
" The Father therefore being eternal, the Son
" eternal, being light of light
" parent, there is also a child

is

where there is a
and if there be no
" child, in what way and of what can he be a pa" rent ? But both exist, and exist eternally.
God
" therefore being light, Christ is the effulgence from
for

Tiq yap Uvarai. ko,v 'hoylaav-

Bai
.

eTj/a*
.

r{hiov

v)

ti<s

TroTe to

amavyatrfjuz

iKavoq fceXeiv

to aTcavyxo-iAot.

ana rov

Athanas. de

Decret. Syn. Nic. 12. vol.

I.

p.

2 1 8. He acknowledges that all

such similes are but weak and
imperfect.
See also .23. of
same treatise, p. 228. and . 24.
p. 229.

C C CA

DIONYSIUS ALEXANDRINUS,

388

We

\"

may

A.

260.

I).

same word is used

here to express the eternity of the Father and the
Son and in the same sentence we cannot take the
same term in two different senses. Whatever Dio6i

it

observe, that the

nysius conceived of the eternity of the Father, he

must

have conceived of the eternity of the Son.

Dionysii ex Elench. et Apol. p. 89.
304.

"
6i

"

also

The Son

and
is

alone always existing with the Father,

with him that

filled

essentially, being of the

Father

c ."

Dionysii ex Elench. et Apol.

305.

Having appealed
he adopted
66

essentially 15 , himself also

is

In which

in his

book against

p. 90.

argument which

to the line of

Sabellius, he says,

have proved that the accusation, which

" they bring against me is false, of saying that Christ

" was not of one substance with God ."
f!

This testimony of Dionysius

particularly valu-

is

word 6[xoov<rio$, of one

substance, which caused such vehement disputes at
and after the council of Nice. It is also to be found
in another work of Dionysius, in the letter which he
wrote against Paul of Samosata, where he says of
Christ, that " He was by nature Lord and the Word
" of the Father, by whom the Father made all things,
" and said by the holy Fathers to be of one substance
able, because it contains the

" with the Father 0 :" from which words

a

"Ovroq ovv aluvlov rov Uarplq,

ouwvioq
ovroq

o vloq

ydp yoveuq,
reKVov

be

tvvarvou

Kal

eari,

e'lrj,

yovevq

elcriv

dei'-

ovroq rov @eov,

yao-poc.
b See
c

<j>Zq e/c

'eari

(paroq &v'

kou reKVOv'

el

e/c

n'A^pov[A,evoq,

rov Tlarpoq.

'

ev 6J $

yjXeyga kou % 1tp0~

<pepovG~iv

ey/cA^a. kovt

a>A' elaiv afMpcc,

ov, &>q ov

Xeyovroq rov Xpiarov ojAOov-

(pcoroq

o ~Kpio~T-cq

rov ovroq

kou avroq eo~riv av

col-

icaq kou rlvoq elvai

y.ev

ovv

eariv dnotv-

Athanas. p. 254.
note p. 80.

Movoq he

Uarpi, kou

we may

vloq

de)

avvwv ra

criov

255.

elvou

et

e/^ov

^evboq

rS ea. Athanas. p.
de Decret. Syn. Nic.

25. vol.
e
Tov

I. p.

Ilarpoq,

Sx'

230.

(pvarei Kvpiov, kcci

ov

ra.

TC&vra

Aoyov rov
eTtotycrev

DIONYSIUS ALEXANDRINUS, A.D.

lect,

389

260.

that this was not a term then used for the

first

time by Dionysius, but that earlier writers had used

before

it

him

and the very

fact of his being accused

of not using the word shews that

upon

writers

this

was one, which

mysterious question were in the
it

habit of using.

From

the time of the council of Nice to the pre-

sent day,

it

has often been asserted that the term

was invented, or
have imagined

We

whom

of

might

be unfounded from
and Athanasius
both

this assertion to

the testimony of Eusebius

new

by

at least first applied to the Son,

the Fathers assembled at that council.

tell us,

that the Fathers did not invent a

term, but that writers of note at different times

had already used it and this testimony of Eusebius

of more importance, because it appears from the
:

is

letter already referred to in the note, that his

own

opinion was rather against having the term con substantial inserted in the Creed

but he says, "

I find

" that learned and distinguished bishops, and writers

" in former times, made use of the term consubstan" tial with reference to the divinity of the Father
" and the Son
Athanasius expressly names Dio-

nysius as having applied the term to Christ

fortunately the letter of Dionysius

is

and

preserved to

confirm this assertion.

Rufinus also

tells

us

*,

that Origen used the term

and Pamphilus has preserved a passage containing

UaTrjp, Kai opoovaiov ra Harp) dpyfjiivov

vtto

twv dyiccv naTepuv. COu-

SamOS.

tra Paul.
f

Apud

Socrat.

H.

vol.

De
I.

E.

I. 8. p.

40.
Decret. Syn. Nic. 25.

p.

230.

I 2.

Ep.

11

Tav

nahtxizov rivaq

Mylovq Kal

eitupaveiq iniTKoiiovq koi avyypacpeai;

p. 214.

25. et Theodoret. I.

EpisC. 6. p. 896, et 9. p. 898.

p.

ad Afric.

eyvupev [al. tvpopev] inl

irarpoq kou vlov Qtohoylaq

tw

tov
rov

o wo(

ova- lav
'

%pYj<ra^yov<;

De Adult.
c c 3

ovo^an.

Lib. Orig.

init.

DION YSIUS ALEX ANDRINUS, A. D.

390

which I have already quoted at

have reserved these remarks for this

it,

p.

260.

346. but I

place, because

whose original works

remain containing the actual Greek word o^oovaiog,
expressly applied to the Son.
It also occurs more
than once in the creed or exposition of faith drawn
up by the council of Antioch in the year 269, which
Dionysius

is

the

is

writer,

first

given at N. 327.

The word

opoovatog

was

in frequent use in the time

of Irenaeus, though he does not any where expressly

apply

it

to the relationship

between the Son and the

The Gnostic heretics also made use of the

when speaking of the emission of their imaginary JEons k and if we cannot prove, that Irenaeus

Father.

term,

Son

actually spoke of the

ther,

it

may

ments led
In

b. II. c.

stics

as o^oovaiog with the

at least be shewn, that his

to the application of the

17. p. 138.

where he

is

term in

own

Fa-

argu-

this sense.

asking the Gno-

concerning the manner in which the iEons were

put forth, he says, " Were they united to him who

" put them forth, like rays put forth from the sun ?
" or were they put forth really and divisibly, so that
" each of them had a separate existence and a dis" tinct form, like man produced from man, and cattle

" from cattle

? And were they of the same substance

" with those who put them forth, or had they their
" substance from some other substance ?
If each

" of them was put forth really and according to

" own production, like

men

are, either these

its

gene-

" rations of the Father will be of the same sub" stance with him, and like him who begat them,
" or if they shall appear unlike, we must confess
" that they are of a different substance.
k

I-

5- 5- P- 27.

But

DIONYSIUS ALEXANDRINUS, A.

D. 260.

391

" if, as one light kindled from another, the iEons

" are from Logos, Logos from Nus, and Nus from
" Bythus, as, for instance, torches lighted from an" other torch, they will differ perhaps from each
" other in generation and in size but since they are
" of the same substance with the source of their
;

" emission, they must either all continue impassible,

" or the Father will also partake of their passions ."
1

may

This passage
ciently proves
ofAoova-iog;

contain obscurities

and that he

but

suffi-

it

used the term

that Irenseus often

also believed, that

produced from another, like light from

whatever

must
necessarily be of the same substance with that which
produced it m
But the notion of the Son being begotten by the Father, as light put forth from light,
is

light,

is

to be found in the writings of all the early Chris-

have observed at

tians, as I

387

p.

consequently

Irenaeus could not have refused, according to his

Quaeritur igitur,

dum

quemadmo-

emissi sunt reliqui iEones?

Utrum uniti ei
quemadmodum a

qui

emiserit,

sole radii,

an

erficabiliter et partiliter, (f. Zvipyov[/.i/Z<;

Kai

diaipovf/.evcc<;,)

Utl Sit

parebunt, ex altera quadam substantia confiteri eos esse necesse est.

Si autem, velut a
lumine lumina accensa, sunt
iEones a Logo, Logos autem a

Nu,

et

Nus

a Bytho, velut, verbi

unisquisque eorum separating

et suam figurationem habens,
quemadmodum ab homine honio,et a pecude pecus ? Et utrum

gratia, a facula faculee

ejusdem

substantiae (opoovaioi)

substantiae

(opoorfnoi)

tione

rum,

secungenesin unusquisque
illorum emissus est secundum
hominum similitudinem, vel generationes Patris erunt ejusdem
substantiae (opoovo-ioi) ei, et simiefficabiiiter et

les generatori

vel si dissimiles

genera-

an ex altera quadam substantia

substantiam habentes ?
Sed

quidem

ytM^vai) quidem

magnitudine fortasse distabuntabinvicem ejusdem autem

cum

dum suam

t&>

et

existebant his qui se emiserunt,

si

(f.

cum

principe emissionis

aut

omnes

sint

ipso-

impassibiles

perseverant, aut et Pater ipso-

rum participabit passiones.

m This is again repeated in
the same chapter, 7 Si autem,
quomodo a sole radios, tEoims
.

ipsorum emissiones habuisse diejusdem substantia; et de

eodem omnes cum sint, aut&c.

cent,

c c 4

392

DIONYSIUS ALEXANDRINUS,

own argument,
the Father

to

and

have called the Son

this

A. D. 260.
with

o[aoov<tios

must have been

his

belief,

though we
it
writings which have come down to us.
There is also another passage in this work of
Irenaeus, from which it might be argued that he bedo not find

lieved the

Son

expressly stated in his

to be opoovviog

occurs in b. IV. c.33.

4.

with the Father.

where he

is

It

arguing against

the Ebionite notion that Jesus was a mere man

and he asks, " How could he be greater than Solo;

mon, or greater than Jonas, and how was he Lord

" of David, if he was of the same substance with

<c

them n ?" Irenseus therefore did not believe that

Jesus was opoovviog with men and since he is here arguing that Jesus was God, it would seem to follow
that he believed him to be opoovaios with God. When
Irenseus says that Jesus was not of the same substance with man, we must of course understand him
he was opoova-ios
to mean, that he was not merely so
with man in his human nature, but he was also
(i

OfMOOvaiog

No

with God.

other of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, whose ge-

though we
was well known, even by here-

nuine works remain, has used the term

might suspect that it

that it was so used by Christians, since we have
an account of a work being written by Hippolytus

tics,

<c

against those

who

attack the incarnation of the

Word of God on account of his consubstantiality

" with the Father p." The work itself is lost but

"

n
Quomodo autem plus quam
Salomon, aut plus quam Jona

(Ebionitse,)

habebat, et Dominus erat David,

qui ejusdem cum ipsis fuit substantia? ? p. 271.

salutem illorum super terram

operatus est ?
p See p. 277 of this book.

Quomodo

possunt

nisi

Deus

salvari,

est

qui

DIONYSIUS ALEXANDRINUS,
there can be

whom

little

A. D. 260.

393

doubt that the persons, against

was written, were the Doceta?, who denied

that Jesus took a real human body and one of their
arguments seems to have been taken from the fact,
that the Son was consubstantial with the Father.
If the word actually occurred in the title of this
book, the use of the term in the second century is
no longer doubtful. Athanasius tells us, that the
term was applied to the Father and the Son by
Dionysius bishop of Rome %
In a work erroneously
r
ascribed to Justin Martyr we find the word and
in the extracts of Theodotus, which have been
ascribed to Clement of Alexandria, but which are
certainly of much later date, the word occurs at c. 42.
where the body of Jesus is said to be of one substance with the church. In a spurious work ascribed
to Origen s it is said that God the Word is of one
The term is also to be
substance with the Father.
found in the treatise upon Faith, which is ascribed
to Gregory of Neocaesarea, c. 2. but which is geneit

rally

supposed to be of a later date.

Greek Fa-

It appears therefore that out of the

thers,

who wrote

before the council of Nice, the

word ofjLoovaioc, as applied to the union of the Father

and the Son, was used by Origen, Dionysius of
*J

I. p.

DeDecret. Syn. Nic. C. 25.

230. where he tells US also

that the

Homoousian

doctrine

by Theognostus, who flourished about the

year 282; and certainly nothing
Can be plainer than the meaning of the following passage
which he quotes from the writOvKefjuBev
ings of Theognostus

was

clearly taught

rlq ia-nv i(pevp<;de7o-a q rov vlov ov*',

ovhe

u/rs

owtuv

(ireio-'/}x8yj'

ahkcc

e/c

T?jfc

rov Rarpoq ovalaq (pv,

aq rov (pcoroq to aTvavyao-pa, aq varoq ocryiq' oirre

ovrt

avroq

yap to a-Kavyaaya

arpiq, avro ro v&c-p

vj

6 vfhioq,

e<rriv, 7q

ovre aKkorpiov' a'AXa.

a-noppota rrjq rov

liarpa q

[Aepia-y.lv vTcoyeivacrriq rv\q

ovcriaq,

rov

ov

Uarpoq

ova-taq.
r

Qusest.

Grsec.

ad Christ,

p. 538.
3

De

recta

sect. I. Vol. I. p.

in

Deum

804.

Fide.

DIONYSIUS ALEXANDRINUS,

394

A. D. 260.

Alexandria, the Fathers at the council of Antioch,

and Dionysius of Rome to which we may perhaps

add the much older authority of Irenaeus and Hippolytus.
The names of profane authors, who have
;

used the term,

may

be seen in lexicons K

must not however be omitted, that some expressions of Latin writers seem clearly to shew, that
the word consubstantial was not strange to their
It

In the Latin translation of Irenaeus,

ears.

we

read,

that " the Holy Ghost declared the birth of Christ,

" which was of a Virgin, and his substance, that he

God u ," from which

" was

it

would appear that

naeus believed in the consubstantiality of

Ire-

God and

though he did not perhaps actually use the

Tertullian however
this place.
ofAoovo-ioc in

Christ,

word

seems to have had

said, that "

more

it

The Son

of

when he
God from

directly in view,

God was

called

" unity of substance x ." In another place he condemns the heretics, who made the Father Son and

Holy Ghost
"

As

if all

to

be absolutely and personally one,

might not be one

" proceed from one,

in this

way, that

all

mean by unity of substance? ;"

soon after which he expressly says, that " the Three

" are of one substance z ."
In the same treatise he
4

See Petavius de Trin.

1.

IV.

204.
u Diligenter igitur significavit
Spiritus Sanctus per ea quee dieta sunt generationem ejus, quae
est ex Virgine, et substantiam,
C. 5- P-

quoniam Deus.

III.

21. 4. p*

217. See also II. 17. 7. p. 139.

x HunC ex Deo prolatum didicimus etprolatione generatum,
et idcirco Filium Dei et Deum
dictum ex imitate substantias,
Apol. c. 2i p. 19. which would

be in Greek
vlov rov

na\

ha

tovto tqv

@eov kou tov Xeyo^evov

e'/c

rov opoofotoy elmi.

y
quasi non sic quoque
unus sit omnia, dum ex uno
omnia, per substantia? scilicet
unitatem. Adv. Prax. c. 2. p-5oi.
which would be in Greek, &q ovk

dv

ev e?

irdvra,
z

tia?,

et

koi ovTaq vavTa,

ha

%>

e| ivoq

tov opoovria elvai.

unius autem substanunius status, et unius

potestatis. Ib.

DIONYSIUS ALEXANDRINUS,

A. D. 260.

395

says, that " he derives the

Son from nothing else

Father a :" and
from
"
again,
I every where hold one substance in three
" but

the substance of the

" coherent Persons

surely be

will

It

allowed

who under-

after these examples, that if Tertullian,

stood Greek, and had written in that language, had

not met with the word

fully acquainted

opoovo-ios,

he was at

with the doctrine which

veyed, and expressed

it

least

con-

as adequately as he could

it

in Latin words.

Novatian also

says, that " there is

whom

" and eternal Father, from

one true God

power
the Son is

this divine

"

is sent forth, and being delivered to

" again by communion of substance brought back to
" the Father c ."
Lactantius speaking of the Father

and the Son,

"

spirit,

says, that " both

one substance

have one mind, one

d ."

Perhaps Athanasius and Eusebius were not wrong

in saying, that the

who

word

The

" If any of

all

C. 4.

my

God

the

Cseterum qui Filium

Him

Una

b C. 12. Caeterum etsi ubique

teneo unam substantiam in tribus cohaerentibus &c.

stit.

Unus Deus

ostenilitur ve-

rus et seternus Pater, a quo solo

haec vis divinitatis emissa etiam
in Filium tradita et directa rur-

substantias

communio-

ad Patrem revolvitur.

c. 3 1.

the maker of

P-73spiritus,

nem

10. p. 95.

Maker and Creator

stantia Patris, &c.

sum per

c.

accusers imagine, be-

things, that I also call

non aliunde deduco, sed de sub-

following passage was in the second book of

" cause I have called

Dionysii ex Elench. et Apol.

the Defence

of

was used by writers

lived before the council of Nice

306.

66

ofxoovvios

utrique mens, unus

una substantia est. In-

IV. 29. p. 351.

Epiphanius has some good
remarks upon the use of this
e

term. Haer.

LXIX.

70, vol.

I.

long and learned

discussion may also be read in
Cudworth's Intellectual System,
c. IV. . 36.
p.

797.

DIONYSIUS ALEXANDRINUS,

396

" Christ, let

him

observe, that I

A. D. 260.

had

first

Him

called

" Father, in which the term Son is also included

" for I introduced the word Maker after I had used

" that of Father 5 and neither is He the Father of

" the things of which He is the maker, if he that
;

" begets is properly called father nor is the Father

" a maker, if only he who makes a thing with his
" hands

called

is

maker s."

Dionysii ex Elench. et Apol.

307.

In the same book he allows that he

plied the

Son

word Maker

to

God with

but he says, that he used

it

c.

11. p. 96.

may have

ap-

reference to His

" on account of

" the flesh which the Word assumed and which was
" made h :" he mentions also the sense in which ?ro/-

was applied by the Greeks to poets, i. e. the

makers of their works which is evidently a metaphorical sense, and merely means that their works
were produced by them
If Dionysius was accused of calling the Son a
creature, merely because he called God the Maker,
UoiYjTYis, of all things, nothing could be more unfair
than such a charge. The very fact of this word
coming to signify a poet proves, as Dionysius observes, that manual formation was not a necessary
yityis

*.

This passage

is

mistrans-

lated by the Benedictine editor

of Athanasius, and by the editor

ivetbyj

kou

Ze

tic,

tZv cvKOcpavTav,

tuv diravTuv

hyiJiiovpyov

%oiy\t\v tov

Seov

elnov, oirfcai y.e

Koti

ctKOvaaTa

ovt

irctTyp,

el y.ovoq 6 %eipoTeyyy)q noirjTYjq

XeyoiTo.

TroivjTYjc,

Athanas. p. 257.
11

of Dionysius.
& 'Eav

aKOvoiTO

elprjKevat

hta TTjV
overav

GapKa

avryv

yap

noiYjT'/jv (pvjcri

\> ocvehafte yevr\T\i/

Aoyoq.

Athanas. p.

258.

{/.ov

Aristotle illustrates the ap-

npoTepov itarepa (p'/jcavToq avrov, iv

plication of the term noteiv to

a kou o vtoq npoayeypavTai' y.eta

yap to el-rcelv itaTepa noi'/jTYjV tVa-

poets and to parents by saying

of the former, vitepaya-KUGi yap

tov Xpitrrov

yqo'xjx'
rjiYjqt

Aeyeiv,

kou ovrt
el

Kvpiccq

itUT'/jp

i&Tiv av noi-

yevv^aaq

TtotT^p

tcc olKeta KQi r}[/.aTa,

,

TeKva.

cnepyovTeq

Eth. Nic. IX.

7.

coo-Rep

DIONYSIUS ALEXANDRINUS, A.D.

397

260.

and if Dionysius even said that God was the Maker, Elooynfc, of
His Son, meaning thereby that the Son originated
from the Father, as being begotten by him, he might
still have believed in the coeternity of the Father
and the Son. For though Homer existed before the
Iliad, yet we cannot say that the poet Homer existed
before his poetry he was not a poet, till the poetry
had an existence which I merely observe for the
part of the idea attached to the term

sake of shewing, that the word

?naker, does

ttoivjty}?,

not necessarily imply that the person of

whom

is

it

predicated, existed before the thing which he pro-

duced.

Dionysii ex Elench. et Apol.

308.

This fragment, which

is

c.

13. p. 97.

taken from the third

book, contains some illustrations of the manner in

which the Son was generated by the Father " He
;

" was begotten, life of life, and flowed as a river

" from a fountain, and was a shining light kindled
" from an inextinguishable light k ."

309.

Dionysii Epistola adv. Paul. Samos.

p.

203.

This letter was written by Dionysius against the

heresy of Paul of Samosata, and we may collect
from it that the following were some of the opinions
He believed that Christ was
maintained by Paul.
one of whom was by nature the
in fact two persons
Son of God, who existed before but the other was
merely called Christ, and had no previous existence,
but was a mere man, who for his singular piety and
Paul therefore believed that
virtue was called God.
God had a Son, whom he also called the Word of
God, but he denied that Jesus was this person. It
;

Zay

K &vjs

nip -rtorapoq cnio

iyevirqQ'/ji
Tnj'yvfc

kou aa-

ppi<re, kcci

aim ^>wv\q ctefleaTOv

avtyO'/j.

Aafxitpov

Athanas. p. 256.

<^>aq

DIONYSIUS ALEXANDRINUS,

398

A. D.

26*0.

evident by comparing two passages in Socrates

is

and Athanasius m together, that Paul believed a divine emanation from God to have resided in Jesus,
though Jesus himself was born as an ordinary man.
Athanasius in another place

expressly says, that

the followers of Paul believed Jesus to have become

God

after his appearance on earth

and Marcellus,

a distinguished successor of Paul, believed the Lo-

gos and Christ to be two

distinct beings, which

were united when the latter was born of Mary.
Epiphanius represents Paul as approaching near
he believed the Logos to be
to Sabellianism v
:

God, and

to reside in the Father, but not to

separate

existence.

whom
sius

the Logos entered by inspiration.

wrote a

and

doctrine,

letter

at p.

have a

Jesus was a mere man, into

to

Diony-

shew the absurdity of

204. he says, "

You

this

purposely

" conceal the knowledge, that one only-begotten

" Son of God is spoken of, as the divinely in" spired scriptures testify of him, who is also called
" Jesus Christ, the

Lord of glory,

as

it

written

is

" of him (1 Cor. ii. 8.) who also saves those that
" believe on him by his own suffering, saving them
" as God and not as man for, it is said, he shall
:

"save his people from their sins: (Matt. i. 21.)

" for God alone has power to save from sin, as a
creditor has to forgive a debt, for who is a God
" like unto thee, that pardoneth iniquity, and passfi<

" eth by their transgressions

100.
Decret. Syn. Nic. 24.
vol. I. p. 229.
n
De Synodis, 26. vol. I. p.
1

II. 19. p.

m De

LXV.

Haer.

lb. p. 740.

vii.

1.

18.)

vol.

I.

p.

608. 612. 614.

q

'Ekcov

\eA'/]0a<;,

oti

pvi<rai kou ^ovoyevrit; vioq

[AocprvpovG-i 7rep<

7^90

(Micah

cttqi

ypa,(pal,

Koi

eJg

Kticq-

rov Seov,

avTov cd 6eoTtvev-

Kpiaroq

'Ivj<ro2<j

DIONYSIUS ALEXANDRXNUS,

A. D. 260.

899

Beside other proofs of the divinity of Christ contained in this passage, Dionysius could not have

Micah

applied the words of

to Christ, unless

he had

believed him to be really God.

Dionysii Epist. adv. Paul. Samos.

310.

Paul having

was taken
tity,

said, that

205,

Jesus was a mere man,

by God

into favour

p.

6.

who

for his peculiar sanc-

Dionysius observes, that the

life

of Christ was

not one of such strict and rigorous sanctity as that

of John the Baptist " It is therefore absurd to say,
" that Christ was a man, or that he found favour
:

" with God above all men, so as to have God dwell

" in him, without ascetic and laborious righteous" ness for Christ is not in name only, but in truth,
:

being the Word before the worlds, Christ the Lord

" Jesus for he himself became man being incarnate
" of Mary r ."
<e

Dionysii Epist. adv. Paul. Samos.

311.

207.
"
Dionysius addresses himself to Paul, as one
who

" was enraged against the Lord,

66

who

is

p.

the Father

who

of Christ, and against His Christ:

is Christ
" the power of God, the Wisdom of the Father,
" being the eternal Word for being eternal he be:

" came a child, being begotten a Son for us

KaXov^evoq,
e'l'p'/jrcti

KjiCTTevovTas

Be'iKaq

avTov
[Aova

in'

a&Ccov,

avToq yap,

duo

Tyq

Kvpioq

nepi avTov'

ainov

l$iq>

ku) ovk

itdBei,

dvBpamivccc'

tov

ouxrei

<p'/j<ri,

tojv

o%

crw^wv Tovq

o tea.)

djAapTtav

Xaov

koi

tu

xpeacrTOvpevcci

to acpeaiv napaa-x/iv, k\ t. a.
r

Ovkovv aToivov Igti to Xeyeiv

avBpceKov tov Xpia-Tov,

7j

evftoKticBai

napd eov T.apd icdvTaq

elq

%eov

KaTOLK'/jcriv,

dvev

dvBpanzovq
Tvjq d<XKf\-

Ka) evntovov diKaioavvrjq'

XpicrTot; ovk ovo[AaTi [/.ova,

Beta

alavoiv

nrpo

ocv

dXX'

yap

dX'f\~

Aoyoq, ~Kpi<TToq

Kvpiog 'Irjaovq' avToq yap yeyovev dv-

Bpomoq

aapKuBeiq 4k Mapiaq.

avTuv'

yap eco e| dfxapTicov SwaTov

crw^eiv, wcrnep

Tixy\<;

s ."

evBvf/.ov[/.evoq

kut&

tov

Kvpiov, oq i<ni TtaTrjp XpiaTov, Ka)

KaTa

tov

~Kpi(TToq,
crocpla,

av
vloq.

XpiaTov avTov,

eov

vva[Aiq,

t\

av Aoyoq dfbioq'

yeyove

nrato'iov,

oq

i<ni

tov UaTplq
difiioq

yevvrjBe)q

yap
TjfjCiv

DIONYSIUS ALEXANDRXNUS, A.D.

400

260.

312. Dionysii Epist. adv. Paul. Samos. p 207, 8.

" But Isaiah before this was inspired and spake

" of the Child, who was God, the mighty God, and
" the Virgin who conceived t ."
313. Dionysii Epist. adv. Paul. Samos. p. 210.
" But Christ, who rose from the dead, died and

" lived, that he might be Lord of the dead and the

" living for he is God by nature, who had dominion
:

" over all things and having risen, and being re" cognized by his wounds to be very God, who was
" crucified and rose again, and was declared by
:

"

Thomas

God and Lord with equal honour,

Lord God who was wounded for our sakes
to be

" (for the

" rose again having the

wounds in his hands :) for

" the God of the apostles, who was handled by them,
" was not by nature man, but by nature God, who
" has the heathen for his inheritance, and is the Judge
" of all the earth, as it is written, Arise, O God,
"judge the earth, for thou shalt inherit all nations.
" (Psalm lxxxii. 8.) Christ being the Word, the Son
" of God, the

heir, died in later times after his ser" vants the prophets, as he himself says in the Gos-

" pels to those who killed the prophets

follows the passage
*

'AAAa

itpo

rovrov

u ."

Then

which has been given already

ifiitvecov

'H-

ey^av iv %epaiv

avrov rovq

at

[/.u'Aamaq,
s

eov

ca'iaq &eov tjr%i/pov,

pi/rret,

Kai itapBevov iv yaarpi

fidvovo-av.
u e
8e K veKpav

arroq

veKpuv

itaiViov kyj-

aneOave Kai

(pvirei,

iva

Kvpiev<rrj'

Kai

eoq

rwv d-

Kvpievcov

ndvrav' Kai avaaraq Kai iiriyvwaQelq

ii<

ruv rpavfidrwv @eoq

voq, 6

elvai a'Ar)6i-

(rravpaQelq Kai ai/aarraq, bfio-

ripuq Tt Seoq Kvpioq

K'/)pvrr'juevoq'

yccp

@eoq yap

rerpavu.ariafA.evoq

viro

tov

Kvpioq

apa
Seoq,

eoq,

kply

itaaav

'Avdara
b

8t

f\\xaq'

rcov aitoari oAav b i^>jAa^)7j-

dvOpomoq,

6eiq, ov <pvaei

avaaraq Xpi-

e^vjcrev,

koi X^avrav

yap icrn

Aap-

dveuryj,

KAfipovopoq

if)vaei

iQvav

Kai

rrjv yrjvt ooq yeypaizra.i y

k. r. A.

Xpiaroq,

aKka

rccv

Tloq eov Aoyoq av

HA'fjpavof/.oq,

aiteBavev

vartpov fierce rovq dovXovq avrov rovq

itpo^qraqy aq avroq, (pyaiv, iv evayyeXioiq elite itpoq rovq

rovq Trporfyqraq.

a/KOKre'ivavraq

DIONYSIUS ALEX ANDRINUS,

A. D. 260.

128. after which we read, " Christ

" in the Father, the coeternal Word

is

p.

one,

401

who

is

one
" person of him, the invisible God, and who became
" visible, for God was manifest in the flesh, (1 Tim.
"

God

" ter of

his
life

there

is

made of a woman, who was begotten

One only Virgin the daugh-

16.) being

iii.

" of

Father.

brought forth the living and self-sub-

Word, the uncreated Creator, the God who

came into the world and was unknown, God who
" is above the heavens, the Maker of heaven, the
<e

stantial

s<

" Creator of the world

x ."

This

last

sentence seems

alone sufficient to refute the assertion, that Diony-

a creature.
314. Dionysii Epist. adv. Paid. Samos. p. 214, 15.
" He that was begotten of God before the worlds,
" the same in the latter days was born of his mo" ther: for this reason the Jews were murderers of
" God y, because they crucified the Lord of glory
" for if Christ were not himself the Word, very God,
" he could not have been without sin for no one is
sius believed Christ to be

" without sin, except one, who is Christ, as also the

" Father of Christ, and the Holy Ghost: whence also

" he died voluntarily, and rose again voluntarily,

" having performed the divine miracles, being the

God it is he who asked for

which he had before the world
5.) not that he was destitute of

" only -begotten Son of

" the divine glory,

" was

(John

x FAq e<n\v

xvii.

Xf37TG$,

itarpi avva'ihiot; Aoyoq'

ei'

awov, aoparoq eo<;, Kai

vopevoi;'

Seog yap

Kt, yevo[/,vo<; k

Ttarpoq

oparoc,

ye-

e/c

eou

[Kia

Se

f/.ovv)

yvvoAKoc,

yevvrfieiq-

Aoyov Kai

tS

itpoa--

i(pavepa9't] iv crap-

napQevot; dvydr'/jp ^rj<;

Zfivra

o oov iv

avrov

iytvvrpe tov

aKTicrov Kai
Iv t&j

Srj^iovpyov' rov

KQ<rf/.<p,

ikBovra

Kai ayvccarov ov>

Kai vizepovpaviov eov, ovpavov

TVjV,

iroirj-

TOV fylliOVpyOV TOV K0T[/.0V.

See Tertullian, p. 205. N.

09, where the

is used.
1

ivvitoa-raTov, tov

D d

same expression

DIONYSIUS ALEXANDRINUS,

402
"

A.D. 260.

God forbid but he says, that the manifestation

it
" of himself was made to us, that we who believe
" might glorify him, who was glorified in strength,
;

" being righteous by nature, as God, not by ascetic

" exercise, like any religious man
but Christ was
" not shewn forth in ascetic practice by religious

"

faith, as we have said already

for his righteous" ness was natural, and his power divine and he is
" himself believed to be the only true God, who re" quires of men that they should profess their faith
:

" in

him

=%"

Dionysii adv. Paul. Samos. Qucest.

315.

1 8.

I. p.

Beside the letter which Dionysius wrote against

the heretic Paul, there

is

another work of

con-

his,

taining answers to ten questions, which Paul pro-

posed as objections to the orthodox

whole of

this treatise

The

belief.

might be translated, as contain-

ing the most unequivocal assertions of the divinity

of Christ, and his eternal coexistence with the Father

much

nor will there be need of

prefatory remark
telligible

but

if

make

to

we

introduction or

the different passages in-

could entertain any doubt as to

what were the tenets of the catholic church in the

z

'O Ik eov

vcov, o

yevv/]9e}q mpo ccloo-

avroq en? evydruv eK y^rpoq'

did rovro BeoKrovoi 'lovdaioi, eVei rov

Kvpiov
<ydp

ecrravpaarav' el

rvjq do^'tjq

Yjv

Xpicrroq avroq

jWtj

av %eoq

Aoyoq, ovk rfivvaro elvai ava^dpr-f\roq'

elq o

ovde)q

ydp

y^picrroq,

dva[Actprv}roq,
ooq

Kai

ay tov

Xpiarrov, koi to

el

[avj

ipyacrdfAtvoq

rov

eov

alrav r\v
rov rov

rdq

Beoa-yjfAiaq,

\A.ovoyevr\q'

Be"ua\v

Kocrfxov

avroq

do^av,

yevecrBat,

vjv

<pv<rei,

uv
h

elyje tcpo

ov ravrrjq

'/Jyet

wq Seov 3 ov

Kara

do-KYjatv,

Ka) Ka^drovq, aq iraq dvBpwnoq rav

--Xpiaroq de ovk

Oeocrefioov-

fielaq,

vloq

dXXd

irpoq

rov dedo^aa-f^evov ev l<x%vi, diKaiov ovra

oBev

iariv

yevoiro,

ypaq yeve&Bai <paveho^daa^ev avrov ol Ttio-roi,

pacriv, fva

(TKyjcrei

Kai BeXav dneBave, Ka) Ikcov yyepdy],

pri

eavrov

rov

Tcarvjp

T.vev^a'

uv epyfAoq,
tvjv

yap

ev

d-

dedeiKrat did Tilcrreaq Beoee-

aq

vjdyj

diKaioavv/j

vndpyei'

irpoelp^rai'

(pv<riKVj

koi

dvvatuq

Bukt,

Ka) avroq eari

<rrev6(A,evcq

uovoq

tt*-

Seoq dXyjBivlq koi dnaircov

rovq avBpaitovq rvyv elq avrov ouoXo-

yiav

rrjq iclcrreaq.

DIONYSIUS ALEXANDRINUS,

A. D. 260.

403

days of Dionysius, we may collect them most fully

from the objections which Paul of Samosata brought
forward.

Thus in the first question he says, " How can you

" say and write that Christ is by nature the God of
f the apostles, and not a man like ourselves ? for he
" appears to have come to suffer, and he says, Now is
"

my

"

is

soul troubled: (John

the nature of a

xii. 27.)

say whether this

God a ?" After reading

this, it

seems impossible to deny, that in the opinion of Paul

the whole catholic church believed Jesus Christ to

God by

and almost every one of the ten

Dionysius answers the objection by bringing instances from
the Old Testament, where God is said to repent and
be agitated, and particularly from Hosea xi. 8 after
which he says, " Is it not plain, that he who spoke
" by Hosea is the same who says in his passion, Now
" is my soul troubled fAcknowledge therefore
" that he who was crucified was not a man, but one
" holy, one only-begotten Son of God, the Word b ."
316. JDionysii adv. Paul. Samos. Qucest. II. p. 220.
be

nature

questions leads us to the same conclusion.

The second

question contains a similar objection

and Dionysius again brings instances of God being

said to be angry,

66

But

He

if

is

not grieved

when He

" visits the disobedient with His anger, there would

f also be no joy how then does Jesus,

" that cannot lie, say, Verily, verily,

who

USq

(pvo-ei

8e Xeyeiq koc) ypcccptiq,

io~n kou ov%) avQpoeizoq Ka(f

Xpicrroq

to TtaQoq,

(potlveTcu
Kctt

T6TupxKTaS
eov <niv

7jf/,ccq

yap ipyjpevoq dq

\eyav, Nj>
ciVe,

el

77

ypv%'/] [/.w

tqvto

on

XpxrToq eoq tav ccnocrroXuv

(pvaiq

vepaq

P. 2 19.' Apa.

iv rovroiq ov <f>a-

eiTTav hicc 'fierce, 0

Xiv Xeyei ixl tov isaQovq,

ipvX'l

^ ov rerapaKTai

tovto) ar.oboc,
0

on

God,

is

say unto

avroq no.-

on

vvv

Ktzi

v\

iv

ovk avBpwxoq icrnv

o-ravpaBeic, ScXXa etq ayioq, elq [Ko-

voyevrjq vtoq

tov eov,

d 2

ixi

Aoyoq,

DIONYSIUS ALEXANDRINUS, A. D.

404

260.

" you, there is joy in heaven over one sinner that

" repenteth

(Luke xv.

and again

7.)

it

written,

is

The wrath of God is revealed from heaven

" against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of
" men, who hold the truth of God in unrighteous^
6i
ness : (Rom. i. 18.) this is the wrath of God against
" those who grieve the Son of God, who is the true
"

" God, because they also grieve the Father, who to" gether with the Son is without beginning, as also
" the Holy Ghost c ."

317- Dionysii adv. Paul. Samos. Qucest. III.

In the third question, which

it is

p.

221.

not necessary to

Paul charges Dionysius with saying,

state at length,

is the Word and Wisdom of the Father,

and God coeternal with the Father d :" and Diony-

that Christ "

<c

sius in the course of his reply, says, "

" Israel, the Lord,

when he

The God

of

rose again on the third

" day, built up in himself those that were dispersed,

" a holy temple

e ."

318. Dionysii adv. Paul. Samos. Qucest. IV.

The

fourth objection

necessary to explain

is

but

also

one which

we may

p.

227.

is

no

observe, that

Di

it

onysius in his reply uses these remarkable words

allusion to

Psalm

xciv. 9-

" The hand of the God

" Israel planted the ear, who is Jesus,

the foun
" tain of life, who exists with the Father, the ver

E* 8e ov Xvitov^evoq indyei r\v

Kara rcov amiQovvrav, ovk av

heyei o a^evVqc,
X a P^' Ka

lpy\v
"?

'

'l^o-ovq

itakiv

yeypaitraiy
avrvj

k. r.
roov

eo$, 'A[AVjV k. r. A.

7}

aXtfiiVOVy

iXviTYjo-av

Aoyov Ka) r\v

eov Kara

arocpiav

P. 224./

qftepa

AW avaara$

@eo$ rov 'lapavjA

rov vlov eov, rov

rovq ^laanapivraq

on

rS

Ka) rov Ylarepa

rov cvvavapypv

rov

vlov.

r
rov Harpo
elvai

Ka) ov avvaihov rov Tlarpoq.

AtiOKa'Avitrerai

opyrj rov

Xvny)o~a,vToov

ov rov

'

Ka)

Ka) to nvevpa to ayiov.

d
avrov "kiyuv

vaov ayiov.

rpl

rrj
6

Kvpi

aiKodof^rjo-ev iv

ea

DIONYSIUS ALEXANDRINUS,
" Christ Jesus

f :"

405

A. D. 260.

and again, " Jesus

God

Christ, the

and
but the Father

H of Israel, being about to be led to his holy

" life-giving cross,

was not

was with him

for before

led alone,

he came to the cross, he

" said to the blessed apostles, The hour cometh,
" when ye shall all leave me alone : and yet I am
" not alone, because the Father that sent me is with
ec

me, and hath not left me alone ; (John xvi. 32.)

" so that the type was proved to be reality for he
H that endured the cross thought it not robbery to
" be equal with God, who is the Word of the Fa6(

" ther, and the Son, and our Lord God, the Lord of
" Hosts, who was lifted up upon the cross
for if
" Moses was ordered by the Holy Spirit in the ty" pical prefiguration to choose the goats without
" spot, will it not be much more so with the Word

"

who

of one species with the Father, like

is

"

him without beginning, the very Christ, coeternal

" with him who begat him ?
When the Son was
" led as a sheep to the slaughter, the Father was
" not separated from His

" cies with himself

" able, as
" which

7j

was

ryq

iz'fff^

marpi,

in the

corlov

''laparjX, oq

the substantial Spirit of the Father,

is

i<f)vrevaav

'

eov

Word, who is of one spethe two substances are insepar-

Son

s ."

al X^pec, rov

iariv 'Iqaovq,

^toYjt;,

'/)

av Xpiaroq

ovaa itapa ra

to Bvaiaaryjpiov rov eov

eoq

'laparjX 'Ivjuovq o Xpiaroq ovk v\yero

povoq,

aXX*

yjv

u.er

avrov

irplv

yap eXOetv avrov

elite

roiq dyloiq anoaroXoiq,

elq

iraryp'

rov crravpov,

on

ep%e-

rai apa, k. r. X. ccare ovv ibelxBrj

rvizoq

aXydeia'

hri

oi>x

yjy/jaaro to elvai Icra ea> 6 aravpov

dp-nay\Kov

oq

iir)

aaj3a&6

avrov

iariv

narpoq Aoyoq, Ka)

Kvpioq, 6

'l'/jaovq.

P. 229. MeXXcovyap ayeaOai elq

rov ayiov avrov Ka) ^uoitoiov aravpov

232 he speaks of

p.

vito^elvaq,

elq

At

[Atv

vioq, v\u,uv be

rov

eoq

aravpov v\pv8e)q Kvptcq

el

r.pobiaypaffiq

yap

ev

ovra

ra

rvircp rr\q

itapeKeXevero

Mavariq tno rov aylov -nvev^aroq, iva

Ttooq

[xaXXov

oil

Aoyoq,

rovq

eiriXe^rirai

a[Au>[/.ovq

~Xpiaroq

yevvqaavroq

av,

ayopevov rov a/xvov

%ifA.&pQV$ 9

avvdvapyv oq

avva'ibioq

p. 230.
(1.

rov

itarvjp

forsan

vlov)

&q nrpofiarov in) acpayyv, ovk e%wp/-

D d

DIONYSIUS ALEXANDRINUS,

406

A. D. 260.

" the self-substantial ever-existing Christ, who is

" equal to the Father on account of the absence of
" all difference in substance
And at p. 233, " He

" of Samosata rose up first, speaking wickedly, call" ing the blood of Jesus corrupt, who is Jesus the
" God of Israel
and he calls the ransom of all
:

corruption and suffering and death 3 which redeems

6i

" us from the bondage of corruption, the blood of a

mortal and passible man, because the Lord of
" glory said to his disciples, Take this and divide
" it : it is the new testament in my blood : do

6i

" this '? (Lukexxii. 17, 20.)

argument,

237? he says, "

p.

" the holy blood of our

God

And

at the

We

have proved that

Jesus Christ

" rupt, nor the blood of a mortal

God k ."

" but of very

ought to be

ther,

is

is

this

not cor-

like ourselves,
in

which Dio-

coeternal with the Fato acquit

sufficient

charge of Arianism

man

This passage,

nysius says that the Son

end of

him of the

for in the Confession of faith,

which the Arians presented

to Alexander, bishop of

Alexandria, they expressly assert that the Son " is

" not eternal, or coeternal with the Father 1 ."
In
the same manner Dionysius speaks of the Son as
(rvvavapyps tov yevvrjaavrog,

cBy\

rov

vo

vitoardaeiq

ojAoeioovq

evvitoo-TccTov

yv iv

Bvvjrov

llocrpoq

ira.Tpl

Ka.ro,

ktov ryq vivoa-rdcreccq

tS Kvpla

'Ivjcrou, oq

crovq,

Bovq,

kou to

Sov'Aeiaq rr\q (pBopaq, ouiAoe.

kou KaB'fjTov dvBpconov Aeyei,

Sia to elveTv rov Kvpiov

av Xpicrroq,

rr\q

$oy/s

Ov

(pBaprov to

rov Seov

v}y,}V

'Ivjvov

avvatdioq kou

dvBpamov

Ka6'

yj[Aaq

oov

ou^a to ayiov
Xpurrov ovre
Bvrjrov,

dXAa

eov uAqBivov.

npcoroq

1,u[A0(Tarevq

alpa

eari eoq 'IcrpavfA

izdo-yjq

to ajuapd'A'Aa-

Aa'Auv atiKO., 'Aeyav (pdaprov to

rov

nvevf/.a.Ti.

'Aviary

mvevjAct,

YjiAoLq

npoq rovq [xaBrjraq, Adfiere k. r. K.

O ii/vTiOa-rccroq ctei

ra

'laoq

pot<rav

to

kou

TO) via.
c

11

avrov Aoyov' at

d^upia-roi,

tov

equally without beginning

'Ivj-

(pBopaq kou <nd-

Kt Bavdrov Avrypiov, to ii~ayo-

tioq,

OvSe ydp
vj

ecrrtv d'tbioq,

crvvayevYjroq

nas. de Syn.
16. vol.

I.

p.

avva'i-

ra narpi. Atha-

Arim.
730.

et Seleuc.

DIONYSIUS ALEXANDRINUS,
with

A. D. 260.

407

Him

that the

who begat him : but the Arians asserted

Son was not equally without beginning m
.

319- Dionysii adv. Paul. Samos. Qucest. V.

Paul proposes

237.

p.

" It

this as the fifth objection.

is

" written in the Gospels, that the child

"

"

"
"
'.

grew, and
Jesus, who was born of the Holy Ghost and the
Virgin Mary, waxed strong, (Luke ii. 40.) How
then do you say of that which grew and waxed
strong, that it is before the worlds, and equally
without beginning with the unbegotten Father,

" and coeternal

?"

Dionysius in his reply refers to the prophecy of

says, "

He

Behold a

vir-

" gin shall conceive, and then shews, that the

mo-

Isaiah

and

14.

vii.

adds,

i. e. the Virgin, conceived some one,

acknowledge as our God, the Word His
" Son, who is coeternal with the Father.
And
" what is the quality of the child who was laid in

f ther of God,
P

whom we

" the manger ? God, mighty, powerful, the Prince

" ofpeace, the Father of the world to come ." And
" at p. 239, " But the child Jesus, the God of Israel,
" is the same God, and his years shall not fail?"

(Psalm
" the

cii.

27.)

At

p.

240 he

says, that

Father unbegotten, that by

" prove Christ to be recent

Paul " called

he might

this

and created

for

he can-

" not bear to speak of Christ as the coeternal

m Ovt
ayivrjTov

[M]v avvavapyriv Ktzi

tSs

vo^ittIov.
n

itooxpl

tov

awe, ovv to uvqov koo.

on

Kai

t'qhovoTi,

ov tivol rji^eTq

vj[/,%v |tcev

eov, tov Be HaTpoc,

Kpa-

Kpoaiccviov kou

avvdvap^ov tS a,ywf\Ty
avvaihiov

awelvai

Ath. de Syn. p. 739.

Tu.iovp.evov Aeyetc,

iv

vlov

nccLTpi

image

koci

hiov

ovtol

ljvva.tj.ic,

tov

uvaKAidevTOc.
aaTTjq,

Aoyov

vlov

iyvapi'<ra[xev

naiblov tov

elp^v/]^

rj

(pdrvy

iv

eoc, la-yvpoq,

ctpy^cov

crvva'i-

tiq Se

iljovai-

nonrjp

tov

[/.(Wovtoc, alavoc..

iirdyei to, 'Ihov

yaaipl XyxptTai,

rj

nvapdevoc,

kcc\ he'iKvvcriv, %ti

y OeoToxoc, Tiva crvvAa,(3ev,

tj

napQevoc,

tov

To

oe

'IcrpavjA,

TOC TYj

noutlov

eo;

UVTOV OVK

D d 4

'Ivjcrotl?,

ia~Tiv

avTo<;,

KAl\p0V(TtV*

&eoq
kcc)

DIONYSIUS ALEXANDRINUS, A.D.

408

" of the

God

substance of

260.

the Fathers"

These
ask of Mr. Lind-

words might naturally lead us to

sey and the Unitarians, if Dionysius objected to
Paul, that he called Christ a creature, how could
he have called him so himself?

At
<e

p.

242. he

He was

by saying, "

concludes

we are, who increased in

and wisdom, but God horn as a child and

therefore not a man, as

" stature
" given unto us as a Son, existing eternally before
" the worlds
and to us he really increased, and
" will increase daily, and his years do not fail : for
:

" Christ is unchangeable, as being

"
Jesus our God is the same,

God
and

Word

the

his years

" shall not fail r "

320. Dionysii adv. Paul. Samos. Qucest. VI. p. 242,3.

"It is written, that the angel of the Lord ap"

peared unto Joseph in a dream, saying, &c.

" (Matt. ii. 13.) Do you then say, that the child
" who fled with his mother is coeternal with God
" and the Father ? And how do you say, that that
" which goes from place to place, which was born
" at Bethlehem,
" begotten 8 ?"

coeternal with

is

To

so obvious,

and

Se elTteHv avrov ayivvvjrov

ha

repa,

is

dia rovrov

hetljri

itct-

Ttpbatyarov

kou Krlcr^a' ovre yap ave^erai eliceiv

yapaKrypa avvaihiov rvjq rov Seov

Ovk avOpunoq

av^av

ovv Kaff

rfhiKia kou crotyla,

yevv/]8e)q

itaidiov

itova-iv

vtov, athiov ovra, itpo aluvcov'

T7j

aAffiela ^v^Yjcre

^/.tepav,

kou

ra

erf}

eoq

y](/tv

elq

y^uv koi

koi av^ei Ka6'

avrov ovk eKAel-

avaXKoiaroq yap

eoq Aoyoc

aq

'lfjaovq o

it

Xpicrroq,

@eoq

avroq erri, kou

ra

eryj

av-

rov ovk eKAetyovo-iv.

s

Yj^aq

aWa

kou ho$e)q

un-

only quote from

I shall

T.arpoq v-noardtreaq rov Xpiarov.

r

is

give the answer of Dionysius,

It is needless to

which

Him who

[xrj

Teypanrai, on ayyeXoq

apa rovro

'Aeyeiq,

rrj f^yjrp), crvva'thiov

rpl'y

Ka)

Ticoq

k. r. A.

to fevyov avv

ra e&> Ka)

to eK roi:ov

nta-

elq roirov,

to

yevvfjBev ev Br,0Aee/x., <rvvaihov rovro

ra

ayevvvjra Xeyeiq

DIONYSIUS ALEXANDRINUS,

A. D. 260.

409

such passages as bear upon the present subject.

At

244, speaking of the text,

my Son, he observes, "

p.

called

Out of Egypt have I

He

speaks of the Son,

whom the multitude of the blessed spirits above

" worship, the one and undivided Christ, coeternal
" with the Father, equally without beginning, the
" Creator together with the Father for Jesus, the
"

"

Word

"

is

before the worlds,

the Holy Ghost

but

God

is

if

of Israel, as also

because Joseph fled into

"

Egypt with Mary, the mother of God, carrying in

" her arms our refuge and God and strength, he
" therefore says, that he fled like one of us, as David

" did from Saul t

At p. 247, " Christ,

who is God in the Father, is

" spoken of by the Holy Ghost, by the mouth of
" David, as eternally Christ, who for our sakes en" dured to become flesh, when he was the Word,
" and remained

Word,

the

Christ,

God u ."

Jesus,

At

the end, speaking of the heresy of Paul, he says,

" He shall not escape with impunity for
248,
p.
" speaking blasphemy against the merciful Holy
" Spirit
for God is a Spirit, (John iv. 24.) as
:

" Christ hath taught us,

"

who

God

Truth,

is

" come into Egypt, the Lord (Isaiah xix.

" of Israel, Jesus Christ x ."
4

Tlov

roov avco

Xeyet,

ov

itpoaKvve7

dyluv izvev^druv

vj

<nkffivq rov

eva Ka) dpepiarov Xpiarov, rov avvaiiov

rov FLarpoq, avvdvap^ov,

(juovpyov too

ooq

(pevyovra,

AauS duo

aq rov

1,aovA

u Xpiaroq

avvftv)-

eoq

too

ev

Ka\ ro

pvrrerai del Xpiaroq

o St'

el 8e

Aoyoq,

icq

did ro cpzvyeiv eiq

pa

'Icoaqcf) a,

ry QeoroKa

dyKaXaiq (pepovay ryv Karjj^ijv

Kal eov Kal dvvafAiv,

God

eva rav Kaff ypdq,

vtco

ayiov TcvevfAa'

ev

rovrov,

op'itpi

did itvevixaroq dylov

A'lyvnrov rov

racpvyyv

net)

1.)

Uarpi" 0ecq yap 'lapavjA

^lvjaovq o npo alavcov

Mapia

over

he that rideth upon a swift cloud, and shall

all,

rate^d^evoq
oov,

yeveaBai

Harp),

Aavit

/oj-

ypdq Ka-

adp^ }

Aoyoq

Kal pelvaq Xpiaroq Aoyoq 'lyaovq

Seoq.
x Ov

yap

ddcpoq

dnekevaerai

DIONYSIUS ALEXANDRXNUS,

410

A.D. 260.

321. Dionysii adv. Paul. Samos. Qucest. VII.

Paul here asks Dionysius to explain

meaning of the text

own

Paul's

Phil.

p.

248.

him the

&c. for according to

6,

ii.

man

notion, the

to

who^ was called

own, like any other

Jesus,

Christ, had an existence of his

man, before the title of Christ was given to him by
God and what is said of Christ, that he took the
form of a servant, was quoted by Paul of Samosata
:

in support of his opinion

he argued, that

for

if

Christ took the form of a servant, that form must

have existed
I

or

first,

it

could not have been taken.

have already observed at

123, that Dionysius

p.

gives an explanation of the whole passage, and I

some length. He
goes on at p. 257. to comment upon that part of the
text, " taking the form of a servant, made in the
" likeness of men
Jesus Christ, who is Lord and
have there quoted

his

words

at

who took the form of a ser" vant, when the mystical supper was ended, rose
" from supper, Jesus the God of the apostles, and
"

God

of the apostles,

garments; and taking a linen

" cloth he girded himself. (John xiii. 4.)
This is
" the form of a servant : and being found in fash" laid aside his

" ion as a

man, he was there found as a servant by

who did not seek him for his disciples did
" not leave all their goods and follow a servant
" but they followed him himself, Jesus the Son of
" those

" God,

who submitted

to gird himself

with a cloth,

"

and to put water in a basin, and wash the feet of

" servants, he who was by nature Lord, and not by

(3Xa<T(f)y}iJ.c0V

Kara,

tov (piXavQpoo'itov

nvev^a toc, rovdytov' m/ei^a

Se 6 to?,

&v

e7T<

k.t.X.
o

iravruv eoq,

Kvpiot; o

XpicrTog.

liii vecpiXrjt;

Seoq^laparjX,

'iy<rovi;

DIONYSIUS ALEXANDRXNUS,
" nature a servant,
" being

We

made

who

A. D. 260.

took the form of a servant,

in the likeness of

men

y."

must remember, that Dionysius

arguing

is

against the notion, that Jesus was actually a

who was

a servile station,
the

of Christ

title

man

in

afterwards honoured with

and he

411

says, that the disciples

would not have followed him, had they known him

but after he had united the
to be merely a servant
;

human nature

to the divine,

being

made

in the like-

ness of men, he then performed acts which are more

becoming a servant than a master. This explanation of the

words necessarily implies the preexistence

of Christ.

At

259- "

The apostle continues, he humbled

" himself: do you see what is meant by his humbling
" himself? It was not the servant that humbled
p.

" himself, but the lordly character of the servant,

" which required him to serve, as Pharaoh made
" Israel to serve hence he says, that he humbled
" himself.
There is therefore no room given to
:

" blasphemers in this place to deny what is said,

" but their mouths are stopped by his humbling
" himself and being obedient unto death: for
66

" suppliants,

"
"

God

and heard the prayer of His

and He bowed the heavens and came

disfigured himself

down (Psalm xviii. 9.) to free us, being free, as

WhereGod and Lord of Glory, Jesus Christ
y MopcprjV ovv hovXov Xafiuv

airorrToXav,

hefavov

[avo-tikov, iyeipeTai

to,

XevTiov

yevofxtvov
e/c

eo tSv amoo-ToXoav
dycri

Xpi-

oirj-^rjTovcriv ccvtov ^ovXoq, ov

Xa

av kou Seoq tuv

ctoi; 'lyo-ovi;, F^vpioc

'lyo-ovq,

liAUTia ccvtov,

Io-t)v

'/)

tov SovXov'

pe0e}{

aq uvQpuno^

e/ce?

evpiOr}

Tolq

navTa
tS

7}KQXov6ifjo-av

otX7*

yap lovKsnaXi-

e/ce/vw <xvt>

vim tov eov 'lyo-ov,

tS KUTale^a^vcp tia^uo-aaBai

kou tI-

kou (?yy\^aTi ev-

[A0p<p?i

tcovtzc,

kou Xafioov

Auttj

hie^wo-ccTO.

tov

tov Se/irvou

7jKoXovd7]o-a,v ol f^adYjrou,

"

tiqv
<pv<rei.

(j)v<ra

Kvpioi;,

^ovXoq, 6 Xccfiav to

SovXov k. t. X.

Xlv-

Ka) ov%

a^^oc. tov

DIONYSIUS ALEXANDRINUS,

412

"fore also
"

God

A.D.260.

God hath highly exalted him yea, for

to my God Jesus Christ by David, Be
:

says

" thou exalted,

" let thy glory

God, above the heavens, and

be above all the earth, (Psalm

"

Ivii. 5.)
The Father hath manifested Christ
" unto us, who exists eternally with Him, in whom
" dwelleth the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
" (Col. ii. 9.) Observe how St. Paul reveals the

" mystery
for he says, that the Father and the
" Spirit dwell bodily in Christ.
When Christ, the
" Word, became flesh, the Father did not cease
:

" from being contained in him who became flesh,

" because Christ became a body
the Word be:

" came flesh

" altered by

and he shews that Christ

becoming

being

flesh,

is

not

always

co-

Him that begat him: in him dwell" eth the whole fulness of the Godhead bodily z ."
P. 262. " Those who are servants of the devils
" eternal with

" that ran

66

down
sight, who

this

Opaq

irelvaaev

a/OC

voi,

ti Aeyei,

on

vj

eavrov era-

tov

htG-noreia

anairovo-a avrov

SovAov,

dov'Aeveiv, ooq o

pao) tov 'laparjA KarebovXu<rev

ovv

dOeryjo-at rep pvjTa'

Se

<ba~

ovk

yj&pa role ^Aacrcp^oiq iv

cSo^tj

Tovra

avrovq

6 raireivoocraq

i{/.<ppdrrei

eavrov, y.e-

Xpi Oavdrov vTir\KOoq yevopevoq* eav-

yap

rov

vjKOVcre

rvjq

eoq

idva-airrjcre,

hericrecoq

Ka)

iir-

rav iKerav av-

rov'

Ka) KXivev ovpavovq koi Kar-

efiv],

efzeAearQai

vjftdq,

iAevBepoq av,

uq Seoq, Ka) Kvptoq ryq

crovq

rov
yei

Xpiaroq

hio

virepvipcocre, va), 6

tS

Ka)

Lord of glory was a

say that the

dovAoq eavrov ov ranei-

the steep place are not worthy of

Sof^*?, 'lrjo

eoq av-

Seoq yap Ae-

@eo) [aov 'lycTGv X-piarS did

Aavih, 'T^&^vjTf- in) rovq ovpavovq

ndaav

Selq, Ka) in)

gov,

v)

do^a

'O Ylaryp i(pavepucrev

vjyt.iv

rrjv

yrjv

rov ovra crvv air a de) Xpiarov, iv

a,

KarotKei

tcccv

to

<roo[ianKO)q'

OeorYjToq

Aeyei ro ^varr^piov

iv

rov

yovev

Hare pa,

XpurrS).

rS>

Aoyoq

rrjq

aKovere,

ituq

dicoo-ro-

tepoq

yap acc^ariKaq Kar-

Aoq UavAoq, to
oiKetv

nArjpcoy.a

Ka)

ro

itvev^a

'EireiSy/

<rdp^

Xpurroq,

ov

ye-

napd

ro yeveaBai ovv aa[/.a rov Xpicrov,

ovk

eizavecrTfi

Uaryp

rov

aO^vai ra yevopeva vapKi'

Aoyoq yeyove' Ka)

Tzroq

on arpe-

Xpurroq yevopevoq <rdp% y de)

crvvaiftioq S>v

tS

"Se'iKvvaiv

%api<rdpE,

KaroiKei

OeorrjToq

tov yevvqcravToq'

ndv to

aaaariKuq.

iv

irAvjpafAa

avrrjq

DIONYSIUS ALEXANDRINUS,
men who

" servant, or one of those

" rewarded

for the

A. D. 260,

413

are preeminently

does not teach us,

scripture

$ that we are to bow the knee to the form of a ser" vant and swear by him for we have been taught
" to have no other God but our God it was not a
;

" holy man, nor a servant, who made the heaven and
" the earth and let the gods, who did not make
" the heaven and the earth, be destroyed beneath
:

" the whole heaven together with their worship" pers a ."

Dionysii adv. Paul. Samos. Qucest. VIII.

3%2.

p.

263.

In this passage Paul brings an objection to the

divinity of Christ, from

parents missing

him on

and finding him

the circumstance^ of his

their return

from Jerusalem,

After quoting the

in the temple.

How can you glorify him who

" was twelve years old, and sought after, on account
" of whom his parents were grieved until they found
" him, if he is without beginning and coeternal with

passage, he asks, "

" the Father

?"

The answer to this objection is the same as that

made to all the others, and Dionysius, in the course
of his reply, says, " The mother of God returned
" seeking her Lord and God, him who became her
" Son c :" and again, at p. 265. 66 The mother of my
a

Tavryq ava^ioi rqq Oeaplaq

rav KaraKpyfAviaOevruv

hovXoi
fA.wav f
hoU'/jq

ol

rov

Xeyovreq,

hovXov, % tva

rov he^iKaicofxevav'

Kvpiov

rav Kar
ov

ot

hai-

r^q

e^alpe-

yap ovraq

^aq

rj
ypaffi, 'tva y*op(pr\ hovXov
KatAipa [/.ev yovv i<a) o[/.oo~a[Aev iv av-

hihaaKei

ra' ovhe yap

erepov

e$i&a%0yj//,ev kyjav

nXyv rov eov

y][a%v'

oi?%

%ebv
ayioq

avOpuitoq, ovre hovXoq eno'iyae rov ov-

pavov Ka) ryjv yrjv'

6eo) he, ot rov ov-

pavov koi tvjv yyjv ovk

inot'/ja-av, airo-

XeaQoicav vizoKarudev navroq rov ovpavov Ka) ot irpouKwovvreq avroTq.

b

II aq

avrov ho^dXeiq rov

Kaery koi Z^rov^evov,

us'bvvavro

ecoq

evpov, el olroq

Ka) <rvvaitioq rov Warpoq

c

(xev BeoroKoq

SSe-

ov oi yovetq

)Y

avap^oq

vneo-rpexpe rov

Kvpiov avr^q Ka) @eov Zflrovara rov

yevo^evov avrrjq vtov. p.

264.

DIONYSIUS ALEXANDRINUS,

414
"

God

says to

f rowing.
" 4.)

my

"

"
"
"
"
"
"

have sought thee sorprophet Hosea,

It is written in the

They wept with

Holy

(xii.

and made
me in my house,
and there I spake with them but the Lord God
the Almighty shall he their memorial d
Do you
see where he was found who was sought with
weeping? There the Lord God spoke to them,
saying, How is it that ye sought me ? Wist ye
not that I must be in my Father's house ? He
says by the prophet, They found me in my house,
and in the Gospels, / must be in my Father's

" supplication unto

"

We

God,

A. D. 260.

me

the

Spirit,

theyfound
:

" house

his

Father hath are

for all things that the

f ."

323. Dionysii adv. Paul. Samos. Qiicest. IX. p. 266.

It is plain

was

called

from

when

this question, that

God by Dionysius and

Christ

the catholic church,

they were understood by Paul to mean that he was

who

spoken of by Isaiah

where
we translate the words, The everlasting God, the
Lord, the Creator of the ends of the earth 3 &c.
the God,

is

d This
is very different from
our version.
e
It is plain that Dionysius
attached this meaning to the

words

iv ro7q rov

49.) which
true meaning.
ii.

is

narpoq pov,

(Luke

probably the
The word house
supplied in the Syriac, Peris

sian, and Armenian versions, (vid.

Griesbach.) and in Dialog. I.

contra Macedon. (Ath. vol. II.
p. 554.) we read iv ra o'Iku rov
Tturpoq (Mv.
So Epiphanius ex-

Aeyei y

Gea

ahwafA-eOa ^rovvreq

kou idevjQyo-dv

<p'/]<ri,

[Aov

evpecrdv

/xe'

Tzpoq

avrovq'

o he

roKpdrccp
c

Opac

ttov

KAavdixov
Kvpioq
u.e

rov avrov irarpcq,

XXX.

vol. I. p.

&eov, tout6Tt;

o}Koho[/.Yi6'/].

155.

Hser.

Kvpioq

ra

o'Ikcc

eoq

nav-

^firov^evoq [xera,

avro7q'

eoq Xeyav, T/ on iZ^reire

ovk o'thare,

(brjalv,

rov Ttctrpoq \xov oei

on

[xe

eivou

y.e,

Xeyei

iv
,

ro7q

ev rep

hia,

rov

iv he evocyyeXlotq, 'Ev ro7q

rov inarpoq [xov he7

yap

eKXavcav,
iv

iXdX'q<rev

ii<e7

oIku jAov evpeadv

ovo[/.<%

[/.ov,

kou iKe7 iXdXt\<ra.

evpeO'/] o
;

irpocpyjrov'

eiq

irpocp'/jrTi 'ficr/ye,

errai [/.v^oa-vvov avrav.

plains our Saviour to have meant,

vaoq

rS

ce* yeypanrai iv

Xeycov, 'Ev nvevf/.a.rt ccyia

on

eov pov rS

[xrjr^p rov

on

[xov,

xl. 28.

ocrcc fc%ei 6

//.e

elvou'

<ndvra,

iraryp, airov iariv.

DIONYSIUS ALEXANDRINUS,
was rather

Paul's version
pressive

different, but equally ex-

says, " It is

he

415

A. D. 260.

written

The

in Isaiah,

mighty God, the everlasting, hunger eth not, nei44

ther is weary : there is no searching of his un~
" der standing.
But it is written of Jesus, that he
66

" both hungered

" ing Lord,

But the

and was weary.

as I said

before,

everlast-

hungry nor

not

is

" weary."

Dionysius says in his reply,

p.

267, u Concerning

"

God being hungry or not, or eating or not eating,

" no one can tell how it is but I know that it is
:

" written,

The God of gods hath

" hungry,

I would

"

"

not tell thee

said,

(Psalm

If I were
1.

"hungry; but

and

12.)

we find that this same God is Jesus Christ

when he is hungry, he says to no one,

that

am

angels coming after his temptation

" ministered unto him.

It is written, Will I eat

" the flesh of bulls, or drink the blood of goats ?
" (Psalm 1. 13.) Thus saith God: but He did not
" say, I have not eaten, for God cannot lie for He
;

"

is Truth
Abraham set before God the calf which
" he had dressed , and the loaves which Sarah
" baked and God ate, and did not conceal from
" him that I will return unto thee according to the
" time of life, and Sarah shall have a son. (Gen.
:

"

xviii. 10.)

Observe God saying,

will return to

" thee, &c.

Is it not plain that he is the same
" says to his disciples, I go and come to you,
" will receive

"

is

the

God who

" not tell thee

" the
s

you with me

said,

he

is

'Enotya-e,

(John xiv, 2,

3.)

This

If I were hungry, I would

the same, and

Word who became

which is an instance
See p. 396.

used the word.

who
and

flesh,
in

is

not changed

who was God and

how many

senses Dionysius

DIONYSIUS ALEXANDRINUS, A.D.

416

" willingly

hungered, does

not

260.

I am

say,

hun~

Afterwards, having quoted those words of Isaiah,

They

(xl. 31.)

that wait upon

not be weary,

hungry ; he

God

as he translates

or,

says

that

and

not be
"
Why
be asked,

may

it

and

shall run

" then did not the apostle find it so

" that thrice he suffered shipwreck

it,

but he writes,

he does this to

" stop your wicked belief, and to prove that Christ

" was not merely a holy man, but holy God for
" men entertained Paul who was holy, one of whom
:

" was Onesimus the friend of the apostle but we

" find none of these things in Christ
but we find,
" according to what is written in the Old Testa:

" ment, that the same God who spake is come to

" us he who returned to Abraham according' to
:

" the time of life,

came

*'

to us

who ate with Abraham, the same

and was hungry, who said, If I were
would not tell thee : the Word being
was hungry, who giveth food to all

hungry, I
" made flesh
" flesh, Jesus Christ
6C

h
*j

-weivda-at,

."

Tteivda-ai tov eov,

Hep) Be tov

[ayj

(payeiv

rj

rj

(pa-

yyj

yeTVf tov rponov ovodlq hvvaTai <ppderai' ot'Ba Be oti

ebq

yeypa-KTai, oti dnev

lav nzivdcra ov

tccv 6ecov,

yn\

voi enro)' evpi<TKQ[A.tv Be oti avToq io-Tiv

o

&eoq

aaq

'Iyi&qvs o 'KpicrTo'q' oti neivd-

ov^ev)

dyyeXoi

ol

Tzeipacryov SiyKovovv avra'

Se,

[A7]

dXXd

neiva'

oti

elirev,

izpo<reXQovTeq

ueros

tov

ykypa^Tai

(pdyayat Kpia Tavpav y alya

Tpdycov itiayai

were/,

(p'/j<r),

Xeyei

%eoq. dXX* ovk dlnev oti ovk (payov'

dipevbriq

ydp

TtapeQ'/jKev

Qeia

0ea

ydp

Stoq'

'Afipady

dX'fjQeia

(1.
1

itapiBriKev

to yoa^dpiovo

ydp'

forsan dXr\'Afipady)

inoi'/jae,

tw

koi Tovq

a^vyovq ovq enexpe "Zappa, Ka) e(payev

o

eoq Ka) ovk dneKpv^ev avrov,

enaveXevcToyai
eo~rai tt)

Zappa

inaveXevtroyaL

ere

aKovere eot>,

vloq'

ere elq

itpoq

oti

Ka)

elq ccpaq,

oopaq'

dp

Iotiv oti avToq i<ntv

(pavepov

ov

itpoq

Xeyccv ToTq yaQyjTaiq, oti virdyco i<a)

epy/iyai irpoq vyaq, Ka) TiapaXrjipoyai

vyaq ytT iyov

Idv

Kuq,

avToq

ovToq

Seoq

6 (Xpt\~
eircco'

croi

Ka) ovk YjXXoicoTat, yevo-

io~Ti

uevoq crdp,

ov yfj

ireivdo-to,

Aoyoq

ctv

Seoq Ka)

irei-

vacraq 6kuv, ovk etrev oti Tveivu.

*

T7jv

P. 269.

T0VTO

TtOld'l

GOV

KaKOTZKTTiav iycppayvjvai, oti cvk

dvQpccnoq

r)v

@eoq dyioq' "

dyioq

Xpia-Toq,

dXXd

tovtwv Be ouBev evp~

DIONYSIUS ALEXANDRINUS,

417

A. D. 260.

Dionysii adv. Paul. Samos. Qucest. X. p. 270.

Paul having quoted those words of Peter, (Acts
36.) that God hath made that same Jesus, whom

324.

ii.

Lord and

ye have crucified, both

how it
God

to ask,

Christ, proceeds

could be that he was made Lord and

" For your writings say, that he who

Christ by

" was crucified was God, and coeternal with the Fa-

who was crucified says himself to Mary,

Touch me not ; for I am not yet ascended to my
u Father. (John xx. 17.) But you do not suffer it
" to be said, that he was not yet ascended but you
<c

ther; but he

"

" write every where, that he was coeternal with the

" Father, though he said,
the Father k ."

/ am

not yet ascended to

Dionysius begins his answer with acknowledging

unequivocally, " that I have written, and now write,
" and confess and believe and preach, that Christ is
" coeternal with the Father, the only-begotten Son
" and Word of the Father ." Afterwards he says,
1

now come with

" I will

what

"

Lord and

is

Christ.

It

Son

into the world

<TK0fAv in)
otra,

Xeyav,

Xpicrrov' dXX' evpla-Kopev

eo$,

fj^dq, o icpoq

vjudi;

npo<; 'A(3pad[/,,

ineivacrev,

neivdcru, ov y'q
fJLtvoi; o

capKi

r,po<;

crapi;

elizu'
o

i)f/.v

avT0<;

iccv

yevo-

XpiTToc.

VTavpccQeic,, Mvj uov

Kal

LnTov,

and

<p7jcn t?j

yap dva^e^'/jKa irpo^

tov vaTepa uov' dXX' vpuq ovk dvovtvco

<tvv-

Xeyei

on

e-xjecrOe eli:etv,

ouTta

ypd(ptT TtavTay^ov,
tov

YlaTpoc,

on

WaTepa.

'Oti

eypccipa,

[lev

to) crvvaihov

tov

<{j.ovoyGvr\

UaTpos.

dXXd

crvva'tbioi;

r)v

Xeyav, ovtra dvafie-

$-f\Ka npos tov

1

dvefi-/}'

koi ypd(pv,

KGU 0[AoXoy, Kal TIKTTeVQJ, KOi

ypacpewa
de

exists eter-

become our God

yiapia,

SiSou? tqo-

io-Tavpa)[AVCV,

t HaTpl'

is

only-begotten

who

ei$

iXQcov

elp'/jKcoc;,

'Itjo-ou>j o

Td yap nap

eov e%e; roy

aPiiov

<ro:

Aoyoq liKzlvaaev,

(pYjU itaca-fi

avToq iicayqkQ^

*A8padu. inaveXQav

&pa<;' (pccyav
irpoc

yeypamai,

TtaXaia

iv rrj

His

Christ Jesus,

" nally, Christ the Lord,

oti

God hath made him

God so

written, that

is

He gave

" loved the world, that

"

God's assistance to explain

meant by the words,

66

t% WaTp\
vtov

koi

K'fjpVT-

tov Xpi<7Toi\

Aoyov

rov

DIONYSIUS ALEXANDRINUS,

418

A. D. 260.

"

we became his people, who before as sheep had

" gone astray ; but now we have returned to the
" Shepherd and Bishop of our souls: (1 Pet.ii. 25.)
" we have returned

to

him who existed

eternally,

" Christ the Lord for Christ the Lord was born
" for our sakes for as to us a child was born, the
" Son, who is eternal, the same is become my sal:

" vation we were before not his people, as we knew

" him not.
The Word of the Father was not pro:

" duced by a word, like the multitude of the blessed

above but being the Word of the sub" stance of the Father3 he was begotten : for the
" spirits

Word, Jesus
P.

"

was not created m ."

Christ,

And as to the true Jesus, the God of

saying, / am not yet ascended to my Fa"

274}.

Israel,

" ther, they had not yet seen him going up whither
" he was before these are the words of God the
:

" Word, when he was man, What if ye see the Son

" of man going up whither he was before ? (John
"

vi. 62.)

No man

and again,

hath ascended up

to

came down from heaven, the

Son of man, who is in heaven. He is become my
God and Lord, Jesus, who is one, the Word: there
it is he
is one substance of him and one person

" heaven 9 but he that

"
"
(6

u to whom all things were subjected by the Father

" not being inferior to the Father, he prayed for us,
m

''EXQoc toIvvv

kou

Xpio-Tov
iitoir}(7e'

@e5) eV< tvjv

<txjv

elpr][xevov,

Kvpiov

avrov

k. t. X, yeyovev

Xpt<TToq 'lyo-ovq

a-Toq Kvpioq,

tov Xaoq,

ol

Kai

noTe

o tov

Kvpiov

Koci

ooq

yap iyevero XpurToq

ydp

aihioq,

Seoq

plow' y[Ae7q ovk

Vj[x7v

elq

ae) Xpi-

Kvpioq'

vj(uv iyevv/jOv] TratStov o

@eoq

avToq eyeveTo

y.01

uxritep

vloq,

oov

elq (TUT^-

ypev nakai Xaoq av-

rov, KaBoTi ^yvoov^eV ov Xoycp itapy\%Bf\ o

Aoyoq tov Uarpoq,

coairep

itpo^ara itXava-

twv avw dylm irvev^aTccv nXyOvq,

e/c Tvjq VTCOfTTao-eooq
aXXa Aoyoq

tov ovza ae)

tov itaTpoq eyiWf\Bf\' ov yap KTicrToq

^e7q eyevopeOa av-

[Aevoi, vvv he k. t. X. eVt

XptcrTov

ori

yeypaitTai oti ovraq

'/lya/K^f.

Seov

to

t/

div)yv)<riv,

iTto-Tpd<pY)[A,ev'

rjfMV

Aoyoq

'Ivjirovq o

HpitXToq.

DIONYSIUS ALEXANDRINUS,

A.D.260.

419

" saying, Holy Father, sanctify them, keep them

" in the world" (John xvii. 11, 17 n .)

At

277. he says, "

p.

But Christ died for all let

consider him that endured such oppo-

us therefore

" sition to himself for us sinners, that we may not

" be weary and faint in our souls
it is he that
" came down to Abraham he came down to Moses
:

" to free the people and now in the latter times

" coming for our sakes, not in the form of fire, but
" was conceived in the womb of the Virgin Mary,
;

* the Holy Ghost having

96

come upon her

For
Word, who came down

the only-begotten God, the

" from heaven, was conceived and born of the Virgin

" Paradise that possesses all things the Holy Ghost
:

"

came upon her, the power of the Highest overshadowed her, and the holy thing that was born
" was the child Jesus the mighty God, the power" ful, endured the cross despising the shame ."
66

Ka*

np\ rov elneTv rov d,Av)6tvov

k, r. X.

ovbiicco

roq

avrov iari

eov Aoyov,

eov kou Kvpiov

yla avrov
avroq

utcqv'

ndvra

ro itpore-

vjv

rov avBpcoTtio-Qev-

iav ovv

to,

'thrjre

avroq iyevero yoi

k. r. X.

yoq'

oitov

(j>avrj

ovito)

Becopyo-avreq

7)o-acv

avrov dvepyjiyevov
pov'

on

rov eiv '\o~parfA,

'Ivjixouv

elq

av Ao-

vTco'cracnq kou %v

rov

it poo-

a viterdyq

itxriv

icapa

k'Aarrov rov

'l'/jo-ovv o

Harpoq'

Harpoq vnep

iq

ovk

ret,

av

7j[x5v mpocr-

vjv^aro, Aeyuv, Tldrep ayie k. r. X.

diteBavev'

Xpio-roq

viiep

dvaAoyicrayeBa

irdvrav
rov

ovv

rvjv roiavrrjv vi:o[/.y.V^Kora i/nep

dyaproiAav

elq

'Iva ft?)

Ka.[AU[Aev

[*V0t'

avroq

dvnAoyiav,

eavrov
raiq

icTTiv

rSv

-tyvyjjuq Ik'Avo-

Kara(3aq

iit)

'Afipady' avroq in) Mawcnj Kare^y

efeXtVttai rov

XaoV kou

vvv

Si'

rjfAaq

eV iayjxrm
dXXd

itvpoq,

irapBevov

iXBoov ovk

iv ay^qyari,

crvveX'^cpBrj

iv

yacrp)

Mapiaq, rov dylov Ttvevya-'O yap

roq iizeXBovroq iir avr'f\v

e ovpavov Kara(3aq jxovoyevyjq eoq

Aoyoq

iyevvrjBrj Kvo(popvjBe)q

BeviKOv Ylapa^eiaov 'lyjivroq

itvevya

ayiov

vxpia-rov

iTUo~KidC,ovo-a,

vojytvov

iii

avrvjv,
ko.)

ayiov ro -naiViov

e/c

izap-

raitavra'
hvvauiq
to yev-

'Ivjo-ovq,

lo-%vpoq eoq> o i^ovaiaa-rrjq vtteyeive

o-ravpov alo-yvvrjq KaracppovYjcraq.

I have translated this passage

according to the reading and
punctuation of the edition to
which I refer, that of Rome

A Roman editor would

1796.
be pleased with finding the
Mary called, " the vir" gin Paradise that possesses
" all things."
But perhaps we

Virgin

e 2

DIONYSIUS ROM ANUS,

420

A. D. 260.

Dionysius Romanus. A. D.

The

260.

history of Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria,

has also led to the mention of his namesake,

who

was bishop of Rome. Of the writings of the latter,

only a few fragments are preserved in the works of
Athanasius nor is much more known of his history
than that he succeeded Xystus or Sixtus the Second,
;

Rome

as bishop of

We

having

in the year 259, the see

He

remained vacant nearly a year.

died in 269.

have seen that he wrote to the bishop of

Alexandria concerning the Sabellian heresy

Athanasius informs

us, that as

and

soon as he heard of

the charges which were brought against Dionysius

of Alexandria, " he wrote at once against the fol-

" lowers of Sabellius, and against those opinions for

" which Arius was afterwards expelled from the
" church
declaring that the opinion of Sabellius,
;

" and of those who say that the Word of God is a

" creature, or workmanship, and made, though di" rectly opposite to each other, were equally im" pious p." In another work he tells us, "that when
" some brought accusations to the bishop of Rome
" against the bishop of Alexandria, as if he had
should read

tov

tctxvra.

weuucc aytov eV

Holy

Spirit

of

sesses all things

Or

we

if

eK na.p$-

Kvotyop'tfeit;

Utxpahe'urov'

vikgv

'^ovrcq

to,

ccvrrjV,

the

Him

that pos-

came upon

follow

her.

present

the

punctuation, the words exovroq

may be taken to signify
that Mary bore Jesus in her

to, nocvTa

womb, who might

-

ed every thing
all in all

Virgin

truly

Jesus,

be

call-

Athanasius

says, av-

iv

Si/

kou

vol. I.

8.

phanius,
TYjV

p. 54.
iraq ovk

lAeydXyv,

j97jT6f,

De

Hagr.

and

LXXVIII.
I.

De

av

Incarn.

also Epi-

e'liro/Aev

nrav-

rlv ay^a-

ovpavoq kcu yvj %cepiv ov

1157:
p

So

yup'f\Gcc<T<xv

bvvavrai;
p.

twv

fyfAiovpyoi;

nupOeva KaracrKevcc^ei

T?j

iavrtf va.lv to aa/xa.

who was

was conceived by the

as

hvvccroi;

Tot;

okav

8.

p.

XXX.
again,

vol.

I.

Haer.

1040.

Sentent. Dionys. Alex.

p. 252. c. 13.

DIONYSIUS ROMANUS, A.D.

260.

421

" called the Son a creature, and not con substantial

" with the Father, the synod at Rome was offended,
" and the bishop of Rome sent the judgment of
" them all to his namesake

In another work he gives us the sentiments of

Dionysius in his

own

words.

having condemned those

The

bishop, after

who opposed

doctrine of the Trinity, continues thus

the catholic
" Nor would

" one find less fault with those who think that the
" Son is a creature, supposing that the Lord was
" made, like any of the things that are really made;
" whereas the holy scriptures testify that he had a
" suitable and becoming generation, not a kind of
" formation and creation.
It is therefore no small
" blasphemy, but the greatest, to say that the Lord
st

was in any sense formed. For if the Son was

" made, there was a time when he was not but he
" was always, since he is in the Father, as he him;

<e

self says.

(John xiv. 11.)

And why

" discuss this matter more at length to you

"
"
"
"

"
"
"

"
i(

"

"
"

should I

who

are

and clearly understand the absurdities

which arise from calling the Son a creature ?
which, as it appears to me, must have escaped the
attention of those persons who began this doctrine,
and therefore they have altogether erred from
the truth, misunderstanding the meaning of those
words of the holy and prophetical scriptures, The
Lord established me in the beginning of his
ways. (Prov. viii. 22.) For there is not one meaning only to the word established, (eW-no-ev,) as you
well know for we must understand established
in this place to mean, He placed me over the
spiritual,

De

Synodis, p. 757.

e 3

c.

43.

DIONYSIUS ROMAN US,

422
"

"

A. D. 260.

works which were made by Him, but which were

made by the Son himself but established cannot
:

made:

" be taken in this place for

for there is a

" difference between establishing and making

He

" not

"

He

Is

thy Father that hath bought thee ? hath

made thee and established thee ? (Deut.

" xxxii. 6.) as Moses says in his great song in Deu" teronomy. In answer to whom we might also say,
" O rash and venturous men, is the firstborn of
not

" every creature himself a creature? he that was

" conceived of the womb before the morning, who
" said in the person of

"he

begetteth

me?

Wisdom, Before

(Prov.

and in many

25.)

viii.

all the hills

may

" places of the holy scriptures one

find the

" Son spoken of as begotten, but not as made: by

" which passages those persons are plainly convicted
" of forming false notions concerning the generation
" of the Lord, who dare to speak of his divine and
" ineffable generation as a creation r ."
r

TO

Ov
KOU

av Tiq KaTau.e^(poi~

tAelov '
TOVC,

Hol'fjlAa

TOV

elvai

VlOV

tov dX-qBovq hi'q^aprqKevai, eTepcoq

(3ovXeTai TocvTrj

7]

hofiafyvTac, kou yeyovevai tqv Kvpiov,

ypacpY], to, Kvptoq

axncep ev ti ovTaq ye vo{/.evav, vQfA.iCpv~

ohav avTOv, eKhe^dy.evoi.

Taq' rav

Qetcov

Xoyiav yevvqaiv avra

upy,oTTovo~av kou 'npeitovcrav, aXX*

rrjv

irXdo'iy

ov'x)

Tiva

th%oj/, [Aeyicrrov

tpoitov

/jv,

avroq

pev

ei

vloq,

'qv

ot ovk %y"

ye iv t WaTpl

(p-qcrt

TO

ovv, yjapo'Koi'qTOv

Tiva Xeyeiv tov Kvptov.

yap yeyovev
$e

koci TtOfqo-iv Trpocr-

B\dc<r<p'/][A0V OVV 0V

[Accp-vpovvruv.

e<TTiv,

Et
a,e\

aq

Kal tI dv eiii nXeov

irpoq vydq hiaXeyoli^v,

nepl

tovtcov

itpoq

avdpaq TzvevjxaTocpopovq kou tra-

(pZq entcrTayevovq

tov
<raq

vai

nol-qu.a

atq

Xeyeiv tov vlov avaKvuTov-

y.01

tov vovv

hotjrjc,

Taq ccronlaq Taq k

hoKOvii yvq itpoaeay^qKeol

KaQ'qyqo-dyevoi Tijq

TavTqq, kou

hiu.

tovto

KOfiihrj

rj
'

tov "EKTicrev,

E/cTio-e

vj

Beta kou npocp'qTiKy)

eKTitre [Ae apyjqv

uq

Ov

i'o-Te,

yap evTavBa

[/.lot

yap

<Tr\\A.aa

la'

a.Kov<neov, dvTt

avTOv yeyo-

tov, 'Envea-TTjo-e To7q vit

votiv epyoiq, yeyovocrt he hi avTov tov

ye to"Ektict vvv XeyotT*

vlov' ovy) he
otv

tov 'Eno'iycre'

eiii

tov

notYja-ai

aov

ovToq

TcaT^ip

ere

eico'if\(Te

eKTricruTo

kou eKTtae

ere

AevTepovofila [AeydXrj
Tlpoq ovq kou

(p'qcri.

pi\pQKiv$vvoi avBpcciroi,

TOTOKOq

IZocpta,
/xe

r.dcry}q

ecca-(popov

vcpo

Upo

KcCi

yap
Ovk avToq

htacpepet

to KTiaai.

<y^
e'iitoi

<re

KOti

tS? iv

tS

av

nolr^a

KTiaeuq,
yevwq6e)q,

Mdcavjq
Tiq,

c Trpoo-

eK yaaTpoq
o

elnav aq

de tidvTtcv fiovvuv yevva

iroXKa^ov he twv

Qelcov

Xo-

CONCILIUM ANTIOCHENUM,

423

269.

Concilium Antiochenum, A. D.

325.

We

A.D.

269.

have yet another document connected with

the history of these two bishops, in some letters of

the council of Antioch concerning

Paul of Samosata.

heresy of

the

This council was held

the

in

and after many sittings the Fathers excommunicated Paul.

Before
however they proceeded to this step, they addressed
a letter to him, in which their object was to give to
Paul a summary of their religious creed, which, as
year 269, as mentioned above

they say, " had been preserved in the catholic

" church from the time of the apostles to that
" day."

The

letter is a long one,

to transcribe nearly the

and

will be necessary

it

whole of

The Fathers

it.

begin with professing their belief in one uncreated

invisible God
after which they go on to say, "

We

" acknowledge and preach, that this begotten Son,

" the only-begotten Son,

is the image of the invisi" ble God, begotten before all creation, the Wisdom
" and Word and Power of God, who was before the

" worlds, God, not by foreknowledge, but in essence

" and substance Son of God, as we have known him
" in the Old and New Testament.
But if any one
" should contend, that we are not to believe and
" acknowledge the Son of God to be God before the
" foundation of the world, and should say that we

make two Gods, if we preach the Son of God to

" be God, we consider such an one to depart from
"

Kai

yiav yeyevvri<r6izi aXk* ov yeyovivat

Sefc&v

tov vlov Xeyoptvov evpot rt$ av'

to\[/.covt<;.

av KarcMpccvai; i\ey%ovrat
irep)

ty)$

tov

Xa[A(3uvovTi;,

v(ff

tcc \pevty

Kvplov yevvya-ecoq vtto01

nofya-iv

avTOv

TVjv

Syn.

appyrov

NlC.

yevvr^iv

C.

26.

p.

23

apud Routh Reliq. Sacr.

III.

180.

e 4

Xeyetv

Athanas. de Decret.
1.

et

torn.

424

CONCILIUM ANTIOCHENUM,

A. D. 269.

" the ecclesiastical canon, and all the catholic church

" agrees with us.
For concerning him it is written,
"

Thy

throne,,

God,

is

for ever and

" (Psalm xlv. 6.) and again Isaiah,

" eth judgment, and will repay ;

ever, &c.

Our God repay

He

himself will

" come and save us, he. (xxxv. 4.) and again, In thee
" shall they pray, for God is in thee ; and there is
u no God but thou,
thou art God, and we

for

"

"
"

God of Israel, the Saviour (xlv.

14.) and the apostle says, Of whom as concerning
the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God bless-

knew

it not,

the

" ed for ever. Amen. (Rom. ix. 5.) in which pas" sages the words who is over all, and there is no
" God but thou, are to be understood with reference
" to all created things
and all the divinely in" spired scriptures declare the Son of
tc

We

God.

believe that he always

God

to be

was with the

" Father, and fulfilled his Father's will in the crea" tion of the universe for
spake, and they
" were made ;
commanded, and they were cre:

He

He

" ated. (Psalm cxlviii. 5.) He who commands an" other, must command some one who we are per" suaded was no other than the only-begotten Son

" of God, himself God, to whom also He said, Let

" us make man," &c. They then quote John i. 3.

and

Col.

i.

16. to

shew that the world was created

by Christ "as really existing and acting, being at

once the
"
<(

Word

of Gr>d, by

whom

the Father

made

by an instrument, nor as by
[His own] knowledge, which had no substantial

all

things, not as

" existence for the Father begat the Son as a living

" self-substantial energy, working all things in all
" things
nor was the Son a spectator only, or
:

" merely present, but actually efficient for the ere-

CONCILIUM ANTIOCHENUM,
" ation of the universe

"

It

A. D. 269.

was he who,

425

fulfilling

Father's counsel, appeared to the patriarchs

his

"

being spoken of one while as an Angel, one

" while as the Lord, one while as God.
For it is
" impious to think that the God of the universe is
" called an Angel but the Angel of the Father is
:

" the Son, himself being Lord and God s ."

believe also that the Son,
P. 473. "

We

who was

" with the Father, being God and Lord of all created
" things, was sent from heaven by the Father, and
" took our flesh and became man
wherefore the
" body, which he had from the Virgin, contained all
:

" the fulness of the Godhead bodily, and is un" changeably united with the Godhead and become
" God on which account this same God and man,
:

Tovtov he tov vlov yevvrfcov,

voyevrj vlov, eiKova

\jlo-

tov aopaTov eov

TvyyjxvovT ol, izpuvoTOKOv

ud<j /\q kt'ir

ffecoc,

uocpiav Kai Aoyov koi

eov,

itpo

hvvayiv

0?

&>q

'

av avTiyayflTai tov

tov eov eov yf\ elvai

fioXviq

itpo

vlov

rara-

KOG-pov nuTTtveiv Ka)by.o'Aoye7v,

KaTayyeXXeaSai,

(pdcTKav hvo Geovq

lav

0 vloq

Kai

eov

iyvcoKOTtq ojj.oXoyovjA.ev Ka\ K'qpvaaotV

%v ovk

tov @eov eoq

K'/jpvcxa-yjTai,

TOVTOV dXXoTptOV TOV kKKA'f\<TiaG1 IKOV

Kavovoq r\yovjxeQa'

koi ivaorai al KaS-

cXiKai iKhXycrlai

crvycpccvovcrtv quiv.

tiv'i

tov [Aovoyevrj

he

evTe itaXaia Kai via 8<a&j/o]

y,ev.

evTeXXouevoq eTepa evreXXe-

alwviuv ovra, ov irpoyvacrei

a,XX' ovcria Kai vnoaTatrei eov,

vlov,

t. X. 0 he

Tai

aXXov

vlov

TtenelvjA.eQa

vj

tov eov eov,

a>

elite, YloLrjo~OL>j/.ev k. t.

cbq

X.

ovtoj

aArjOwq ovToq koi ivepyovvToq,

Aoyov atxa Ka) eov'

ndvTa

TlaTvjp

opydvov, ovh'

Tter.oi-fiKev,

o)q

hi' eTTKnyf/s/jq

(TTaTov' yevvYjOravToq yev tov

tov vlov

ov

hi'

oi% aq

dvvr.o-

UaTpoq

X^aav ivspyeiav koi

a>q

vi:ocrTaTov, evepyovvTa to,

hi

iv-

irdvTa ev

TcdaiV ovyj fiXenovToq he yovov ovhe

izapovToq

ixovov

tov

vlov,

dXXa

Ka)

evepyovvToq npoq tv}v tuv oXccv h'/jjMOvp-

ylav,

Tovtov

yeypaitrai

aq

elvai,

'bq

k. t. X.

t^v itaTpi-

eKirX'/jpav

yap tovtov yeypairTai, (Psalm

xlv. 6. Isaiah xxxv. 4. xiv. 14.

K7]v fiovXyv

Rom.

uepiKonaiq koi To7q avroiq KecpaXaloiq,

Ylepl

ix. 5.) tov, 0

Ka) tov,

TtA-qv crov,

tcov yevvrjTcov

av eV* ndvTcov,

voovyjvov

it)

irdv-

koi nacrai al 8eo-

nvevcnoi ypacpai eov tov vlov tov

eov
y.ev

[/.'/jVvov<r iv

avv

tS UaTp)

Tovtov nuTTevoale)

ovTa

e/cire-

nXypccKevai to naTpiKov [3ovA'/j[Aa Ttpoq

Tyv

kt'ktiv

tuv tkw' AvToq yap

k.

Tai, Ka)

ttOTe [A6v

Toiq

hiaXeyerai

Toiq avTaiq

ev

aq dyyeXoq, itOTe he aq Kv-

pioq, 7roTe he

y.ev

naTpiapy^aiq cpaive-

@eoq yapTvpovyevoq. Tov

yap Seov twv

oXcov dcrefieq

Xov vofAicrai KaXe7cr6at'

tov UaTpoq

Ka) elq av.

0 vloq

he

eaTiv, avToq Kvpioq

Apud Routh

Sacr. II. 466.

dyye-

dyyeXoq

Reliq.

CONCILIUM ANTIOCHENUM, A.D.

426

269.

" Jesus Christ, was predicted in the law and the

" prophets, and is believed by the whole church
" under heaven to be God, and to have humbled
" himself from having been equal to God, but to
" have been man, and of the seed of David accord" ing to the flesh.
It was God who performed the

" miracles and wonders which are written in the

" Gospels but we believe that he became partaker
" of flesh and blood, and was tempted in all things
;

" like as

The

we

are,

without sin

reader will observe, that this passage conii. 9- For in him dwelleth
Godhead bodily, which words

tains a quotation of Col.

all the fulness

of the

must convey to every unprejudiced mind a plain

and unequivocal assertion of the divinity of Christ
and I mention them for the sake of pointing out the
Socinian tendency of that otherwise excellent work,

He

the Lexicon of Schleusner.

interprets this pas-

sage to mean, that the whole body of believers are

collected in Christ as in their head.

It is

hardly

necessary to point out the absurdity of this interpre-

which does the most

tation,

most

all

Tov

@eov

vtov itapd

ra Harp) ovra

Ka) Kvpiov roov yevvvjrSv

jttev

dirdvrcov, viro Se rov

Harpoq a/KOGra-

Xevra e ovpavav, Ka) o-apKcoQivra

vrjv8punrjKevai.
rvjq

T7j

Aionep

Ka)

to e

vapQevov crapa %apri(xav nzdv to

TuXripoo^a

r^q orf\Toq aufAariKuq,

eorv)Tt drpenraq Yjvcarai Ka) re-

QtOTzolrfcai'

ov %dpiv o

avToq eoq Ka)

avSpanro^lYj^ovi; Xpio~roq npoe(f)VjT6VTO

iv v6[Aq> Ka) irpo(p^raiq Ka) iv rvj e/c/cX>jcla, tS?

vno tov ovpavhv

rai Seoq
tivat

forcible violence to al-

the words of the sentence, giving them an

itdo-rj

/xev Kevao~aq

nentcnev-

iavrov aum rov

lua e&, dvOpuvoq 5e Ka) iK

(TTtep^aroq Aafi)h to

Td

[Av o~Yj[/.e7a

rolq

Seoq

Ka)

evayyehloiq
7jv

al\A,aroc,

Kara,

adpKa.

ra repara rd

avayeypaufAtva

intrehearaq'

iv
6

to de crapKoq Ka)

garteryvpkvai rov ai/rov 7re-

7!ipay,evov

Kara irdvra

Ka6* ofAQio-

Dr. Routh
agrees with Turrianus in reading r he crapKoq and -ne^eipa^kvoq
but these alterations are needless, if we supply <nio-revo^ev, as
we must supply it at the beginning of this section.
rrjra, %ccp)q

apapriaq.

CONCILIUM ANTIOCHENUM, A.D.

427

269-

highly figurative instead of a literal signification,

them which has no connexion

extracts a sense from

with the context, and

Fathers

ity of all the

is

contradicted by the author-

who quote

the passage.

The
In

Improved Version translates the passage thus

him dwelleili all the fulness of the Deity bodily,
and we find in the note this commentary of Pierce
" All those blessings which proceed from the God;

" head, and wherewith

" truly

we

are

filled,

dwell in Christ

and substantially."

Mr. Belsham renders it,

In him resideth substantially a fulness of divine
communications ; but he has not acquainted us with
the process by which OeoTvjs comes to signify divine
communications. There can be little doubt that
St. Paul had in his view the absurd notions of the
Gnostics concerning the pier oma. In the preceding
verse he guards his brethren against the subtleties
of false philosophy, and he

pleroma,

i.

e.

the

full

tells

them, that the real

majesty of the Godhead, re-

him only. Pie had said the

and we may observe, that the passage was understood in no other way by Irenaeus,
and even by the Gnostics u and by all the Fathers

sided in Christ, and in

same

in chap.

i.

19-

of the three

first

centuries.

See

p.

Concil. Antioch. JEpist.

326.

412.

ad JDionysium

et

Maximum.
Another letter is also preserved by Eusebius x ,
which was written by the same council to Dionysius
bishop of Rome, and Maximus bishop of Alexandria,
in which the Fathers give an account of their proceedings and towards the end of it there is this declaration of their sentiments upon the question in
;

vol.

Iren.
III.

Athanas.

I.

p.
vol.

See Origen.
128. IV. p. 307.
I. p. 940.
3. 4.

VII. 30. apud RouthReliq.

Sacr. II. 477.

428

CONCILIUM ANTIOCHENUM,

A. D. 269.

who clothed himself with and bore

" the human nature, was neither without a parti cipa" tion in those passions, which are properly and pri" God,

dispute.

" inarily

human

neither were the actions, which

" are properly and primarily divine, excluded from

" the human nature, in which he was, and which he
" made the instrument of performing these actions.
" Properly and primarily he was formed as man in
" the womb and God was in the womb in a se;

" condary sense, being substantially united to the hu" man nature y."

The

principal difficulty in translating this passage

is

caused by the word

of

it is

made

pov koyov

plain

by

icpoyiyovptrng,
its

but the meaning

being opposed to

and Dr. Routh has correctly pointed

that in the former part of the passage

taken

hvre-

Kara,

in conjunction

with a^eroyov and

it

is

out,

to be

with avQpamivwv and0e/wv, and not

When

apoipov.

our Saviour

felt

hunger or sorrow, they were the feelings which be-

man they did not beGod felt them, because He

man. So also when he worked

longed to him properly as

long to him as God, but

had united himself to

were the works which properly belonged to him as God: and the man Jesus worked
miracles, because the Deity was residing in him. In
the same manner that which was formed in the
womb of Mary, was strictly and properly the human
If we say that God was in the
nature of Jesus.
miracles, they

womb
we
y

are then not

Ovre

Se

yukvaq itaQav

km
Ok-re

we may speak correctly but

speaking of God in His distinct di-

of the Virgin,

rav

avBpccnlvccv nprffov-

a^krc/jiq

rjv b

(popkcraq

ivSvcrdfAevoq to avOpaiTtivov eoq'

rSv Belav

KpQ*f\yw\A.kvuq

apoipov to avQpoonivQv,

ivS

epyav

vjv,

km

Si'

ov

ravra

'qyovpkvuq

icq

iiroiei.

'EirXaaOrj itpo-

avdpuTtoq iv yacrrp), kou

Kara, fievrtpov Koyov Seoq yv iv

arpi

<jvvQv<riuy,kvoq

Apud Routh

tb

ya-

avOpoouiva,

Reliq. Sacr. II. 485.

CONCILIUM ANTIOCHENUM, A.D.

vine nature, but

we

are speaking of

429

269.

Him

as united

human nature. In this sense, but in this sense

God was in the womb of the Virgin.
We may well be surprised, as Dr. Routh observes,
how any person could consider this passage as lowerto the

only,

ing the divinity of Christ, and containing a doctrine

which was
asserts

It

in unison with that of the heretic Paul.

Jesus

Christ to be

est sense of the term.

God

God

It states

before his incarnation in the

the

in

him

have been

to

womb

high-

of the Vir-

gin; and clearly distinguishes between his divine

and human natures

which

to the opinion of Paul,

is

diametrically opposite

who denied

his preexistence,

and ascribed to him only one nature, the human.

We may add to these official accounts of the council's proceedings a passage from Athanasius, who,
speaking of the Fathers assembled at Antioch, says,
that " they used great care to confute the opinions

" of Paul, and to prove that the Son existed before

" all things, and that God was not born from a hu-

"

man being, but that being God he took on him the

" form of a servant, and being the Word became
"flesh, as St. John says

327.

z ."

Symbolum Antiocheniim.

In the Acts of the council of Ephesus, which was

held A. D. 431. to consider the doctrines of Nestorius,
there

is

a creed or exposition of faith which

is

said

to be that " of the bishops assembled at Nice in the

" council, and a declaration of the same council

" against Paul of Samosata."

Tyv

(ppovrftot e!%ov TtcLrrav, oirep

inevori<7ev o 1,cc[AQa-otTVi; ave\elv.y

^el^ou

r.p\ tvocvtuv

oti ovk e|

ehai rov

vlov,

avQputwv yeyove @eo^,

There seems

eo$ v ivetvaaro tovkov

kou

Aoyoq uv yeyove aoip%.

kou

de Syn. Arim.
Routh. II. 488

txXha,

to be

[A.op^>\v,

kou

Ex Athanas.

et Seleuc.

apud

CONCILIUM ANTIOCHENUM,

430

A. D. 269.

no doubt but that the name of Nice in this passage

a mistake, and that we ought to read Antioch.
Paul of Samosata had been dead many years before
the council of Nice, nor had that council any thing to
do with condemning his tenets: but we are told, that
is

this creed "

was brought forward to convict the heretic Nestorius of holding the same opinions with
" Paul of Samosata, who was anathematized 160
<c

" years before by the orthodox bishops."

year 269,

when

From

the

the council of Antioch was held, to

when that of Ephesus assembled, the interval is

162 years so that it seems quite certain that
the creed, which was produced against Nestorius at
the council of Ephesus, was that of the Fathers assembled in the year 269 at Antioch to condemn Paul
431,

just

of Samosata.
The creed is as follows
"
acknowledge our Lord Jesus Christ, begotten
:

We

65

of the Father according to the Spirit before the

" worlds, in the latter days born of the Virgin ac-

" cording to the flesh, one Person compounded of

" heavenly divinity and human flesh, and one with
" respect to his being
66

and altogether man

man a
;

both altogether God,

altogether God, even with

" the body, but not

God with
man with the

66

and altogether

6i

with respect to the divinity

respect to the body

divinity, but not

man

thus altogether to be

" worshipped even with the body, but not to be woru shipped with respect to the body altogether wor;

iC

shipping b even with the divinity, but not worship-

" ping with respect to the divinity

a

There seems some corrup-

tion here

it is

proposed to read,

ku9o @eo$ Kai kuOo avdpamoq

npoo-co-

i.

e.

altogether un-

Christ in his

nature, while he was

human

upon earth,

worshipped the Father.

CONCILIUM ANTIOCHENUM,

A. D. 269.

431

" created even with the body, but not uncreated with

f respect to the body altogether formed, even with

" the divinity, but not formed with respect to the
" divinity altogether of one substance with God,
;

" even with the body, but not of one substance with
" God with respect to the body like as he is not of
;

<e

men with

one substance with

respect to his divi-

" nity, although even with the divinity he is of one

" substance with us according to the flesh for when
" we say that he is of one substance with God ac:

we do not say that he is of

" one substance with men according to the Spirit
" and again, when we preach that he is of one sub" cording to the Spirit,

" stance with men according to the flesh, we do not

" preach that he is of one substance with God ac" cording to the flesh for as according to the Spirit
;

" he is not of one substance with us, since in this

" respect he is of one substance with God, so neither
" according to the flesh is he of one substance with
" God, since in this respect he is of one substance
" with us and like as these points have been distin;

" guished and explained, not with a view to divide

" the one Person which is indivisible, but in order

" to shew that the properties of the flesh and the

" Word are not confounded, we thus declare the
" circumstances of the indivisible union c ."
c

<itvev[xa

eV ecryjzrw
Kara,

e/c

[/.era

ryq

Otor'fjrot;,

a.XX ovy^i

Karar\v Beorrjra avBpaxov' ovraq oXov

irpoaKvvrjrov koi [/.era rov c-6[/.aroq y

r&ov vj[f.epSv Ik itapBevov

ev npocrccnov

Beornroi; ovpavlov Kai av-

Bpomelac, aapKoq' kou KaBo avBpuitoc,,

ev'

avBpanov

rov Tlarpoq

e/c

adpKa reyfievra,

avvBerov

vj/x.Sv

npo alavav yevvvjBevra,

'lyaovv Xp<o"T0V, tov

Kara.

Kvpiov

O[AoXoyov[Aev tov

Kai oaov @eov, Kai oXov avBpconov'

oaov

eov Ka\

a a A'

ovy) KaBo

[/.era

rov

aSpa @eoV

crcoy-aroq,

koi oAov

aXX' ovy) Kara to <ra[Ka

oAov TtpovKwovvra Ka)
roq, aXX' ov%i

Kara

TzpodKvvtixov'

[/.era, rr\<;

ttjv

Beorrj-

Beor'^ra izpoa-

Kvvovvra' oXov ccktigtov kou yt.era rov

au^aroq, aXX' ovyl Kara to

aa^a

KOI

jUCTa

UKTt(TT0V'

OXOV

rye Beorrjroq,

TtXaG'TOV

aXX* ovy)

Kara, ryv

ARCHELAUS,

482

A.D.

278.

AftCHELAUS, A. D. 278.

328.

Archelaus was bishop of Caschar in Mesopotamia,

and we have

remaining a disputation which he

still

Manes

held with

or Manichaeus

d
.

between these two persons took place

and afterwards
date of

it is

disputation

Syriac

conference

first

at Caschar,

at Diodoris, a village not far

The
The

off.

supposed to be about the year 278.

is

said to have been originally written in

but the account which

The

we have

of

is

it

in

Latin, and the translation seems to have been made,

not from the original Syriac, but from

Greek

version.

do not pretend to decide the question, whether

we have

the account, which

of this dispute,

genuine

is

Beausobre has written at considerable length

or no.

and
that the work in question was written A. D. 330 or
The names of those who have adopted or
340 e
to prove that the conference never took place,

opposed this notion,

may

be seen in Dr. Routh's

Reliquiae Sacrse, vol. IV. p. 133-4.

Geor'/jra n:\aarov' o'aov o/xoovaiov

Kai perd

rov

Koccct to acofxa ot/.oovaiov

Kara TYjV

Ov'bl

@ea

ravra

oi>%i

ovk

ra ea> aavep
'

OeOTYjTCX, dvdpOJTTOli; <TTIV

ou.oovaioq^ Kalroi

ye

w Kara, adpKa

rrjToc,

oKa

aa/xarot;,

t%

//.era

Beo-

bpoovaiot; yfuv'

Ka\ yap orav Aeyapev avrov Kara,

<uvev\ka

Sea

o/Aaovaiov,

ov

Aeyopev

elq

have already

htripBparai kou aeaa^4[viarat y

biaipeaiv rov

rov doiaiperovy

dW*

evoq npoaoonov
elq

^Xecaiv rov

davy%vrov rav ihia^drav

kou rov Aoyov t ovrcc kou

rvjq

aiperov avvBeaeaq^pea^evo^ev
cil.

Eph.

torn. III.

aapKoq

tSJi;

rd

part. III. c. 6. p.

Concil. Labb.

aSi-

Con979.
It is

crdpKa dvBp&r.oiq opoovaLOv, ov Kt\pva-

printed also in Reiiq. Sacr. II.

524. and in the edition of the
works of Dionysius Alex. p.

aopev avrov Kara, adpi<a ouoovaiov

289.

Kara, irvevpa avQpaitou; oixoova iov' Kai

Ttahiv,

orav

Kr\pvaaoiij-ev

yap Kara nvevfAa

Sea'

uaitep

ear iv

of/.oovaiot;, eiteihrj

rovro

OfAoovaioi;,

Ka

eoo

Kara

yi/Ji'v

ovk

Ian Kara

iizeih'/]

rifMV

rovro opoovaio? wanep he

See Epiphan. Haer. LXVI.

627.
Hist, de Manichee, vol. I.

10. vol. I. p.
e

ovraq ovhe Kara, adp-

ear) ec2 ouoovaioc,

iari

avrov Kara,

p.

129154.

THEONAS,
mentioned that

A. D. 290.

433

in the course of the dispute

Arche-

Mother of God:
(see p. 108.) and in a fragment of another work of
the same Archelaus, we find the following remark-

Mary

laus calls the Virgin

the

which accomwon" ders proclaimed with a loud voice that he was

able passage concerning the prodigies

panied our Lord's crucifixion, " These divine

"

God f." It may be mentioned, that Archelaus

quotes Luke iv. 34. " We know thee who thou art,
" the holy Gods/'

There

no other authority

is

for

this reading.

Theonas, A. D.

329.

290.

Theonas was raised to the see of Alexandria in

the year 282, and occupied it for nineteen years.
A letter of his is extant, which he addressed to

who

Lucianus,

held a high station in the household

of the emperor Diocletian.

written in Greek
lation of

but

how

was certainly

only a Latin trans-

who

se-

held similar employments.

in this letter gives directions to

them

all,

they should conduct themselves in their several

situations

him,

and addressing himself particularly

who had

says, that

He

will

to

the care of the emperor's library, he

he should take every opportunity to bring

the scriptures

"

we have

letter

Lucianus was a Christian, as were

it.

veral other persons,

Theonas

The

before the notice of the emperor

sometimes speak

commendation of the

in

" Gospel and of the apostle Paul mention may be

" made incidentally of Christ and he will explain
:

ry OeovpenZv tovtuv 8av-

pdruv avaKVjpvTTovrav avrov

@eov Xccy-Tcparri (puvy.

elvai

apud Routh

Scimus te qui sis sanctus

Deus. Rel. Sacr. Vol. IV. p.

257-

Rel. Sacr. IV. p. 284.

F f

LUCIANUS,

434

" by degrees that he

is

is

A. D. 300.

the only

God

That

this

the true meaning of the words ejus sola divinitas,

seems clear from a passage which Dr. Routh has

quoted from the Roman Martyrology, (August. 31.)
where we are told that " Aristides presented to the
" emperor Hadrian a volume upon the Christian
" religion, in which he explained our doctrine, and
" proved in the clearest manner, that Christ Jesus
" is the only God ." The two expressions have evii

dently the same meaning; and since Theonas un-

God

questionably believed in

the Father, he must

have considered Jesus Christ to be one with the Father, or he could not have styled him the only God k
.

He

wrote to turn the emperor from polytheism to

the worship of the one true God, and he expressly

says that the only

compare

this

God

is

We

Christ.

may

also

expression with the quotation from

Tertullian at the end of N. 98. p. 183.

330.

Lucianus, A. D. 300.

Socrates, the ecclesiastical historian

as well as

Athanasius m and Hilary , have preserved a creed or

exposition of faith, which was brought forward at the
and
sixth council of Antioch, held in the year 341
Sozomen 0 informs us, that it was said to be found
11

h
sti

insurgere poterit Chrimentio, explicabitur paulatim

ejus

sola

divinitas.

Epist.

ad

sion, povoq he
Tioiq

iyvapitrQ?]

De

@eo? Aoyoq.

XjJicTTo? iv

&eo<;

av8pa-

aktfiivac,

eoy

Incarn. 47. vol.

Lucianum, apud Routh. Rel.

I.

Sacr. III. p. 31 1.
1
et quod Christus Jesus

ten before the Arian controversy

1

writ-

II. TO.

m De Synod. Arim.

imperatore luculentissime per-

sius uses the very strong expres-

was

arose.

solus esset Deus, praesente ipso

oravit. Rel. Sacr. I. p. 78.
k In the same way
than a-

p. 88. This treatise

23. vol.
n

De

HI-

I. p.

Synod.
5-

et Seleuc.

735.
.

28. p. 1168.

LUC IAN US,

A. D. 300.

He was

in the hand-writing of Lucianus.

ter of the

435
a presby-

church of Antioch, celebrated for his know-

ledge of the scriptures, and suffered martyrdom at

Nicomedia about the year 311, in the persecution of

Maximinus p.
Dr. Routh

<i

does not venture to admit this creed

as a genuine composition of Lucianus,

nius, Cave,

though Baro-

Basnage, and Bull have maintained

authenticity.

its

question of this nature can never

be decided so as to exclude further doubt or controversy and without entering more into the dispute,
:

I shall only mention, that if the creed

the Arians were the authors of

It

unquestionable, that

is

Antioch

in

was a forgery,

it.

council held at

the

341 was composed mostly of persons

clined to Arianism.
fession of faith,

They

which

in-

drew up a short con-

first

differed considerably

from that

of the council of Nice, and did not give satisfaction.

They then put

forth another, which they asserted to

have been found in the hand-writing of Lucianus.
It

is

also true, that

Sozomen (who

is

the only writer

that mentions the latter circumstance) says, that he

did not

know whether

it

was genuine or

one argument used by bishop Bull

surely suffi-

is

cient to incline us to receive the creed.

forged by the Arians under the

fession

own

it

was

of Lucianus,

of faith, which entirely contradicted their

doctrines?

the fact

The

and whether

judge for himself.

If

bishop contends that this

it is

we

so or no, the reader

are to decide, that

See the Synopsis Scripture

ascribed to Atbanasius, vol. II.

p.

If

probable that they would have drawn up a con-

is it

name

But

no.

it

is

may
was

Rel. Sacr. III. p. 295.

Defens. Sect. II. 13. 4. &c.

204,

f 2

LUCIANUS,

436

A. D. 300.

not composed by Lucianus at the end of the third

we must then

century,

take

containing the

as

it

doctrines of the Arians in the year 341

least satisfactory to see that the

and

it is

at

Arians at that pe-

riod differed in so small a degree from the catholic

church.

We

"

believe

according to the evangelical and

" apostolical tradition in one God, Father Almighty,

" the Creator and Maker of all things and in one
u Lord Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son, God,
:

" by whom all things were made who was begot" ten of the Father before all worlds, God of God s,
;

ct

universal of universal, alone of alone, perfect of

" perfect

King of King, Lord of Lord, the living

Wisdom, Life, true Light, the Way of
the Resurrection, Shepherd, Door
un-

" Word,
" Truth,
<c

changeable and unalterable

the unvarying image

" of the Divinity, Substance and Power and Counsel

" and Glory of the Father begotten before every
:

" creature who was at the beginning with God, the

" Word, God, according to what is said in the Gos;

" pel, And the Word was God, by whom all things
" were made, and in whom all things subsist ; who

" in the latter days came

<c *

down from

above, and was

and
made man, a Mediator between God and men,
" the Apostle of our faith, and Prince of life, as he
" says, I came down from heaven, not that I might
born of a Virgin according to the scriptures

" was

66

"

do

me
s

my own
:

eoj/

who

will but the will

suffered for us,

@o3.

e/c

Hippolytus

had used the same expression,

@eoq vnapxav

e/c

Seov. II. p. 29.

which expression was applied to the Son

t

TeXeiov

e/c

reXeiov,

of

Him

and rose again

that sent
for us

on

by Clement of Alexandria,
ow o[Ao\oyq<rov<rw aKOvreq rov Aoyov
TeXetov

e/c

re'Aetov

tpvvra rov

rpoq;' Pffid. I. 6. p. 1

3.

Yla-

LUCIANUS,

437

A. D. 300.

the third day, and ascended into heaven, and sat

down on

the right hand of the Father, and cometh

again with glory and power to judge quick and

And

Holy Ghost, which was given

and satisfaction, and for the perfecting of them that believe
as also our Lord
Jesus Christ charged his disciples, saying, Go ye9
dead.

in the

for consolation

and teach
of

all nations, baptizing

Father and of

the

Ghost, evidently of

and of the Son who

ther,

Holy Ghost, who

them in the name

Son and of
the Father who is

truly

is

truly Son,

is

Holy Ghost

Holy

the

the

truly Faand of the

the names

not being merely given, or without reality, but

and

signifying strictly the proper person and glory

of each of those

office

who

are

named;

so that

they are three in person, but one in agreement

u ."

u TiiCTevofxev aKoXovBcoq

Qeov

ev-

t9J

ayyeAiKYj Kou'AiroaToXiKTj napocboaei,

elq

eva eov Hocrepa, itavTOKpaTopa,

TOV TWV bXtoV %YILUGVpy6v T6 KOU

TtOlY}-

kou dvBpanov yevopevov,

kcu dvBpanav,

tneuq
aq

(p'qaiv' oti KCrta.(3e(3vjKoc e/c

Trjv kcu elq eva Kvpiov'l'^crovv XptcTov,

pavov,

tov viov avTov tov [xovoyevrj, eov,

iyJov,

npo TtuvTcev tZv alavav

e/c

tov TtaTpoq,

%eov Ik &eov, oXov e| oXov, povov

TeXeiov

/aovov,

Ik

Kvpiov

p>T,

Aoyov

Bivov, odov

?,oipiav,

dno

^wr v,

Kvpiov'

cf)Sq dX'/j-

dXyBelaq, dvd<TTao~tv,

T~f\q

BeoTrfcoq, ovalaq

kou tvvdpeuq kou

Ylarpoq

ovtcl

iv

(3ovXyjq

kou

dizctpdXXaKTOv

TOV TtpUTOTGKOV
apyjfi

Trdo~Tjq

Kou eoq

yv

re

Sof'/js

cIkovcc'

KTiOTeCOq'

TOV

tov eov y Aoyov

irpbq

eov, KCiTcc to elpr^evov iv

yeXla,

7roi-

dvaX-

[xeva, Bvpav, arpercTov re koi

XoIcotov' Trjv

e/c

{Hao-iXea

TeXeiov,

e/c

(3ao-iXeuq,

tov

Si'

irdvTa iyevezo' tov yewnBevTa

ov rcc

Aoyoq,

tS
8'

evccyoi

Ta

irdvTa eyeveTO, kou iv a tcc nocvTa

avveo-T'SjKe'

tov

eV iayjxTw

tccv vjfte-

y][A,Sv

jU.e'

tov ov-

ofy iva itoia to BeXrjfxa. to

dXXcc to BeXvj/Aa. tov ize^avToq

tov TtaBovToc vnep

<JTUVTCt VTiep

kou dveXBovTa
o-BevTCt

'/jjxcov

kou dva-

TplTT}

Y)[/.UV TYj

7jU.pqi, 9

kou KaBe-

elq ovpavovq,

ivdeiia tov YlaTpoq, kou rnd-

Xiv ip^o'^evov jxerd

ho^q kou dvvdueaq

Kpivou X^avToxq kou veKpovq' kou elq to

IIvevfAGt to ctyiov, to elq TCocpaKXyaiv

kou dyiao-[M>vKou elq TeXeicco-iv To7q

Q-Tevovo-t

fiidofxevov,

KaBolq kou

pioq 7j[xav 'lyo-ovq ~Kpio-Toq

To7q

^cxBffccuq^

k. t. X.

Xeyav,

SyXov oti

m-

Kv-

tieTd%aT0

HopevBevTeq

UocTpoq o\Xf\Bivuq

ovTGq TiciTpoq, kou vlov aXvjBivuq vtov

ovToq, kou

ovToq

HvevpotToq

olylov

ov% ditXSjq ov$e

crrj[AouvovTcov

tZv

tcov

aKpifiaq Tqv Itiav e.Ka-

q-tov

BevTa in TtapBevov

kou hofcav kou tu^v,

F f3

dXyBivZq

ho^aTuv
dpyaq Ketpevav, dXXd

Hvev^aToqdylov'

pav KccTekBovToc avcoBev, Ka\ yevvv\koltcc Tccq ypacpdq,

[Ao-Ittjv

AtzogtoXov t rfq tt/kou dpxyyov Tyjq "^covjq,

'

0V0[Aa^0[AeVC0V V%00-TUQ~lv
ojq

elvou Trj (Aev

/
f

METHODIUS,

438

The
ment

last clause of this

for its authenticity,

A. D. 305.

creed furnishes an argu-

which

is

not noticed by

bishop Bull, but which perhaps carries some weight.

The word
son,

liroa-radig is

which

is

known

here taken in the sense of per-

meaning given

to be the

to the

but it afterwards
term in the time of Lucianus
came to signify the same as ova-fa, substance : and it
:

is

used in this sense in two other creeds which were

drawn up

at this

same council of Antioch v.

Methodius, A. D.
The

305.

only work of this Father, from which I shall

give any extracts,

is

the

Banquet of

or the book concerning Chastity,

ten Virgins,

We

know

that

he left other writings, of which a few fragments

remain and there are some entire pieces ascribed
to him, which many persons have received as ge;

nuine

but the evidence against their authenticity

seems decisive.

Photius also informs us

z
,

that the

Banquet of

ten Virgins had been interpolated by

the Arians

we may

therefore safely appeal to

notwithstanding this objection

for the

it

Arians would

not be likely to have inserted any thing which confirmed the proofs of Christ's divinity.

Methodius

Olympus

supposed to have been bishop of

is

and afterwards of Tyre,, and to

have suffered martyrdom at Chalcis in the year 311
or 312.
We learn from Epiphanius a that he was
in Lycia,

also called Eubulius.

vno<TT&<Ti rpia, T7j Se

The

<rv[/.(pa)v{g,

words of

ev.

creed
closely resemble the expression
of Origen, that the Father and
the

$e

last

Son are
t5j

6[aovoic(,

vo ttj vitoaTaa-ei, ev

kcu

T7)

C.

Cels. VIII. 12. p. 75

See page 341, &c.

See Athanasius de Synodis
24, 25. vol. I. p. 737-8.
z
Cod. 237.
a
Hser. LXI V.63 vol. I p.5 90.

this

<rvu<pav!p.

METHODIUS, A. D.
The Banquet of

ten

439

305.

Vwgins

is

a curious and

work and the plan of it can hardly

remind the reader of the Decamerone of Boccaccio.
In both works ten speakers are introduced,
entertaining

fail to

each of

whom

coursing to the

Methodius are

successively takes the turn of dis-

The

rest.
all

characters introduced by

females, and evidently allegorical.

Ten

of

the

daughter of Philosophy, and

them meet

garden of Arete (Virtue)

in the

after

amusing

themselves in gathering flowers and admiring the

is described as a second Paradise, Arete persuades them to sit down,
and each to deliver a discourse in praise of Virginity.
The proposal is accepted; and the ladies entertain
each other with expatiating upon this topic.
Their
and it could be
speeches only take up one day
wished, that between this work and the Decamerone
there had also been the distinction of greater propriety and decency in some of the expressions. The

beauty of the place, which

description of the garden of Arete at the beginning

of the book,

its

flowers

and

brooks and incense-breathing

mind

fruits,

the fertilizing

air, will

often call to

the beautiful though florid expressions of Boc-

caccio.

We

are at present concerned with a graver

subject; and the work

will supply

some unequivocal

attestations to the doctrine of Christ's divinity.

331.

Methodii Symposion.

p. 69, 70.

It is here observed, that our Saviour,

than the prophets and just

men

much more

of old, declared the

excellence of virginity, for that before his time

had never arrived

at perfection

"

To

man

accomplish

" which, the Word was sent into the world, and first
" assumed our form, which was spotted with many
" sins, that we in turn, for whose sake he bore it,

f4

METHODIUS,

440

A. D. 305.

" might be able to contain the divine form

" he chose to clothe himself with human flesh,

for

when

" he was God, for this reason, that seeing the divine
" original of life as in a picture, we might also be

him who painted

" able to imitate

it

b ."

cannot

help observing the extreme unfairness, not to say

dishonesty, of Beausobre, who, because he found
some Arianisms in Methodius, says of him, " that he
" had no idea of the hypostatic union of the Word

" with the

which

human

nature

The

c ."

first

quotation,

have given, seems purposely designed to re-

We here find Methodius saying,

being
God, assumed human flesh
that the Word,

fute this assertion.

and nearly all the following quotations contain the

same doctrine.
Methodii Symposion. p. 79.
332.
"
for Christ was this, a man filled with un" mixed and perfect divinity, and God contained in
"

man d ."
Methodii Symposion. p. 80.
333.
" For this reason the Lord says that he came into

"

from heaven, having

life

" hosts of angels

the companies and

left

e ."

Methodii Symposion.

334.

p.

105.

Having spoken of the corruption of mankind

b "Oirep
7t[/.<p6ii^ o

^[/.erepav

7j

[/.optpyv

elc,

rvjv

i(popeo-e,

Oelav

ttaXiv

>ravrr)

yap

ave\a[3e

irporepov

Kareo-riy[Aevvjv,

^/xei's,

ov$ avroq

yjupri<rai

^vv^6a[xev

-^perlcraro tvjv

QpuTtivr\v ivcjvo-acrdai o~dpt<a

%iccc$ ooanzep iv

mivaKi 6e7ov

(3tov ^Xeitovreq,

Kara-

rov Kocry.ov r\v

d^apr^aa-i

noXXoTq
't'va

reXeo-iovpyycrai

Koyoq

e^cc^ev koX

Seoq

avoov,

70V

ypdipavra [Ai^eTaOai.
c

du
Verbe avec la Nature Humaine.
Hist, de Manichee, vol. I. p.
idee de l'Union hypostatique

u8.
d

Methodius n'avoit aucune

rovro yap elvai rov Xpi-

arov, avQpocnov

dnpara Qeorvjn Kai

re\ela nenXypcofAtvov, koi &eov iv avOpconcp Keyjiop-fi^ivov

e

eKrvnupa
v)[Ae7<;

after

rov

Aia rovro
e!<;

rov

(ftvjaiv o Kvptoi;,
e/c

eav

rav ovpavuv iKy-

KarakeXomora raq rd^en;

ra arparoTt&a rav ayyeKccv.

AvOevai,

<a\

filov

METHODIUS,

A. D. 305.

441

the flood, the speaker observes, that " God, lest man" kind should be altogether destroyed by forgetting

" what was right, commanded His own Son to com" municate to the prophets his advent into the
" world, which was to be by the flesh f ."

Methodii Symposion. p. 105.

335.
" In another way one might say that the bride
" was the unpolluted flesh of the Lord, for sake of
" which he left the Father and came hither, and
" was united to

by taking the human nature

it

s."

Methodii Symposion p 1 1 1
The passage in the book of Revelations, xii.
336.

5. is

here said not to allude to the birth of Christ, but to

" For
the admission of believers into the church
:

" the mystery of the incarnation of the Word was

" fulfilled long ago before the Revelation but John
" speaks of things present and to come whereas
:

" Christ, who was conceived long ago, was not

" caught up, as soon as he was born, to the throne
" of God, through fear of the Serpent hurting him
:

but he was born and came down from his Father's

" throne for this very reason, that he might conquer
" the dragon, waiting for his attacking him in the

f*

flesh
f

ylvoq

h ."

ovv

rav dvBpdcitav

KaXav, rov
eKeXevaev
rov

@eoq, tva

j/?/]

d'ia-rccBrj X'fjBrj

hiov nai^ct roTq

int'/jxyjcrcu

nzocpovalav

itdvr^ to

ryv

did

rav

vv[/.(l)rjv

8e

Bpomyjo-ecoq

rov Aoyov.
itapovTav Kai

tq

rov

(pdvai rrjv

Xvvrov rov Kvpiov,

erepcoq

crdpKot,
r\q

tvjv

r\v dpo-

%doiv rov Yla-

KaraXeixpaq KocryjXBev kvravBot.

KCCl rKp0<TZK0XX'f\B'f\

KCtl

ey/carec/c^ey

iva,v6pan^<raq elq avr't\v.

'AnoKaXv-

rr\q

dvvrjq itepi

crapKoq

riq

icpo

eav-

BiCTf/jOobei'

ov^

% Avv'rj<rera.i

TldXai yap

itpo^raiq

iaof^evvjv

filov.

ripa,

[l

ipeaq iwcirX'/jpuro {Avcrrripiov rqq Ivav-

'O

onore ire^Brj, npoq rov

Bpovov rov @ov, (po(3a rov

rovro
diro

avrbv rov
lyvvf\B'q

ruv

Bpovccv

o<piv'

ttj crapKt.

fAVj

XvpA->

dXXd

hid,

koi KocryXBev avroq

rov Uarpbq, fva rov

dpdaovra ^eipaa^rai,
ypvra.

'Iw-

e Xptcrroq i:dXai KvyBeiq

'f\pTcdcrB'/i,

vcccrBai

Se

[AeXXovrav

fxtivccq

ewiTpe-

ARNOBIUS,

442

A. D. 306.

Methodii Symposion. p. 112.

The following remark is made upon the words
spoken by God at our Saviour's baptism. " Thou
66
art my beloved Son, this day have I begotten
" thee
We must observe, that He declares him to
" be His Son indefinitely and without reference to
" time.
For He says to him, Thou art, not Thou
Ci
hast become : shewing that he had neither been
" recently adopted as a Son, nor yet was he one, who
" having previously existed afterwards had an end,
" but having been begotten before, both would be
" and was the same. But the words, This day have
" / begotten thee, mean, You already preexisted be" fore the worlds in heaven, and I wished also to
" beget you to the world
which means, to make
" known that which was unknown before k ."
Another quotation from Methodius has already
337.

been given at

p.

137.

Arnobius, A. D. 306.
Arnobius was certainly educated in heathenism
and taught rhetoric at Sicca in Africa. The work

which he has

left,

consisting of seven books against

by some to have been written

but Lardner
while he was only a catechumen
There are also disputes as to the time
doubts this.
the Gentiles

is

said

which he flourished. Tillemont and Beausobre

him as early as the year 297, but I have adopted

in

place

See p. 149. N. 76.

k Tlaparvjpyjreov yap, on to yXv
1

vtov

avrov elvai aoplcnai; aize^varo

Ka)

ccftpovvq.

ov,

tov

Ei yap avra

e<prj,

Ka\

Teyovaq' e^cpaivav p/jre irpoo-cpa-

avrov rervyjivai

vloQea-'iac,'

pjTe av icpovTcap^avra pera ravra

re ao$ lo-y^Kevai,

aXKa

itpoyevv^Bivra

Ka\ e<recrQai kou elvai tov avrov' to

he,

'Eya a'^epov yeyevvrjKa

tjStj
itpo rav alavuv

npoovra

ovpavo7q,

y.evov yvaplcrai.

on

ev To7q

koi tS Koa-fAW,
eanv upoaBev ayvoov-

i(3ovAvj6'/)v

yevvvjaai, o hy

are,

ARNOBIUS, A.D.306.
the later date, which

Lardner.
forcible

is

that assigned to

him by

His work against the Gentiles is a most

follies and inconsistencies of

exposure of the

paganism, and
not expect
Christianity

of very curious and interesting

is full

From the nature of the work we should

much illustration of the doctrines of

information.

but there are nevertheless a few pas-

sages which seem to shew very plainly, that in those

days it was the universal belief, that Jesus Christ

was God.
Arnobii adversus Gentes lib. I. p. 19? 20.
338.
We may learn what the belief and practice of
Christians were at the beginning of the fourth century, by observing what were the objections brought
against their doctrine by their enemies. Accordingly

we find in Arnobius, that the heathens said, " The

" gods are not angry with you for worshipping God
" Almighty but because you contend, that a man,
" who was born, and (which is disgraceful to low
;

" persons) put to death by crucifixion, was God, and

" believe that he is still alive, and worship him with
64

daily supplications
It follows

from

1 ."

this

passage, that the heathens

must have known that Christ was worshipped by the

Christians as God it must have been well understood in those days, that Christ was not considered
to be a mere man
and we may observe that the
word here translated worship is stronger when ap:

plied to Christ, than

Sed non,

when

inquit, idcirco dii

vobis infesti sunt, quod omnipotentem colatis Deum ; sed

quod hominem natum,

et

personis infame est vilibus

quod

cm-

applied to

cis

God Almighty:

supplicio

Deum

interemptum,

et

fuisse contenditis, et su-

peresse adhuc creditis, et quotidianis supplication ibus adoratis.

ARNOBIUS, A.D.

444

306.

in the latter case it is colatis, in the former

oratis

so that

we cannot doubt

worship was paid to Christ

Arnobius throughout
gists for Christianity,

tians

this

was

ad-

but that religious

and yet the object of

work, as of all the apolo;

to shew, that the Chris-

worshipped only one God.

339.

Arnobii adversus Gentes

I. p.

1.

24.

But we may hear Arnobius himself explaining in

what sense he called Christ God. He shews in the
first place, that even if Christ had been born like ordinary men,
"

God.

still

Even

if

he deserved to be worshipped as
that were true

still

in return

" for so many and bountiful gifts, which we have

" obtained from him, he would deserve to be called
" and entitled God.
But when he is really God,
66

and without the uncertainty of any doubtful matter, do you think we can deny that he is worship" ped in the highest degree by us, and called the
"Guardian of our society? What! some one will
"

" say in a violent passion,

"

we

answer, God, and

that Christ

is

God

God ?

Yes,

in the highest sense

m ."

Arnobii adversus Gentes 1. I. p. 25.

He then goes on to shew that Christ did not work
his miracles by magic. " But it is plain that Christ
" did all his works by the power of his own name
" without any assistance, without observing any rite
340.

" or any law, and what was peculiar, fitting and

m Natum hominem
Etiam

si

esset id verum,

colitis,

ros arbitramini

tamen

maxime

pro

multis et tarn liberalibus

donis, quae ab eo profecta in
nobis sunt, Deus dici appellarique deberet.
Cum vero Deus
re certa, et sine ullius rei
dubitationis ambiguo, inficiatu-

sit

nos

esse,

ilium a nobis

quam

coli,

et

Prsesidem nostri corporis nuncupari ? Ergone, inquiet aliquis

furens, iratus, et percitus,

Deus

Deus, respondebimus, et interiorum potentiarum Deus.

ille

est Christus

ARNOBIUS,

445

A. D. 306.

* worthy of the true God, he gave nothing injurious

* or detrimental, but beneficial, salutary, and full of
" useful blessings, by the bounty of his mhnificent
" power.
What do you say then ? Was he then
" mortal, or one of us, before whose power and be" fore whose voice, uttered in usual and ordinary
(i

words, diseases, fevers, and other bodily torments,

" fled ? Was he one of us, whose presence and sight

u that race of daemons buried deep

in the body
u could not endure, and, frightened by the new
" power, retired from possession of the limbs n ?

Arnohii adversus Gentes 1. I. p. 28.

In the same manner he goes through nearly
341.

the

"

miracles of Jesus, prefacing

Was

he one of us ?" Uuns fuit e nobis

cludes thus

" It

is

all

each by saying,
f

and con-

clearer than the sun itself, that

" he was more powerful than the fates, when he

" unloosed and conquered what had been bound by
" perpetual chains and unalterable necessity ."

We

must remember what ideas the heathens entertained

of the fates, who were considered to be more powerful even than the gods themselves p
and when we
;

sine

sine

Atqui

constitit

Christum

adminiculis rerum,
ullius ritus observatione,

ullis

Vel lege,

omnia

ilia

quae fecit no-

verbis missam, valetudines,

febres, atque alia

bi,

morcorporum

cruciamenta fugiebant

Unus

fuit e nobis, cujus praesentiam,

minis sui possibilitate fecisse et

quod proprium, consentaneum,

cujus visum gens

dignum Deo

monum, conterritaque vi nova

membrorum possessione cede-

fuerat vero, nihil

nocens, aut noxium, sed opiferura, sed salutare, sed auxiliaribus plenum bonis potestatis
munificae liberalitate donasse.
iterum ? Ergo
Quid dicitis,
ille mortalis, aut unus fuit e no-

bis,

cujus imperium, cujus vo-

cem popularibus

et quotidianis

ferre

mersorum

ilia

nequibat

in visceribus dse-

bat?
0
Sole ipso est clarius, potentiorem ilium fuisse quam fata

sunt,

cum

perpetuis

ea solvit et vicit, quae

nexibus et immobili

fuerant necessitate devincta.

p

Thus Lactantius, speaking

ARNOBIUS,

446

A. D. 306.

find a Christian writer telling his adversaries that

Christ was superior to the fates,

once, that

we

shall see

at

could never have been believed that

it

Christ was a mere man, but that he must have been

considered as God.

Arnobii adversus Gentes 1. I. p. 31.

therefore human, or out of a mouth
" nourished with earthly food could such power be
" given, such authority proceed, and was it not di" vine, was it not holy ? or, if the thing admits of
" any excess, something more than divine and more
" than holy^?"
Arnobii adversus Gentes 1. 1, p. 32.
343.
" There was nothing magical, as you suppose,
" nothing human, juggling, or illusive, no deceit lay
" hid in Christ, although you deride us according to
ee
custom, and break out into indecent laughter. He
" was the sublime Cod, God of the highest origin
" God was sent as a Saviour from unknown regions,
" and from God the Sovereign of all, &c r ."
Arnobii adversus Gentes 1. 1, p. 37.
344.
" But they say, if Christ was God, why did he
" appear in the form of a man? and why was he put
" to death after the manner of man ? Could that in" visible power, which has no bodily substance, in342.

"

Was

it

of the fates, says, Tanta vis est,

ut plus possint quam caelestes
universi, quamque ipse Rector ac

Dominus.
Ergo

n, p. 45.
human urn fuit,

Instit. I.

Nihil, ut remini,

nihil

humanum,

magicum,

prasstigiosum

aut subdolum, nihil fraudis delituit in

Christo, derideatis licet

aut ex ore terrenis stercoribus

ex more atque in lasciviam dissolvamini cachinnorum.

Deus

innutrito tale potuit jus dari, ta-

ille

<i

lis

illud

licentia proficisci, et

vinum

et

sacrum

aut

superlationem

res

quam divinum

et

si

non

di-

aliquam
plus-

capit,

sacrum

sublimis

fuit,

Deus

radice

ab intima, Deus ab incognitis

regnis, et ab omnium Principe

Deus

sospitator est missus.

ARNOBIUS,

A. D. 306.

447

" troduce and adapt itself to the world, be present

" at the councils of mortals, in any other way than

" by assuming some covering of more substantial

" matter, which might be seen by the eyes, and
" on which the gaze of the dullest sight might fix
" itself? For what mortal is there, who could see
" him, or discern him, if he had wished to introduce

" himself on earth such as is his original nature, and

" such as he thinks fit to be in his own proper qua" lity or divinity ? He therefore assumed the form
" of man, and confined his own power under the
" likeness of mankind, that he might be seen and
" beheld, that he might speak and teach, and per" form all those things, to do which he came into
" the world, observing the command and disposition
" of the Sovereign King
But he was put to
" death, you say, after the manner of men.
Not he
" himself; for death cannot happen to what is di" vine nor can that which is one and simple, and
" not formed by the union of any parts, fall away
" by mortal dissolution. Who then was it, that was
;

" seen to hang upon the cross ? who was it that

" died ? The human nature, which he had assumed,
<c

and which he bore together with

s

Sed

si

Deus, inquiunt, fuit

homi-

Christus, cur forma est in

nis visus

more

et cur

emptus humano

An

est inter-

pohabens

aliter

tuit invisibilis ilia vis et

nullam substantiam corporalem,

inferre et
conciliis

quam
rise

commodare
interesse

se

mundo,

mortalium,

tegmen mateassumeret, quod

ut aliquod

solidioris

oculorum susciperet injectum,

et

ubi se figere inertissimae posset

contemplationis obtutus? Quis

his

own

s ."

enim mortalium, qui quiret

est

eum

videre, quis cernere,

lem

voluisset inferre se terris,

si

ta-

qualis ei primigenia natura est,

et

qualem

se ipse in sua esse

voluit vel qualitate vel

numine

Assumpsit igitur hominis formam, et sub nostri generis similitudine potentiam suam clausit, ut et videri posset et conspici, verba faceret et doceret,
atque omnes exequeretur res
eas, propter quas in mundum

PETRUS ALEX ANDRINUS,

448

Arnobii adversus Gentes

345.

And

"

A. D. 306.
I.

II. p. 85.

therefore Christ, who, although you do not

" wish to hear it, is God, Christ, I say, who is God,

" (for this must often be repeated, that the ears of
" unbelievers may be opened,) speaking by the com"

mand

"

God under

of the Sovereign

the form of

man

hath taught us V' &c. &c.

Pethus Alexandrinus, A. D.

306.

Peter succeeded Theonas in the see of Alexandria

about the year 300.

was

felt

The

persecution of Diocletian

severely in his days

a time to escape the fury of

martyrdom u

and

he at length suffered

it,

We

in the year 310.

several works written

by

after retiring for

have accounts of

this Father, but only a

few

fragments remain, from which the following extracts

are taken

and

it

thought that they

will perhaps be

confirm what Ephrem patriarch of Antioch said of

Peter, " that he held the union of two natures in the

" one person of Christ x ."

have already observed at

p. 83. that this writer,

speaking of the offerings of the Magi, says, that they

venerat faciendas, summi regis
imperio et dispositione servatis.

Sed more

est

hominis in-

Non ipse: neque

teremptus.
enim cadere divinas in res potest mortis occasus j nec interitionis

quod

dissolutione
est

unum

dilabi

id,

et simplex,

nec

ullarum partium congregatione

compactum. Quis est ergo visus in patibulo pendere, quis
mortuus est? homo, quern induerat, et
1

secum

ipse portabat.

Et ideo Christus

bis invitis

licet

vo-

Deus, Deus inquam

Christus, hoc

enim

ssepe dicen-

dum

ut infidelium dissiliat

est,

dirumpatur auditus, Dei Principis jussione loquens sub hominis forma

prsecepit &c.
u
Athanas. Apol. c. Arian.59.
et

vol.

I.

LXVIII.
x
l^iccv

c/

Ot<

Vita Antonii,
Epiphanius, Haer.

177.

p.

47. p. 832.

3. vol. I. p.

vnocrrao-w kou
tqv opOov

XoyeTv,

719.

8e bvo (pv&eav evaaiv kou

icpia-ccnov %v

kou raf nctTepav K'rjpvypa,

f/.ev

Xpvo 6<rro[/.o<;

aXXcc kou
pocprvi;.

Ylerpoi; 6

opo-

(ppov^AoiToq icrTiv,
'\coavvriq

[/.ccprvpei

'AX^ocv^peiaq kou

Phot. Cod. 229.

LACTANTIUS,

A. D. 310.

449

* presented gold and frankincense and myrrh, as to

" a king and God and man :" and another fragment
has been quoted at p. 130.

346.

Petri Alex, ex Libro de Divinitate. (Rel.

Sacr. vol. III. p. 345.)

Speaking of the angel's salutation to Mary he says,

" We may now understand those words of Gabriel,
" The Lord be with thee, to mean, God the Word be
" with thee

for they signify that he was conceived

" in the womb, and became flesh Y"

347.

Petri Alex, ex Horn, de Adventu Salvatoris.

(Rel. Sacr. vol. III. p. 346.)

He says to Judas, ~Betrayest thou the Son of

man with a kiss ? (Luke xxii. 48.) This and si"

"

" milar passages, and all the miracles which he did,

" and his powerful works, prove him to be God who
" became man both together therefore prove that
" by nature he was God, and by nature was made
:

"

man

7 ."

Lactantius, A. D. 310.
name of this

It has been said that the

writer was

Lucius Coelius, or Coecilius, Firmianus Lactantius.

By birth he was probably an African, and he was a
scholar of Arnobius
to Christianity

but whether he was converted

from heathenism, has been disputed.

Lardner thinks that he was from the first a Christian.

sent for him to Nicomedia, where he

Diocletian

To yap,

Kvpioq jxera, aov, vvv

laTiv ccKOvaai tqv Ta^plvjX, avii tqv,

eoq Koyoq pera aov' a^jxaivei yap

avrov yevvay.evov iv y^rpa koi adpKa

ra,

Ta

y,e7a

re rovroiq opoia, to. re arj-

navTa a

f^eii;

yevopevov.

heiKvvrai,

Kat Ta 'IouSa

<prja), $t\'qy.ot.Ti

rov ViQV tqv avOpumov ira-pahi^ccq ; rav-

ino'iyae,

koi at lUvvdr

deiKVvaiv avrov eov thai ivav-

GpGCTrqaavTa' to, avva^cporepa rolvvv

on eoq

r\v

yovev Stv8pooTro$ (pvaei.

cj>vaei,

Ka\

yi->

LACTANTIUS,

450

A.D.

310.

taught rhetoric for some years, and was in that city

during the persecution which Diocletian raised against

the Christians.

He

is

supposed to have

left

Nico-

media about the year 314, and to have gone into

Gaul, where he held the situation of preceptor to

Some

Crispus the eldest son of Constantine.

writers

have said that he lived in extreme poverty

but
Lardner seems not without reason to doubt the truth
:

of this statement.

He

died at an advanced age.

Lactantius wrote several works

are

which have come down

all

but the following

to us,

written in the order here observed.

genuine)

of the

Workmanship

of

and they were

Symposium
God

(if

Divine In-

and the Epitome of them of the Wrath

of God of the Deaths of Persecutors but there are
doubts whether this last treatise was written by Lacstitutions,

tantius.

Of
t

these works the Divine Institutions in seven

books are the longest and most important.

seem

to

have been written at different times.

are dedicated to Constantine, but there

able internal evidence of parts of

composed before that emperor's

is

They
They

consider-

them having been

accession.

Lardner

thinks that the design of them was formed as early

as the year 303.
It

was

my

intention at

first

to have brought the

testimonies of the Ante-Nicene Fathers to a close,

without taking any thing from the works of Lactantius

and

should have excluded him, not because

he lived to witness the commencement of the Arian

heresy, but because there

is

so little of Christianity

and because we find, as might be expected, that he was but slightly acquainted with the
in his

works

LACTANTIUS,

A. D. 310.

The

doctrinal parts of our religion.

451

following pas-

sage taken from the Defence of the Nicene Faith a ,

will shew what were the sentiments of bishop Bull

upon
upon

this

his

and what was the impression

reading the works of this

subject,

mind

after

writer. " Lactantius

is the only Father who remains

" to be consulted upon this question and since his
" opinion is not to be held of much weight, as I have
;

" elsewhere observed, I may speak of him a little

" more at length.
He was a rhetorician, not a
" theologian nor did he ever hold a place among
;

" the doctors of the church.

Beside which, if we
" may judge from his writings, such as have come
" down to our times, he was extremely ignorant of
" the scriptures and of the doctrine of the church.
" Whence not only upon this question, but also in
" other most important matters of our religion, he

"

fell into most grievous and absurd errors, such as

" would hardly be pardoned in a catechumen.
It
" is not to be wondered at therefore, if he mistook
" the metaphorical generation of the Son, by which

" he proceeded from the Father, and was as it were

" born for the purpose of creating this universe, (of
" which indeed he had read something in Christian

" writers,) for his real production and generation

The

b ."

bishop then goes on to point out instances,

where the MSS. of Lactantius differ exceedingly

from one another, so that some of the strange sentiments ascribed to this writer may reasonably be considered as spurious and he also shews, that some
;

III. io. 20.

sus, in

Pope Dama-

a letter to Jerom, de-

clared that he could not endure to read the works of Lac-

were too
and not godly enough,
See what Waterland says

tantius, because they

prolix,
b

of Lactantius, IV. p.

Gg2

1,

&c.

LACTANTIUS,

452

A. D. 310.

passages of his works are evidently infected with the

absurd errors of the Manichees.

These reasons, as observed above, inclined me at

first to take no notice of the writings of Lactantius.

But

since there are

some expressions

in his works,

which may be construed without unfairness into an

acknowledgment of the Son of God not having
existed always, it might be said perhaps, that if
Lactantius was excluded from the

list

of the Ante-

Nicene Fathers, the omission was made from a consciousness that his evidence
I shall therefore

tantius, with

begin

was against

my

us.

quotations from Lac-

producing those passages which seem

to contradict the catholic doctrine of the eternal ex-

istence of the Son.

them

I shall

make no comment upon

separately, nor endeavour to give to

other and more orthodox interpretation

them an-

but having

laid these passages before the reader, I shall then select other expressions

which seem

to

shew that Lac-

tantius did believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ in

the fullest and highest sense of the term.

The

reader

will then judge for himself, whether the doctrines,

which are contained in these two different series of

quotations, can be reconciled with each other.

they can,

we must conclude

that

some of

If

his expres-

sions are to be taken in a sense different from that

which appears to be plain and obvious if they cannot, we must say with bishop Bull, that Lactantius
was no divine, and knew little or nothing of the doc:

trinal parts of

The

our religion.

following passages might be quoted as proving

that Lactantius did not believe in the eternal generation of Jesus Christ.

" Since

God had

perfect providence in counsel,

and

LACTANTIUS A. D.

453

310.

" perfect wisdom in action, before he began upon this

" work of the world, (because the source of full and
" complete good resided in Him as it always does,)
" that good might rise out of

" and flow in a long course,

Him,

He

like a stream,

produced a Spirit

" like to Himself, which was to be endued with the

" power of God His Father
God therefore, when
" He began to frame the world, appointed this His

"

first and highest Son over the whole work, and at

" the same time employed him both as an adviser
" and a creator in devising, arranging, and com" pleting all things, since he is perfect in providence

" and reason and power 0 ."

" God therefore, the contriver and appointer of
66

"

He

things, before

" of the
" Spirit,

He

world,

began upon

begat an

whom He

all

this beautiful fabric

holy and

called His Son.

incorruptible

And

although

afterwards created other innumerable spirits

whom we call angels, yet He thought him

" alone, who was the first -begotten, worthy of re" ceiving the divine name, inasmuch as he possessed

"

by him,

" his Father's power and majesty

c
Cum esset Deus ad excogitandum providentissimus, ad fa-

ciendura

quam

solertissimus,

ante-

ordiretur hoc opus mundi,

(quoniam pleni

et

consummati

boni fons in ipso erat, sicut est

semper,) ut ab eo bonum tanquam rivus oriretur, longeque
proflueret, produxit similem sui
Spiritum,

Dei Patris

qui

esset

virtutibus

prseditus.

Exor-

Deus fabricam mundi

illum primum et maximum Fisus igitur

lium praefecit operi universo

eoque simul et consiliatore usus
;

est et

artifice

in

excogitandis,

ornandis, perficiendisque rebus,

quoniam
ration e,

is

et

d ."

et

The same
providentia, et

potestate

perfectus

est. Instit. II. 9. vol. I. p.

d
igitur

143.

Deus

machinator
constitutorque rerum, antequam
praeclarum hoc opus mundi ado-

riretur,

sanctum

et incorrupti-

bilem Spiritum genuit, quern

Filium nuncuparet; et quamvis
alios postea innumerabiles per
ipsum creavisset, quos angelos
dicimus, hunc tamen solum primogenitum divini nominis appellatione dignatus est, patria
virtute
scilicet
ac
majestate
IV. 6. p.
pollentem.
Instit.
284.

Gg3

LACTANTIUS, A.D. 310.

454

sentiment

is

stitutions:

"

thus expressed in the Epitome of the In-

God

in the beginning, before

He

created

" the world, begat unto Himself from the fountain

" of His own eternity, and from His own divine and
" everlasting Spirit, a Son who was incorruptible,
" faithful, corresponding to the power and majesty
" of his Father. This is the Power, the Reason, the
" Word, and Wisdom of God.
Of all the angels
" whom the same God formed out of His spirits, he

" alone was taken into a partnership of supreme

" power, he alone was called God.
"

66

"
"

"
"
"
"

For all thing's

were made by him, and without him nothing e ."
" Perhaps some one may ask, who is this that is
so powerful, so dear to God, and what name does
he bear, whose first birth not only preceded the
world, but he even arranged it by his wisdom, and
formed it by his power. In the first place we are
to know, that his name is understood not even by
the angels who abide in heaven, but by himself
alone and God the Father f ."

The

following attempt at explaining the

the generation of the Son,

mode of

has any intelligible

if it

meaning, may be thought to be not in accordance

e
Deus in principio antequam mundum institueret, de

seternitatis suae fonte,

deque

di-

vino ac perenni Spiritu suo Filiura sibi ipse progenuit, incorruptum, fidelem, virtuti ac raajestati

patriae

respondentem.

Hie est virtus, hie ratio, hie

sermo Dei, hie sapientia.Denique ex omnibus angelis,
quos idem Deus de suis spiritibus figuravit, solus in consortium

summae potestatis adscitus est,

solus Deus nuncupatus.
Omnia enim per ipsum et sine ipso

nihil.

Epit.

Instit.

XLII.

vol.

30.
f
Fortasse quserat aiiquis hoc
loco, quis sit iste tarn potens,

II. p.

tarn

Deo

habeat,

quod nomen
prima nativitas

carus, et

cujus

non modo antecesserit mundum, verum etiam prudentia

disposuerit, virtute construxerit.

Primum scire nos convenit, nomen ejus ne angelis quidem notum esse, qui morantur in caslo,
sed ipsi soli ac Deo Patri. Instit.
IV.

7. vol. I. p.

286.

LACTANTIUS, A.D.

455

310.

with the catholic doctrines. " How then did He

" beget him ? In the first place the divine works can
" neither be known nor declared by any one but
" yet the scriptures teach, that this Son of God is
:

(i

the

Word

or

Reason of God

and

also that the

" other angels are

For a word is
spirits of God.
" spirit (or breath) put forth with a significant sound.
" And yet since the breath and a word are put forth
" from different parts, (for the breath proceeds from
" the nostrils, a word from the mouth,) there is a
" great difference between this Son of God and other
" angels. For they went forth from God as silent spi" rits, because they were created not to deliver the
" doctrine of God, but to minister to Him. But the
" Son, although he is himself a spirit, yet proceeded
" from the mouth of God with a voice and sound, like
" a word, I mean in the same manner that he would
" use his voice [when speaking] to the people, i. e.
" that he was to become the teacher of the doctrine
" of God and of the heavenly secret which was to be
" declared to

men

which very word God spoke at

He might speak to us by him,

" the beginning, that

" and he might reveal to us the voice and will of

" God. He is therefore properly called the Word of
" God because God, by a certain inconceivable power
;

" of His majesty, comprehended that vocal spirit

" which proceeds out of his mouth, which He had
" conceived, not in the womb, but in the mind, into a
" form which had its own proper sense and wisdom
;

" and

He

also fashioned

His other

spirits into

an-

" gels.
Our words, although they are blended
" with the air and vanish, yet generally remain being
" comprehended in letters how much more must
:

"

we

God
Gg4

believe that the voice of

continues for ever,

LAC TAN T I U S,

456

A.D.

310.

$ and is accompanied with sense and power, which

" he derived from God the Father like a river from
" its source.
But if any one wonder that God
should be begotten of God by a putting forth of
" the voice and breath, he will cease to wonder, if

He

" he knows the sacred sayings of the prophets."

then quotes Psalm xxxiii.

John

i.

13

6. xlv. 1.

Ecclus. xxiv. 3-

s.

" But in what manner and with what commands

" he was sent by God upon earth, the Spirit of God
" declared by the prophets, teaching that it would
" come to pass, that when he had faithfully and con" stantly

fulfilled

the will of the supreme Father, he

Quomodo igitur procrePrimum nec sciri a quoquam possunt nec enarrari opera
8

avit?

sed tamen sanctae literse

docent, in quibus cautum est,

divina

ilium Dei Filium Dei esse ser-

monem,

sive

iteraque

casteros

spiritus esse.
spiritus

cum

ficante

quoniam

etiam rationem j
angelos Dei

Nam

sermo

est

voce aliquid signi-

prolatus.
spiritus

Sed tamen
et sermo di-

versis parti bus proferuntur, (si-

quidem spiritus naribus, ore

sermo procedit,) magna inter
hunc Dei Filium et caeteros anIlli enim
gelos differentia est.

est, ut per eum

ad nos loqueretur, et ille vocem
Dei ac voluntatem nobis reveMerito igitur Sermo et
laret.

primo locutus

Verbum Dei dicitur quia Deus

procedentem de ore suo vocalem
;

Spiritum, quern non utero sed

mente conceperat, inexcogitabili

quadam
ac

majestatis sua? virtute

potentia

in
effigiem, qua?
proprio sensu ac sapientia vi-

comprehendit, et alios
item spiritus suos in angelos figuravit.
Nostra? voces, licet
auras misceantur atque evanegeat,

scant,

tamen plerumque perma-

nent Uteris comprehensae

ex Deo taciti spiritus exierunt

quia non ad doctrinam Dei tradendam sed ad ministerium creIlle vero cum sit et
abantur.
ipse Spiritus, tamen cum voce
ac sono ex Dei ore processit,
sicut verbum, ea scilicet ratione,
quia voce ejus ad populum fuerat usurus
id est, quod ille
magister futurus esset doctrinae

profecto mirari.

Dei

p. 289.

nem

ad homiquod ipsum

et coelestis arcani

proferendi

quan-

magisDei Vocem credendum

est et manere in seternum et

to

sensu ac virtute comitari, quam

de Deo Patre tanquam rivus de

Quod
Deo Deum

quis

fonte traduxerit.

si

miratur ex

prola-

tione vocis ac spiritus potuisse

generari, si sacras voces Pro-

phetarum

cognoverit,
Jnstit.

desinet

IV.

8.

LACTANTIUS,

A. D. 310.

457

" should receive everlasting judgment and dominion.

"
But he exhibited his fidelity to God. For he
" taught that there is one God,, and that He alone
" ought to be worshipped nor did he ever call him;

" self God, because he could not have preserved his

" fidelity, if, when he was sent to take away the
" other gods and to preach only one, he had men-

" tioned another beside that one.

This would have

" been, not to preach one God, nor Him who sent
" him, but to do his own business, and to separate
" himself from Him, whom he came to reveal.
66

Therefore because he was thus faithful, because

" he assumed nothing whatever to himself, that he
" might fulfil the commands of Him who sent him,
" he received the dignity of an everlasting Priest,
" the honour of supreme King, the power of a Judge,
" and the name of God h ."

These are the passages which might be quoted

as

lowering the divinity of the Son, and as shewing

that Lactantius did not believe

begotten from

all eternity,

the Father.

shall

and

him

now produce

where Lactantius speaks of Christ

h

Quomodo autem

et

cum

quibus mandatis a Deo mitteretur in terram, declaravit Spiritus Dei per prophetam, docens
futurum, ut cum voluntatem
summi Patris fideliter et constanter implesset, acciperet judicium atque imperium sempiIlle vero exhibuit
ternum.

Deo
coli

Docuit enim quod

eumque solum
oportere
nec unquam se

ipse

Deum

fidem.

unus Deus

sit,
;

dixit,

vasset fidem,
tolleret

et

si

quia non ser-

missus ut deos

unum

assereret, in-

duceret

Hoc

to have been

to be coeternal

erat

with

other passages
as

God without

prseter unum.
non de uno Deo fa-

alium

praeconium, nec ejus qui

suum proprium negotium gerere, ac se ab eo, quern
cere

miserat, sed

illustraturus

venerat,

separare.

Propterea quia tam fidelis extitit, quia sibi nihil prorsus assumpsit, ut mandata mittentis
impleret, et Sacerdotis perpetui
dignitatem, et Regis summi honorem, et Judicis potestatem, et
Dei nomen accepit. Instit. IV.
14. p. 309.

LACTANTIUS, A.D.

458

310.

any reserve or limitation, and where he seems to

consider him as united in the Godhead with the
Father.

348. Lactantii Instit. 1. II. c. 17- vol. I. p. 180.

" God neither requires any name, since He is
<c

alone

"

tal, either suffer or wish themselves to be called

" gods,

nor do the angels, because they are immor-

it

being their sole and single duty to serve

" at the beck of God, nor to do any thing at all

" without His command.
But He, the Governor
" of the world, and Director of the universe
" alone possesses power over
" His Son

V
Lactantii Instit.

349.

things together with

all

1.

IV.

c.

10. p. 292.

Having mentioned it as the fixed determination

ce
that the Son of God should descend upon
" earth to form a temple to God, and to teach

of God,

" righteousness, but not in the character of an angel,

" or in celestial power, but in the figure of a man
" and in a

prove

ferings

"

human

nature," he says, that he will

the circumstances in Christ's

all

to

life

and

suf-

have been predicted by the prophets

And when

I shall

have proved

all

these things by

" the writings of those very persons, who killed

" their God when in a mortal body, what will pre" vent the conclusion, that true wisdom is to be
" found in this religion only k ?"
i

Nam

cum

Deus neque nomine,

egetj neque angeli, cum sint immortales, dici

se deos aut patiuntur aut volunt

solus

sit,

quorum unum solumque

solus habet

rerum omnium cum

Filio potestatem.
k

In

primis

scire

homines

oportet, sic a principio processisse

dispositionem

summi

Dei,

officium est servire nutibus Dei,

ut esset necesse, appropinquante

nec omnino quidquam

sseculi

su facere.

Ille

nisi

jus-

autem Praeses

muudi, et Rector universi

termino, Dei Filium descendere in terram, ut constitueret

Deo templum

doceret-

LACTANTIUS,
Lactantii Instit.

350.

A.D.
IV.

1.

459

310.
c.

11. p. 297.

He commanded His first-begotten Son, the

" Creator of all things, and His adviser, to descend
" from heaven, to teach the Gentiles
&c.
"

Lactantii Instit.

351.

IV.

1.

c.

12. p. 299.

This and a few following passages prove that Lactan ti us fully believed in the miraculous conception

" That

holy Spirit of God descended

" from heaven, and chose the blessed Virgin, into

of Jesus.

womb

" whose
" being

filled

he might infuse himself.

But she

by the influence of the divine Spirit

" conceived m ," &c.

Lactantii Instit.

352.
"

"

it

IV.

1.

c.

25. p. 339.

That it might be certain he was sent from God,

was necessary for him to be born, not as a man

is born, who is formed on each side from a mortal

" parent; but that it might appear in his human
" nature that he was from heaven, he was created

"

" without the cooperation of a father.

" God as his spiritual Father and as

For he had

God was

the
" Father of his spirit [his divine nature], without a
;

" mother, so the mother of his body [his

" nature]

que justitiam

was a virgin without a father

verumtamen non

in virtute angeli, aut potestate

coelesti,

sed in figura

et conditione mortali

hominis
Quae

omnia cum probavero eorum ipsorum literis, qui Deum suum

mortali corpore utentem violaverunt, quid aliud obstabit &c. ?
1

Sed ilium Filium suum

pri-

mogenitum, ilium opificem rerum, et consiliatorem suum delabi jussit e coelo, ut

religionem

ille Spiritus Dei sanctam

Virginem, cujus utero se insi-

sanctus
nuaret,

At

elegit.

ilia

divino

Spiritu hausto repleta concepit,

et sine ullo attactu viri repente
virginalis uterus intumuit.
n

Sed tamen ut certum esset

Deo missum, non

nasci oportuit,

ita

ilium

sicuthomo nasci-

tur ex mortali utroque concretus

sed ut appareret etiam in

homine ilium

esse

ccelestem,

creatus est sine opera genitoris.

&c. &c.

m Descendens

human

n ."

itaque de coelo

Habebat enim

spiritalem

Pa-

LACTANTIUS,

460

Lactantii Instit.

353.

A. D. 310.

1.

IV.

c.

12. p. 300.

Having quoted some prophecies which spoke of

the miraculous conception, he observes, " The pro" phet has declared by this name (Emmanuel), that
" God was to come to men in the flesh.
For Em" manuel signifies God with us : which means, that
" when he was born of a virgin, men were to con-

"

fess that he was God with them, i. e. on earth and

" in mortal flesh. Whence David in the 84th Psalm
" (lxxxv. 11.) says, Truth hath sprung out of the

" earth, because God, in whom is Truth, took an

" earthly body, that he might open the way of sal" vation to those who were earthly ."

Lactantii Instit 1. IV. c. 13. p. 303.

354.
" In his first spiritual birth he was without a
" mother, because he was begotten of God the Father
" alone without the aid of a mother. But in the
" second carnal birth he was without a father, since

" he was begotten in the

womb

of a virgin without

" the aid of a father that, bearing a middle sub" stance between God and man, he might lead this
" our frail and weak nature to immortality.
He
" was made the Son of God by the Spirit, and Son of
;

"

man by the flesh, i. e. both God and man. The

" power of God appeared in him by the works which
" he did, the weakness of man by the suffering
" which he underwent.

Deum

That

he was

God and

mater corporis ejus virgo sine

virginem nato confiteri homines

oportebat Deum secum esse, id
est, in terra, et in carne mortali.

patre.

Unde David

Propheta declaravit hoc nomine, quod Deus ad homines

Veritas, inquit, de terra orta est

trem

ritus ejus

et sicut Pater Spi-

Deus

sine matre, ita

in

carne venturus esset.

He-

manuel enim significat Nobiscum Deus; scilicet quia illo per

in

Psalmo

lxxxiv.

quia Deus, in quo Veritas

terrenum corpus accepit, ut
renis viam saiutis aperiret.

est,

ter-

L AC TAN T I U S,

A. D. 310.

" man, made up of each nature,

" dictions of the prophets p."

We

we

461

by the pre-

learn

same doctrine thus expressed in the

The Almighty Father com" manded him to come down to earth, and put on a
" human body
he was therefore born again as a
find the

Epitome

(c.

43. p. 32.) "

man of a virgin without a father that like as in

" his first spiritual birth he was created and made a
" holy Spirit of God alone, so in his second carnal
"

" birth being born of his mother only he might be" come holy flesh, that by him the flesh which had
" been subject to sin

"
"

might be freed from death.

He was

with us on earth, when he put on

and nevertheless he was God in man, and

flesh,

man

God but that he was both, was declared

" before by the prophets

66

in

Lactantii Instit.

355.
"

Who

1.

IV.

c.

14. p. 308.

then would not think that the Jews were

" deprived of their understandings, who,

p

prima enim

In

nativitate

apyrup fuit, quia sine

officio matris a solo Deo Patre
generatus est. In secunda vero

tibus discimus.
y Jussit

spiritali

carnali a,%arap fuit,

quoniam

sine

patris officio virginali utero pro-

creatus

Deum

mediam inter
hominem substantiam
ut

est,

et

when they

igitur

eum sumrnus

Pater descendere in terram et

humanum corpus induere
renatus est ergo ex virgine sine
patre, tan quam homo ut quem;

admodum

prima nativitate

in

spiritali creatus, et ex solo Deo

sanctus Spiritus factus est, sic

gerens nostram hanc fragilem

imbecillemque naturam quasi
manu ad immortalitatem posset
educere. Factus est et Dei Filius per Spiritum, et hominis
per carnem ; id est, et Deus et
homo. Dei virtus in eo ex ope-

per eum caro, quse subjecta peccato fuerat, ab interitu liberaFuit nobiscum in terretur
ra, cum induit carnem ; et ni-

ribus quae fecit apparuit, fragi-

hilominus Deus

litas

hominis ex passione quam

pertulit

hominem

Et

Deum

fuisse et

utroque genere
permistum, prophetis vaticinanex

in secunda carnali ex sola

ma-

tre genitus caro sancta fieret, ut

et

homo

autem

in

fuisse a

prsedictum

est.

homine
Utrumque

fuit in

Deo.

prophetis ante

LACTANTIUS,

462

A. D. 310.

" read and heard these things, laid wicked hands

" upon their God r ?"
356. Lactantii Instit. 1. IV. c. 18. p. 320.
" They met together that they might condemn
" their
"

God

s ."

357.

Lactantii Instit.

What

shall

we

1.

IV.

18. p. 322.

c.

say of the indignity of this cross,

" on which God was suspended and fastened hy the

" worshippers of God 1 ?" It seems very improbable

word God should have

it must have, unless
we suppose the same God who was worshipped by
the Jews to have been nailed to the cross.
that in so short a sentence the

two

different meanings,

which

358. Lactantii Instit 1. IV. c. 18. p. 324.

" But that it should come to pass, that the Jews
" would lay hands upon their

God and put him to

" death, the following testimonies of the prophets
" have shewn u ."
Lactantii Instit.

359.

1.

IV.

Speaking of unbelievers, he

c.

22. p. 333.

says,

"

They deny

" that it could come to pass, that an immortal na" ture should lose any thing.
They deny it being
u worthy of God, that he should wish to become
" man, and to burden himself with the infirmity of
" the flesh x ."
r

Quis non

tibus turn
tretur, qui

igitur captos

cum

haec legerent et

audirent, nefandas manus

suo intulerunt ?
s

men-

fuisse Judaeos arbi-

Coierunt, ut

Deo

Deum suum

condemnarent.
1
Quid de hujus crucis indignitate dicemus, in qua Deus
a cultoribus Dei suspensus est
atque suffixus

11

Fore autem ut Judaei ma-

nus inferrent

Deo

suo,

eumque

testimonia prophetarum haec antecesserunt.

x Negant fieri potuisse, ut
naturae immortali quidquam deinterficerent,

cederet.

Negant denique Deo

dignum, ut homo

fieri

vellet,

seque infirmitate carnis onera-

The same observation is

ret.
made in theEpitome, c. 50. p. 37.

LACTANTIUS, A.D.
Lactantii Instit.

360.

He
how
own

God

argues, that

to lead a

good

life,

example, that the

IV.

1.

463

310.
c.

24. p. 338.

could not have taught

unless he

human

men

had shewn, by

nature

is

his

capable of

and he says that he has shewn,

" that neither could man have his doctrine perfect,

leading such a

life

" unless he was also God, that he might lay the

" necessity of obedience upon men by authority from
" heaven nor could God, unless he was clothed in a
" mortal body, that by fulfilling his own precepts by
" actions, he might bind others in the necessity of
" obedience y."
;

361. Lactantii Instit. 1. IV. c. 25. p. 339" Therefore he came as a Mediator, i. e. God in

" the flesh, that the flesh might follow him, and that
" he might rescue man from death z ."
362. Lactantii Instit. 1. IV. c. 26. p. 343.
" But the following is the reason, why the supreme
" Father chose particularly that kind of death, with
" which he permitted him to be visited. For perhaps
" a person may say, If he was God, and wished to

"

die,

why

" death ?"

did he not suffer some honourable kind of

He

then gives some reasons why the

was chosen, and adds, " This also

death of the cross

66

was a principal cause, why God preferred the

cross,

" because by that he would be exalted, and the

" sufferings of
" nations a ."

God would

neque hominem per-

fecta doctrina esse posse,

sit

nisi

Deus, ut auctoritate
necessitatem parendi ho-

idem

coslesti

minibus imponat; neque Deum,

nisi mortali corpore induatur,
ut praecepta sua factis adim-

be

made known

to all

plendo, caeteros parendi necessitate constringat.

2

Itaque idcirco Mediator ad-

venit, id est

caro
ret
a

eum

Deus

in carne, ut

sequi posset et eripe-

morti hominem.

Cur autem summus Pater

LACTANTIUS, A.D.

464

310.

363. Lactantii Instit. 1. IV. c. 29. p. 350.

" Perhaps some one may ask, how, when we say
" that we worship one God, we yet assert that there
" are two Gods, God the Father and God the Son
" which assertion has driven many into the greatest
" error w ho, although what we say seems to be
" probable, yet think that we fail in this one point,

" that we acknowledge a second and a mortal God.

" Concerning his mortality we have already spoken
:

" let us

"

God

now

explain his unity.

the Father and

God

When we

the Son,

we do

speak of

not speak

" of a different God, nor do we separate both be" cause neither can the Father be without the Son,
" nor the Son be separated from the Father since
;

" indeed neither can the Father have His name

" without a Son, nor can the Son be begotten with" out a Father.
Since therefore the Father makes
" the Son, and the Son the Father, both have one
" mind, one Spirit, one substance but the one is as
:

"
66

it

were an overflowing fountain, the other

stream flowing from

it

the one

is

" other as a ray proceeding from the sun

" cause he

is

like a

as the sun, the

;

who, be-

both faithful and dear to the supreme

" Father, is not separated from Him, as neither is a

" stream from its fountain, nor a ray from the sun,

" because the water of the fountain is in the stream,

" and the light of the sun is in the ray. In the

same manner neither can the voice be separated

" from the mouth, nor the power or the hand from
<c

potissimum genus mortis elequo affici eum sineret, base

ratio est.
Dicet enim fortasse
aliquis, Cur si Deus fuit et mori
voluit, non saltern honesto aliquo mortis genere affectus est?
gerit,

quoque praecipua fait

Deus crucem malu-

Ilia

id

causa, cur
erit,

quod

ilia exaltari

eum

fuit

omnibus gentibus
passionem Dei notescere.

necesse,

et

LACTANTIUS,

465

A. D. 310.

" the body.

Since therefore he is called by the pro" phets the Hand and Power and Word of God, it
" follows that there is no distinction, because the
" tongue, the minister of the word, and the hand,

" in which

is

the power, are inseparable parts of the

" body.

This world is one house of God and

" the Son and the Father, who together inhabit the
:

" earth, are one God, because one

" as one.
" the Son
" the Son

Nor
is
;)

is

as two,

is

wondered

that to be

in the Father, (for the

and the Father

is

at,

and two
because

Father loveth

in the Son, because

" he faithfully obeys his Father's will, nor ever does

" or would do any thing, except what his Father
" wills or commands.
Wherefore since the mind
" and will of one is in the other, or rather there is
" one in both, both are properly called one God
;

" because whatever

is

in the

Father passes to the

Son, and whatever is in the Son descends from the

" Father.
The supreme and only God therefore

66

((

cannot be worshipped except through the Son.

He who thinks that he worships the Father only,

" as he does not worship the Son, also does not wor-

66

" ship the Father.

But he who

receives the Son,

((

and bears his name, together with the Son wor" ships the Father also since the Son is the Am" bassador, and Messenger, and Spirit of the supreme
;

" Father \"

b

Fortasse

quaerat

quomodo, cum

Deum

bitrantur,

quod

et

unum

mortalem

Deum

fateamur.

colere dicamus, duos tamen esse

asseveremus, Deum Patrem et
Deum Filium quae asseveratio
plerosque in maximum impegit
errorem.
Quibus cum probabilia videantur esse, quae dici;

in us, in

altemm

aliquis,

nos

hoc uno labare nos ar-

et

De

jam diximus nunc

de unitate doceamus. Cum dicimus Deum Patrem et Deum
Filium, non diversum dicimus,
nec utrumque secernimus quia
nec Pater sine Filio esse potest,
nec Filius a Patre secerni, si
mortalitate

LACTANTIUS,

466

A. D. 310.

The corresponding passage in the Epitome is this.

" Nor yet is this to be taken, as if there are two
a Gods. For the Father and the Son are one.
For
" since the Father loves the Son, and gives all things
" to him, and the Son faithfully obeys the Father,
" nor wishes any thing except what the Father
" wishes, such a close connexion cannot be sepa-

" rated, so as that they can be called two in whom

" both substance and will and faith are one. There:t

fore the

(i

the Son

Son
;

by the Father, and the Father by

is

one honour

is

to be given to each as to

" one God, and is to be so divided by two worships,

" that the very division is connected by an insepara" ble union.
He will leave himself neither one nor

quia et unus est tanquam duo,

duo tanquam unus. Neque

quidem nec Pater sine Filio

nuncupari, nec Filius potest sine
Cum igitur et
Patre generari.
Pater Filium faciat, et Filius

Patre, quia Pater diligit Filium,

Patrem, una utrique mens, unus

et

spiritus,
ille

una substantia

est

sed

quasi exuberans fons est, hie

tanquam defluens ex eo rivus

ille tanquam sol, hie quasi raqui quodius a sole porrectus
niam summo Patri et fidelis et
:

carus est,

non separatur

sicut

nec rivus a fonte, nec radius a

quia et aqua fontis in rivo
sole
;

et solis lumen in radio

eeque nec vox ab ore sejungi,
nec virtus aut manus a corpore
Cum igitur a
divelli potest.

est,

prophetis idem
virtus et

sermo

manus Dei

et

dicatur, utique

nulla discretio est ; quia et lingua sermonis ministra, et manus, in qua est virtus, individual
Sic
sunt corporis portiones.

hie

mundus una Dei domus

et Filius ac Pater, qui

incolunt

est;

unanimes

mundum, Deus

unus,

et
id

mirum, cum

et Filius sit in

Pater in Filio, quia voluntati

fideliter paret, nec unquam faciat aut fecerit, nisi
quod Pater aut voluit aut jussit.

Patris

Quapropter cum mens et

voluntas alterius in altero sit,
vel potius una in utroque, merito

unus Deus uterque appellatur,

quia quidquid est in Patre ad
Filium transfluit, et quidquid in
Filio a Patre descendit.
Non
potest igitur ille summus, ac
singularis Deus nisi per Filium
coli.
Qui solum Patrem se colere putat, sicut Filium
non
ita ne Patrem quidem.
Qui autem Filium suscipit et

colit,

nomen
Filio

ejus gerit,

simul

et

quoniam legatus
sacerdos
lius.

sum mi

is

vero

Patrem

cum
colit,

et nuntius et

Patris est Fi-

LACTANTIUS, A.D.
" the other,

who

separates either the Father from

" the Son, or the Son from the Father

364. Lactantii Instit.

The

467

310.

1.

IV.

c ."

c. ult. p.

353.

following passage concerning heretics

of

is

importance, as shewing the belief of Lactantius himself " Some who are not sufficiently instructed in
:

sacred literature, when they cannot reply to the

" enemies of truth, who object that it is either im" possible or unbecoming that God should be con" fined in the womb of a woman, and that that

" heavenly majesty cannot be lowered to such weak" ness, as to be the contempt and scorn of men, and
" at last even to suffer tortures and be nailed to an
" accursed

cross,
all which things, when they
" could not defend or refute by ingenuity or learn-

" ing, they have departed from the right path, and

" corrupted the scriptures, that they might compose

" a new doctrine for themselves without any root

" and

He

stability."

then

names the Phrygians,

<c

Novatians, Valentinians, and Marcionites, &c.

66
66

or

whatever other name they bear,

they have
ceased to be Christians who, losing the name of
;

66

"

assumed human and foreign titles. It

the catholic church alone which retains the true

Christ, have
is

" worship

ri

".

Nec tamen sic habendum

tanquam duo sint Dii. Pater enim ac Filius unum sunt.
Cum enim Pater Filium diligat,
omniaque ei tribuat, et Filius
c

est,

Patri ndeliter obsequatur,

nec

quidquam, nisi quod Pater,

non potest utique necessitudo
tanta divelli, ut duo esse dican-

velit

tur, in

quibus et substantia et

voluntas et fides una

et Filius per

est.

Patrem,

et

per Filium.
Unus est honos
utrique tribuendus, tanquam uni
Deo, et ita dividendus est per
duos cultus, ut divisio ipsa corn-

page inseparabilivinciatur. Neutrum sibi relinquet, qui aut Patrem a Filio, aut Filium aPatre
secernit. c. 49. p. 37.
d Quidam
vero

coelestibus

literis

non

eruditi,

satis

cum

Ergo

veritatis

Pater

dere non possent objicientibus

Hh

accusatoribus

respon-

LACTANTIUS,

468

A. D. 310.

Lactantii Instit.

365.

1.

V.

c. 3. p.

369.

Having spoken of Apollonius of Tyanea, and exposed his false pretensions to divinity, he adds, " But
" ours was able to be believed to be a God, since he
" was not a conjurer and he was believed to be so,
" because he was really God e ."
If we compare the words of Lactantius in this
place with those of Eusebius in his work against
Hierocles, it is plain, that Lactantius was arguing
against this same Hierocles, who wrote a book called
Philalethes, the object of which was to compare
Apollonius Tyaneus with Jesus Christ. Hierocles
lived at the beginning of the fourth century, and
was a violent opponent of Christianity and from an
extract, which Eusebius makes from his work, we
;

may

perceive that the fact of Jesus being looked

upon

as

God by

known to
many miracles

the Christians was well

After having specified

says, " I have mentioned

Hierocles.

worked by Apollonius, he

" these, that a comparison

(i

vel

impossible

esse ut
ris

may

be drawn between

the accurate and safe judgment passed by us in

Deus

vel

incongruens

uterum mulie-

in

includeretur, nec coelestem

ges, aut Novatiani, aut Valentiniani, aut Marcionitse, aut

An-

thropiani, aut Ariani, seu quili-

nominantur, Christiani

illam majestatem ad tan tarn infirmitatem potuisse deduci, ut

bet

hominibus contemptui,

esset,

mine amisso humana et externa

vocabula induerunt.
Sola igi-

cruciamenta

tur catholica ecclesia est, quae

perferret, atque execrabili pati-

verum cultum retinet. I have

taken no notice of the word
Ariani in my translation of this
passage, because it is wanting

contumelies

postremo

et

derisui,

ludibrio

etiam

bulo figeretur ; quae omnia cum

neque ingenio neque doctrina
defendere ac refutare possent,
depravati sunt ab itinere recto
et coeiestes literas corruperunt,

ut

novam

sibi

doctrinam sine

ulla radice ac stabilitate

ponerent.-

Cum

com-

enim Phry-

alii

esse desierunt, qui Christi no-

in the oldest
e

MSS.

Noster vero

credi, quia

et potuit

magus non

Deus

fuit

creditus est, quia vere fuit.

et

LACTANTIUS,

469

A. D. 310.

<c

each case, and the silliness of the Christians. For

" we do not consider the worker of these miracles to
" have been God, but a man highly favoured by the
ee
gods whereas the Christians on account of a few
:

" miracles call

Jesus

mony of an heathen,
The reader is now

God

Such

f ."

the testi-

is

enabled to draw his

own

ference concerning the doctrines of Lactantius

we must

perhaps

in-

and

conclude that there are some ex-

pressions in the preceding quotations,

which

impossible to reconcile with each other.

Thus much

however seems

He

writer.

it

is

certain, concerning the belief of this

believed that Christ was present with

Him

God, and assisted

in the creation of the

world

that he was not born of Joseph and Mary, but that

he was conceived miraculously by Mary who was

that he was of one substance with God
and that no persons worship God the Father, unless

a virgin

they worship inclusively

We

may

God

the Son.

think that Lactantius was heterodox, or

that he did not understand his

own

cerning the generation of the Son, but

opinions constill

his

words

are plain and positive concerning the articles of belief just

mentioned

and any one of these

is

funda-

mentally subversive of the notion of Lactantius being an Unitarian.

His

repeated, that Christ

is

assertion,

which

is

twice

of one substance with the

Father, would also seem to separate him decidedly

from the Arian

tenets.

Some

of his expressions

might possibly be brought within the verge of Se mibut we must remember, that the illustraaria nism
;

f
.

ToiaijTa,
6eo7<;

eWep

.wev

TtenoirjKOTa,,

K%api<T[jt.evGV

ov

tgv

6ew, aXXcc

avtpoc,

yyovueSa.'

ol Se

8;

'\-/\<tqvv

C.

oX/ya^ zeparda,^ Tt>a<;

Hierocl. p. 5 T2

Hh

tw

eov avayopevov&i. Euseb.

470

LACTANTIUS,

A.D. 310.

which he uses of the sun and the ray is also

used by Origen (N. 262.) and Dionysius of Alexandria, (N. 302, 303.) as proving that there never was
a time when the Son did not exist. Lactantius certainly speaks sometimes as if he believed the Son to
have been begotten at some definite period of time
and bishop Bull, as we have seen, conceives him to
have spoken of that figurative generation of the Son,
when he went forth from the Father to create the
world.
There is no doubt that some of the Fathers
mention more than one generation of the Son, and
tion

that they considered this which immediately pre-

ceded the creation to have been one of them

if

but

Lactantius thought that the Son proceeded from

the Father, as a ray from the sun, he could hardly

have conceived that they were not always coexistent.

CONCLUSION.

WE

have

now brought

Ante-Nicene Fathers to

the testimonies of the

The

a close.

catholic church

has always appealed to these testimonies, as supporting the doctrine of the eternal and consubstantial

The

divinity of Jesus Christ.

Unitarians appeal to

the same authority in proof of what they call the

simple humanity of Christ.

his

own

inference, as to

doctrines

three

is

first

We

reader will draw

most supported by the writings of the

centuries.

must remember

who were

The

which of these two opposite

when the

also, that

Fathers,

assembled at Nice in the year 325, ap-

pealed to their predecessors as maintaining the same

doctrine, which was professed at that council, they
had many more documents before them than what
we now possess. The works of the Ante-Nicene
Fathers, which remain to us, are perhaps not a
hundredth part of those, which were extant at the
beginning of the fourth century a and yet with this
multitude of evidence before them, which was open
:

to their opponents as well as to themselves, they did

not hesitate to declare, that

the Fathers

all

who

had preceded them, believed in the divinity of Christ.

Where were the Unitarian teachers when this cona

The author of

the Synopsis

Athanasius, after enumerating the books

of the New Testament, observes
Scriptures, ascribed to

that verepov

kcctoc rrjv iKivuv

dm-

Xov9lav koI crvucpavitzv

koI dvapiO^ra.

dXkd

fAvpla

filfiXta, i^eTroy/jOrjcrav

vvo rZv Kara. Koupav$ [AeydXav kou

o-txpeordrav

II. p. 1 3 1

Hh

Oeocpopuv

itccrepcov.

vol.

CONCLUSION.
fident assertion

three

was made? If the writers of the

centuries believed, as

first

told, in the

we

are repeatedly

simple humanity of Jesus, why was not

this belief heard at the council of Nice?

a whisper of

There

is

not the smallest particle of evidence to

shew, that the Unitarian or Socinian doctrines were

so

much

as thought of at that council.

who were

indeed, that those

It is true

inclined to Arianism

appealed to the early Fathers in support of their

opinions,

and we

will consider the justice of this

But the reader must remember,

appeal presently.

that an Arian of the fourth century would have been

little less

shocked than the most orthodox catholic,

at hearing

it

asserted, that Jesus Christ

been believed to be a mere man.

that the total absence of
at the council of

Nice

all
is

had always

I repeat therefore,

mention of Unitarianism
a very strong argument

against the notion, that the early Fathers were Unitarians.

i

We

hypothesis

is

might believe perhaps, though the

highly improbable, that the bishops

assembled at that council

all

agreed in drawing up a

which they knew

profession of faith,

to be funda-

mentally opposed to the doctrines held in the three

preceding centuries

dared to

assert,

yet surely they would not have

with such a mass of evidence before

them, that they were preaching the same doctrine

which had always been preached. They would have

taken the bolder and more consistent ground of saying, that the Fathers

dually corrupted
their language

the

who preceded them had

purity of the

gospel.

was the very opposite of this.

gra-

But
They

drew up the exposition of their faith in the plainest

and strongest terms, explaining every article so as
to meet the varied objections and subtle sophistry of

CONCLUSION.
heresies

conflicting

they were

473
driven

assert

to

the divinity of Christ with more minuteness and preit had ever been necessary
and yet they asserted, that every article of their belief had been held and preached from
Nor did any
the days of the apostles to their own.
person venture to rise up and contradict them by

cision of

language than

to use before

saying, that the catholic church for the

first

three

had believed in the simple humanity of

Jesus Christ,
But we are told by modern Unitarians, that such
was the belief of the early Fathers and that the
reader may be able to understand what is the point
in dispute between the Unitarians and ourselves, I
will quote some of their own assertions concerning
centuries

the doctrines of the early ages of Christianity.

" It is absolutely necessary, that the less learned
" should be told, what upon inquiry will be found to
" be undeniably true, viz. that the Fathers of the
"

first three centuries, and consequently, all Chris" tian people, for upwards of three hundred years
" after Christ, till the council of Nice, were gene-

rally Unitarians, what is now called either Arian

" or Socinian
This is one of the many passages,
6i

which modern writers have spoken of the Arians

and Socinian s, as if their creeds were the same.

in

The Arians
fessed

to

at the time of the council of

believe, that

create matter

(ryv yevyryv <f>vaiv)

Son, the Word, and that this

(Athanas. Orat.

II. c.

Nice pro-

when God determined

he

first

created his

Word was

Arian. 24. vol.

I. p.

to

Christ.

492.)

Was

Mr. Lindsey aware of this, when he wrote the above

sentence ? Or would he have subscribed the solemn
b

Lindsey, Apology, p. 23, 24.

CONCLUSION.

474

which was appended

declaration

fessions of faith, " If

"

to one of their Conany one say that the Son of Mary

him be anathema c ?"

" The Unitarians have made it evident from un-

is

a mere man, let

" doubted testimonies of the Fathers, that the opin" ion of the Ante-Nicene doctors was either tho" roughly Arian, or very near being so, unquestion" ably nearer to the error wherein to Arius had
" fallen, than to the fancies of the schoolmen, or,

" which is all one, to the decretory articles of our

" modern Homoousians." Gilbert Gierke, Ante-Nicsenismus, praef.

" The great body of primitive Christians, both

" Jews and Gentiles, for the two first centuries and

" upwards, were Unitarians

e<

and

believers

in

simple humanity of Jesus Christ." Belsham's

the

Calm

Inquiry, p. 255.

When

the modern Unitarians profess their belief

humanity of Christ, they mean this.

They believe that Jesus had only one nature, viz.
the human that he was in every sense of the term
a mere man, born in the ordinary way that he had
no preexistence that he was not in any sense of the
term God, except as Moses or Elijah might be called
in the simple

God, when they received a divine commission.

It

and that of the

first Socinians there have been many and various
Mr. Belsham himself says,
shades of difference.
" In the simple form in which they [Lindsey,
is true, that

between

this doctrine

" Priestley, &c] professed it, [Unitarianism,] it

" differed almost as much from Socinianism as it did

" from Athanasianism

c

Et rt? avBfomcw

4k Mapicct;

vlov,

de Synodis,

[aovov

itself d ."

Xeyei tqv

avdBe^a'iaTa. Ath.

vol. I. p.

743.

It is plain therefore,

Works of Dr.

VIII. p. 155'

Parr,

vol.

CONCLUSION.
that

must be

either Socinianism or Unitarianism

Some have approached

wrong.

nearer to the Arian

some have allowed that religious worship

some have believed that since
to Christ
ascension he has existed in a much more exalted

notions

may be paid
his

475

state.

Many

other variations might be pointed out

but, without examining them separately,

assert,

upon the authority of the Ante-Nicene Fathers,

that the doctrine which they held is wholly irreconcileable with any modification of the Unitarian
creed.

There

is

not one of the Ante-Nicene writers from

Barnabas to Lactantius, who does not mention that

Christ was born of a virgin.
This circumstance
alone destroys the notion of Christ being born in the

ordinary way.

The

was born of a

virgin

Unitarians deny that

miraculous conception

they reject

all

Christ

idea of his

and yet they claim the Ante-

Nicene Fathers as agreeing with themselves

There is not one of these Fathers who does not
speak of Christ being made man, of his coming in
the flesh.

The

expressions Qeo$

becoming man, Seog

nate, are very

God

bvapicwQeis,

common

God

havOpwirvjo-af,

being incar-

in their writings,

and may

frequently be found in the preceding quotations.

Had

these Fathers been Unitarians,

had they be-

lieved that Jesus Christ was a mere man, could they

or would they have spoken of

At

N. 45, 133,

him

and 259,

in this

way

have quoted the

creeds of Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, and Ori-

gen, and at p. 73. I have asked whether modern

Unitarians would subscribe these creeds.

suredly they would not

must

Most

as-

at least, if they do, they

believe that Jesus Christ

was incarnate, that

CONCLUSION.

476

he was born of a virgin, that he was the Maker of

heaven and earth : that he was man and God. If
the Unitarians, by adopting these early creeds, ac-

knowledge
is little

their belief in these doctrines, then there

or no difference between us

but

if

they re-

ject these doctrines, then they reject the authority

of Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, and Origen

what

the three
If

we

first

centuries were Unitarians ?

look to the history of heresies,

more reasons

find

and

becomes of their assertion, that the Fathers of

we

shall

for thinking that the simple hu-

manity of Christ was not the doctrine of the first

It is true, that there were persons in very
ages.

who believed that our Saviour was a

mere man. The names of Ebion, Cerinthus, Carpocrates, and others are recorded, who denied that
early times,

there was any thing miraculous in his conception or

birth

but they differed greatly among themselves

and some of them allowed, that a sort of divine nature

There is a curious passage in
from
which
it would appear, that in his
Athanasius,
opinion no heretic before Arius really denied the dibelonged to Christ.

vinity of Christ
alpeo-ecov
acofjia

he

calls

the Arian heresy tv aXXav

ldyoaf\v kou TpvylaV

Kai

tyjv

evav6poo7TY)o-iv

exeivai

tov

ovTug, al

eKeivcog KaTaipevtio'pevai,

tov Kvpiov,

a>$ 'lovftaioi

[MaviKOQTepov

fXY$oXtog

e/V

elvai

avTYjv

He

yj

pev yap

77

fxvj^e

Mgypt.

tov

to
fxev

prfioXwg eTri^e^yjfx^Kevai
avTY] &e \kovy\

QeoTYjTa KaTaTeToXfxriKe

tyjv

7repi

vXav&VTai, al

vo^i^ovTeg 7rXavvj$Y)crav'

tov Xoyov,

Epist. ad Episc.

Kvpiov

Xeyovva

naTepa ae) naTepa

elvai.

Lyb. IT. vol. I. p. 287-8.

probably thought that the former heretics all beet

Christ td be God, or an emanation from

God, but they denied either the union of the divine
and human natures in Jesus, or the reality of the

lieved

CONCLUSION.

477

body of Jesus. Athanasius certainly does not represent Paul of Samosata as believing Jesus to have
been a mere man in the Unitarian sense, though
this is generally said to have been his belief, see
vol.

I.

229. 273. 510-1. 640-1. 739- 920. 938.

p.

and p. 397. of this work. Their

followers were few
and what is most important,
942.

vol. II. p. 35.

Fathers of each of the three

the

have

the most unequivocal

left

first

centuries

declarations, that

The

they believed these notions to be heretical.

reader

referred

is

Irenaeus;
lian

and

to

to

N. 57. for the opinion

N. 105, 106.

for

N.

that

to

259.

for

that

of

of Tertul-

of Origen.

In

these places they expressly declare, that they did

not agree with those persons

Christ to be a mere man, or

who
who

believed Jesus

denied his pre-

Again I ask, how then could Irenaeus,

Tertullian, and Origen agree with the Unitarians,
who do believe Jesus Christ to be a mere man, and
who do deny his preexistence ? Beside which it is
existence.

notorious, that the prevailing heresies in the second

and third centuries were of those who denied the

human nature of Christ. Marcion, Valentinus, and
others of the same school, were so convinced of Jesus
Christ being God, that they could not believe

be

man

him

to

they held, that his body was an illusion

which makes

it

extremely improbable, that the ma-

jority of Christians in those days believed in the

simple

humanity of

The same

Christ.

conviction

led in the third century to the Patripassian

bellian heresies

e
.

The

and Sa-

leaders of these sects could

e
The Sabellian heresy may
be traced back to a period long
antecedent to the time of Sabel-

Justin Martyr, about the

year
140, condemned some
opinions which were very si-

litis

CONCLUSION.

478

not persuade themselves that Christ was a

man

and one taught that he was actually God the Father the other believed that he was an emanation
from God.
;

my

It is not

intention to enter at length into the

controversy between bishop Horsley and Dr. Priest-

concerning the identity of the Ebionites and

ley,

Nazarenes

me

enables

but a perusal of the Ante-Nicene Fathers

make

to

a few remarks upon some of the

He

assertions of Dr. Priestley.

fact of the Ebionites,

who

much upon

dwelt

the apostolical times, being Unitarians

the

first

the

followed so close upon

writers did not speak of

and because

them

as heretics,

he wishes to conclude that these doctrines were not

thought heretical

but that at

Christians agreed with them,

The

the majority of

first
i.

e.

were Unitarians.

support which Dr. Priestley wishes to derive

for the Unitarian opinions will be destroyed, if

can prove either of these two things

were called heretics by the early writers

onites

we

that the Ebi;

or

that the doctrines of the Ebionites were fdifFerent

from those of the modern Unitarians

for if the

Ebionites and the modern Unitarians did not hold

the same opinions, one of them must be wrong.
shall therefore

proceed to comment upon some of

the assertions advanced by Dr. Priestley.

He

1.

lays great stress

upon the

fact of the Ebi-

onites not believing in the miraculous conception of

Jesus

upon which

would observe, that Origen

in-

forms us there were two sects of EbioniteSy and that

one sect of them did believe in the miraculous conmilar
Dial.

(Apol.

I.

cum Try ph.

63. p. 8j.
128. p. 221.)

and the notions of Praxeas, Be-

ryllus,

and Noetus,

led very na-

rurally to Sabellianism.

CONCLUSION.
ception.

Celsum V. 61.

(c.

Euseb. H. E. III. 27.

II. 1. vol.

2.

IV.

p.

p.

p. 625.

479

and 65.

628.

121. Theodorit. Haer. Fab.

219.)

Dr. Priestley says, that Tertullian

Christian writer

p.

who

is

the

first

expressly calls the Ebionites

and that Irenaeus never confounds them

with the heretics f
This assertion is not true.
heretics,

Dr. Priestley indeed says in another place

s,

that Ire-

naeus nowhere directly calls the Ebionites heretics.

But this expression will not save him from the charge
of making an unfounded assertion. In the first place
Irenaeus states his doubts very strongly whether the

Ebionites can be saved, on account of their disbelief in

the divinity of Christ, which approaches very

near to a direct declaration of their being heretics h .

But he expressly

who

reader will perceive,

self to the passages

refers

calls

them

heretics, as the

instead of confining him-

where the word Ehionite occurs,

back to the former part of the argument.

p. 98. Irenaeus writes thus

" detecting and convincing

" Since the

all

At

means of

heretics are various

" and multifarious, and we have proposed to our" selves to refute all according to their peculiar
" tenets, we have deemed it necessary to begin by
" noticing the source and root of them."

He

then

mentions several persons, the discussion of whose

doctrines occupies the remainder of the book.

begins with Simon

that

History of early Opinions,

201.

281.

Vol,

III. 19. 1. p. 212.

I. p.

Eusebius also

says,

i(

We

He

and observes of him,

heresies took their rise with

all

vol. III. p.

Magus

him

1
.

He

" have received, that Simon

" Magus was the beginning of
" every heresy.''' II. E. II. 13.
All the Fathers agreed in this
statement.

CONCLUSION.

480

then notices Menander, Saturninus, Basilides, Carpocrates, Cerinthus, the Ehionites, &c.

It is surely

impossible to deny, that this classification directly

and expressly includes the Ebionites in the number

of heretics and when Irenaeus has finished his enumeration, he says, " From these, who have now been
:

" mentioned,

many varieties of heresies have been

many of them, or rather all of

" derived, because

" them, wish to be teachers, and to leave the heresy

" to which they belonged ; and imagining one new
ec

doctrine after another, they set up themselves as

" the inventors k ."

But

there

is

another passage which Dr. Priestley

must have overlooked, where

comthe Ebi-

Irenaeus, in the

pass of one short sentence, directly calls

Speaking of the principles of the

"
There is such a certainty about
Gospel, he says,
" the Gospels, that even heretics themselves bear
onites heretics.

" testimony to them, and each of them endeavours

" to confirm his own doctrine out of them. For the
" IZbioniteS) who use the Gospel of Matthew only,

" &c.

&C

Ebionites
tics in

."

Surely Irenaeus, by mentioning the

first,

must have believed them

to be here-

no small or unimportant points so that Dr.

argument, which is drawn from the fact
:

Priestley's
k

sunt,

Ab

his auteni, qui prsedicti

jam

multse

propagines

multarum haeresum factee sunt,

eo quod multi ex ipsis, immo
omnes velint doctores esse, et
abscedere quidem ab hseresi in
qua fuerunt aliud autem dogma
;

ab alia sententia, et deinceps alteram ab altera componentes,

nove docere insistunt, semetipsos

adinventores

sentential,

quamcumque compegerint,enar-

rantes. I. 28,
1

1. p.

106.

89. Tanta est

autem circa evangelia ha?c firmitas,

III.

1 1

7. p.

ut et ipsi haeretici testimo-

nium reddant

eis,

et

ex

ipsis

egrediens unusquisque eorum

conetur suam confirmare doctrinam.
Ebionaei etenim eo
Evangelio, quod est secundum

Mattheum,

solo utentes, ex illo

convincuntur, non recte
prsesumentes de Domino.

ipso

CONCLUSION.

481

of their not being called heretics

till

the time of

Tertullian, falls to the ground.

3.

this

Dr. Priestley concludes one of his chapters with

remark, " that no person can reflect upon this

" subject without thinking it a little extraordinary,

" that the Jewish Christians, in so early an age as
" they are spoken of by the denomination of Ebion" ites, should be acknowledged to believe nothing
" either of the divinity, or even of the preexistence

" of Christ,
" taught

if either

them by the

of those doctrines had been

tainly seems to carry with

force of

it

ceases at once, if

it

The remark

k ."

apostles

some weight

cer-

but the

we remember

that the

Ebionites openly rejected the authority of the apostles.

Eusebius tells us, that " they used only the
" Gospel according to the Hebrews, and made little
" account of the others
thority

more

is

much more

:"

and Irenaeus, whose auand his expressions

valuable,

precise, tells us, that " they used only the Gos-

" pel of St.

Matthew m ."

This alone might make us

cease to wonder, that the Ebionites disbelieved the

divinity or preexistence

of Christ, if either of
these doctrines had been taught them by the apoBut the reader must not suppose that the
stles.
three other Gospels were all which the Ebionites reThose primitive Unijected of the holy scriptures.
not
looked
upon
as heretical by
tarians, who were
the early church, took the liberty of getting rid of
all St.

Paul's Epistles at once, calling that apostle an

apostate from the law

k

n
.

History of early Opinions,

26,

7. p.

2.

p.

105

and HI.

189.

Irenseus

I.

26.

2.

p. 105.

Celsum, V. 65. p. 628.

Eus. H. E. III. 27. p. 121.
Origen.

III. 27. p. 121.

I.

1 1,

III. p. 2IO.
1

Surely there can no longer

I i

c.

CONCLUSION.

482

be any doubt whether the Ebionites were heretical.

If they were not, the whole catholic church from
that time to the present has been in the grossest

heresy

and

so

have

the Unitarians,

all

who

admits

not only the Gospels, but the whole of St. Paul's

Epistles.

would

4.

also notice

Ebionite creed, which

if

some other points of the

they were correct, must

bring, not only ourselves, but the Unitarians also,

under the charge of grievous error. The Ebionites

retained all the customs of the Jewish law, thinking

new

that the

revelation

made by

Christy

and

justifi-

them 0
of the prophets, and

cation through him, did not dispense with

They denied

the inspiration

thought that they spoke from themselves

p.

Lastly, Dr. Priestley has entirely suppressed, that

though the Ebionites believed Christ to be a mere

man with respect to his birth, they thought that an
I do not mention this part
angel resided in him c
i.

of their creed with a view to vindicate the absurdity

of it but rather to shew, that their opinions were

not free from vain and unfounded imaginations, and
;

that they differed essentially from those of the

mo-

dern Unitarians.
V. i, 3.
de Prescript,

Irenseus ib. and

Tertull.

p. 293.
hseret.

33. p. 214.
p. 3 8 5>

Origen.
3 86

Cels. II.

1.

V. 61.
in Gen.

625. and Horn.

p.

5. p.

[A.voi,

irept

c.

and
III.

68.

Method. Sympos.

ore Be

p. 113.

rov tov nvevparoq eo~(paX'Efiiovouoi, ef Ibiaq Kwr\-

coq ol

<reaq rovq itpocp^raq XeXaXrjKevai (pi-

XoveiKovvreq.

This may explain a

passage in Epiphanius, which

Dr. Priestley did not understand.

Epiphanius says of the Ebion" they detest the proites,

"phets:" (Haer. 30.) which
Dr. Priestley thinks altogether
improbable, and he adds erroneously, that Epiphanius is the
only writer who asserts any such
thing. (III. p. 217.) It appears
that Methodius asserts the same
thing, and enables us to under-

stand what Epiphanius meant.

1 Tertullian. de Came Christi,
14. p. 3 19.

CONCLUSION.
I

was

shall close this discussion

said above, that

if

483

with repeating what

the Ebionites were heretical,

the early church was not Unitarian

if

the Unita-

were not heretical, why do

they differ from them on such fundamental points ?
In the course of the preceding pages, I have been
tarians think that they

made by
had been asserted, that Jesus Christ was nowhere called Creator, Ay(Miovpyoc
I have shewn at p. 58. that this
led to point out, that several statements

the Unitarians were unfounded.

epithet

applied to Christ by nearly

is

been asserted, that Christ

It has

It

and 143. that

considered

it

said, that the

Christ.

all

have shewn at

the Ante-Nicene Fathers

a duty to worship Christ.

had been
to

many
Almighty. The

p. 163, &c. that in

Fathers called Christ

places the

It

word Almighty was never applied

have proved at

the Fathers.

not spoken of as

an object of religious worship.

p. 42.

all

is

reader will perhaps remember the incorrect state-

ments which I quoted from Mr. Lindsey, Mr. Jones,

and Mr. Belsham, concerning the words of St. Paul,
Rom. ix. 5. (p. 87, &c.) and the false assertions

which had been made concerning Acts xx. 28.

(p.

In their interpretations of other texts, the

18, &c.)

Unitarians have equally forgotten that they are op-

posing themselves to

Thus they

centuries.

world

is

Heb.

i.

there

is

all

the writers of the three

say, that the creation of the

not attributed to Christ in John

2.

and yet

first

i.

3. or

will venture to assert, that

not one of the Ante-Nicene Fathers

who

quotes these passages, without shewing, beyond

all

doubt, that he understood these texts of all things

being created by Christ.

I repeat, that as to

the

opinion of the Fathers, and their unanimous consent

I i

CONCLUSION.

484

upon

this point, there is

or uncertainty

no room

for contradiction

only remains for the Unitarians

it

were mistaken, that they

were not such good judges of the style and language
of the apostles as we are, though Greek was the vernacular language of many of them, and some lived
to say, that all the Fathers

so near to the time of St. John, that

sible

to

it is

hardly pos-

suppose them so grossly ignorant of his

meaning.

To many

persons

it

will appear a necessary conse-

quence, that the Ante-Nicene Fathers believed Christ

to be

God, when they find him spoken of as the Cre-

ator of the world

archs

as being conceived

of the Holy Ghost

as

as having taken our

worshipped, &c. &c.

ward many

by the Virgin

having appeared to the patri-

But

human

have

flesh

also

as being

brought

for-

which the Fathers expressly

was God and man, that he was begotten of the substance of God, that he had existed
from all eternity, that he was one with the Father.
Will any rational person believe that the Fathers
would have used these expressions, if they had held
that Jesus Christ was a mere man ?
instances, in

say, that Christ

We

may

observe

also,

that there

is

not the slight-

est trace of the notion of Christ's divinity

having

been introduced by later writers, and having been

unknown

to those of earlier times.

The

reader

is

requested to compare the short Epistles of Ignatius

with the voluminous works of Origen, and to see

whether the doctrines which the Unitarians deny,
are not to be found in the one as plainly as in the
other.
If this had not been the case, we need not

have given up our argument

for

who would

pect, that in seven short letters written

ex-

by a man

CONCLUSION.
who was

485

then on his road to execution,

we

should

find a declaration of all the articles of his belief?

And

yet Ignatius several times calls Christ God, he

God born

speaks of him as

in the flesh, conceived of

a virgin by the Holy Ghost, as being with the Father before the worlds, as existing in the Father,
as being eternal

becoming

and

invisible,

It

visible.

is

and yet

for our sakes

trifling to ask,

man who wrote this, believed

mere human being we may
:

whether a

Jesus Christ to be a
find his divinity ex-

pressed in more minute and circumstantial terms by

Origen and the later Fathers, when they were driven

by opposite heresies to express themselves

but

it is

precisely,

evident to the plainest understanding, that

Ignatius acknowledged two natures in Christ, that

he believed him to be God, and to have been so

from all eternity. It is for the Unitarians to shew,

how he

could believe Christ to have been

all eternity,

God from

and yet not have believed him

to be

consubstantial with the Father.

To sum up

the whole, I conceive

it

to be

proved

by the preceding quotations, that the Ante-Nicene

Fathers believed Jesus Christ to have two natures,
the

human and

the divine

to have existed as

God

that they believed

before he took our

him

human

nature; that he was begotten of the substance of

God, and was united with him in essence, though

that it was he who created the
distinct in person
;

worlds and

who appeared

he had existed from

ceeding from the

to the patriarchs

all eternity,

from which

it

emanates

is

coexistent

with the

in one word, that

the Son was as truly God, and truly

I i

that

and though pro-

Father, was always

with him, as the effulgence of light

light

eternal,

CONCLUSION.

486

mean in the same sense and fulness of expression,

God the Father.
I must now make a few remarks concerning the

as

assertion of the Arians,

that the writings of the

Ante-Nicene Fathers support their doctrines.

It

cannot be pressed too strongly upon the theological

student, that between Arians
difference

is

immense.

and Unitarians the

It is fortunate also for the

defenders of the catholic doctrines, that the peculiarities

Some

of the Arian creed

difficulties

a small compass.

lie in

have been raised by the distinction

of Arianism and Semi-Arianism

r
:

difficult to point out the precise line

but

still it is

not

which separated

the supporters of the Nicene doctrines from their

opponents. In this respect

more easy

it is

The

an Arian than an Unitarian.

to

combat

belief of Unita-

been so modified and

rians, as observed before, has

altered from the times of Socinus to our own, that

is difficult

to say

ledged by them

and

what
all,

is,

and what

as the

summary

in endeavouring to disprove

we may
who call

is

not,

it

acknow-

of their faith

any of

their tenets,

unintentionally hurt the feelings of some

themselves Unitarians, but

yet brought themselves to go

acknowledged
Arian tenets.

leaders.

The

But

all
it

is

who have

not

lengths with their

not so with the

opinions of the Arians are on

record as a matter of history

s
:

and the

catholics at

the council of Nice very wisely brought the points

under dispute into a small compass, and

r

Seethe tenets of the Semi-

Arians

in

Epiphanius,

LXXIII. vol.
s
They are

I.

Hser.

p. 845.

stated very fully

by Athanasius, de Decret. Syn.

Nic. 6. vol. I. p. 213. and Epist.

if I

may

ad Episc. iEg. et Lyb. p. 281.

and their subterfuges and evasions are clearly exposed in . 19,
&c. of the same treatise, p. 224,
&c.

CONCLUSION.

487

so say, drove their opponents into a corner,

and ten-

dered to them the shibboleth of Catholicism, which,

according as they accepted or refused
to be catholics or Arians.

it,

proved them

Thus the following ques-

were put to persons suspected of Arianism

Was there ever a time when the Son did not exist ?
Was the Son of one substance with the Father?
These two questions were found to be the only
tests which the Arians could not evade.
They were
tions

willing to call Jesus Christ God,

and

to say that

he

was very God, a\vj6ivo$ Seo$

they allowed that he
was begotten of the Father; and they expressed
1

great horror at the idea of Christ being a creature.

But they constantly affirmed, that there was a time

when Christ was not, and they denied his consubstantiality

with the Father.

Accordingly

we

find

that the creed, which the council adopted, provided

against every subterfuge and equivocation upon these

two

and the questions given above were

the touchstone by which all persons were tried,
whose faith was in any way doubtful.
articles

It is needless to observe, that the difference be-

and Arians was slight, when compared with that between catholics and Unitarians
but whoever is acquainted with the history of the
council of Nice will know, that the orthodox party

tween

catholics

by no means considered the dispute to turn upon

mere words nor can we ever say with truth, that
the difference between the two parties in those days
was small or unimportant. If Christ was of a different substance from the Father, and yet each is
God, it would surely be very difficult to comprehend
:

1
Some of them would not agree to this. Athanas. Epist. ad
Episc. ^Egypt. et Lyb. vol. I. p. 281 and 283.

I i

CONCLUSION.

488

two Gods and if there was a

time when Christ was not, it is almost impossible
to conceive, that Christ, who took our nature upon
him, was that very God who had existed from all

that there are not

eternity.

We

cannot be surprised therefore, that

both parties were anxious to claim the early Fathers

as supporting their respective tenets

and we cannot

quote the Ante-Nicene Fathers as agreeing perfectly

with ourselves, unless

we shew

that their doctrines

are opposed to those of the Arians, as well as to

those of the Unitarians.

But the two

tests

mentioned above will make

part of our task comparatively easy. If

this

we can shew

that the Ante-Nicene Fathers believed Jesus Christ

have been begotten of the substance of the Father, and to have existed from all eternity, the leadto

But

ing tenets of the Arians are overthrown.

two
by the quotations

these

points are surely proved, even to demonstration,

in the preceding pages.

With

respect to the consubstantiality of the Father and

the Son, the reader

is

referred to N.

305

respect to his eternity, the expressions

and with

used at N.

SI, 48, 100, 159, 206, 262, 300, 301, 302, 303,

316, 318, 320, 324, p. 421. seem to leave no doubt,

that the persons

who

used them never imagined a

time when Christ did not

Seeing therefore that

exist.

we

are encompassed about

with so great a cloud of witnesses,

let

us hold fast

the profession of our faith, and, without forgetting

that charity which becomes true believers, let us
earnestly contend for the faith
livered to the saints.

We

which was once de-

have indeed a cloud of

witnesses to prove that the faith delivered by our

Lord

to his apostles,

and by the apostles

to their

CONCLUSION.
successors,

professes

489

was essentially that which our church

and cherishes. If the preceding pages

should have unfolded this series of testimony, so as

to convince the

mind

was wavering

if

of any one person,

who

before

they should lead any one sincere

inquirer after truth to a conviction of his

own

belief

being that of the primitive church, the earnest hopes

of the writer will not be altogether disappointed

and

let

us also hope and pray, that

mised, that blasphemy against the

He who has proSon of Man shall

be forgiven, will hereafter have mercy upon those,

who having

a zeal, but not after knowledge, have

been led by ignorance and error to speak lightly of

his holy

name.

INDEX

I.

TEXTS ILLUSTRATED OR REFERRED TO IN THIS

WORK.

Genesis

i.

Psalm

26. p. 2, 40, 47, 293.

424.
iii.

vi.

vii.

8.

p. 38.

22.

p. 47.

13.
16.

p. 38.

p. 38, 152.

22.

p. 52.

xxviii. 13.
"

6. p. 78,

361, 424.
P- 45-

1.

1.

p. 78.

lxxii.

p.

lxxvi. 1.

xix. 24.p.38,52,53,78.

p. 9.

p. 42, 289.

xlvii. 5.

p. 38, 52.

xxii. 11, 12. p.

11.

xlv.

p. 52.

xviii. 1.

p. 208, 222.

p. 43, 176, 263.

xxxiv. 8.
p. 142.

xvii. 1.

5.

xxiv.

p. 38, 52.

xi. 5.

viii.

>

p. 83.

lxxxii. 1.

p. 78.

6.

p. 79.

39, 361.
p. 39.
p. 152.

4 J 234.

Ixxxvii. 4,

5.

p.

230,
240.

15.
xxxi. n, 13. p. 39, 361.

xcvi. 10.

p. 49.

xxxii. 24.

xcix.

P- 45-

28.

p. 39, 52.
i5 2 . 35-

30.
p. 177.
xxxv. 1, 9. p. 39, 361.
xlvi. 3.
p. 153.
xlix. 9.
p. 246.

Exodus

iii.

vi.

11.

24.

22.

133.

2.

4-

p. 79.

P- 39> 79>

8o

p. 52.

2.

p. 361.

21.

xiii.

14.
ex. 1.

xiv. 19.

p.

361.

XX. 2. p. 40, I52, I53.

20. p. 226. 361.

p. 154p. 77> 248.

3-

p.

cxiv. 3.

Prov.

ix.

Isaiah

i.

P-

19.

22.

viii.

1.

10.

vii.

14-

ix. 2.

55-

P- 47, i75,

360, 421.
265, 360.
P-

1, 9.

P- *75-

p.

18.

vi.

318.

p. 259.

6.

ii.

iii.

p. 36, 39.

8.
I

ciii.

p. 50.

54-

P- 43p. 101.

p. 210,
p.

407.
302.

xxxiii. 11.

p. 177.

20.

p. 222.

Levit.

.vi.

1.

p. 40.

6.
p. 36, 51, 99.
148, 207, 314, 407.
XI. 1.
p. 83.
xxxin. 20.
p. IOO.
xxxv. 3,6. p. 363, 370.

Numb.

xi.

23.

p. 52.

xl. 3.

xxxi. 2, 3.
xxxii. 10.

p. 52.

xlii.

p. 151.

35-

P-3H.

xxiii.

Deut.

Joshua
Psalm

v.

13.

ii.

7.

p. 40, 47, 308.

p. 149, 363.

13.

xliv. 6.

24.

xlv.
liii.

p. 140,

361.

P- 358.
p. 360.

p. 58.
11-15.P. 269, 36 J.
12.
p. 294.

INDEX OF TEXTS.
Isaiah
Jerero.

9. p. 36,

lxiii.

p. 78, 83, 271.

xi. 19'

p. 49.

xxiii. 18.

xjZQK.
"Tinmpl

xi.

p.

p. 4.

xxx vi. 26.

p. 4.

iii.

25.

p. 229, 279.

13.

p. 229? 246.

Hosea

p.
xii. 5.

iv. 2.

Wisdom i.

7.

vn. 25.

Matt.

i.

18.

iii.

3.

17-

ym.

p.

3.

20.

ix.

ii.

62.

xix. 28.
xxiii.

p. 140.

xvi.

p. 292, 330.

39-

p.

41.
xxviii.

Mark

i.

p.

11.

Luke

49.

11.

iii.

4.

iv.

22.

p.

xii.

v.
vi.

17.

p. 231.

x. 22.

232.
P- i75p. 382.

xi.

i.

p.

49.
44.

3.

228.

p. 55. 81, 156,

33> 3

[5,

320, 360.

25

i.
ii.

p.

43.

241.
214.
p. 213. 216.
p. 214.

p.

3.

p. 9.
p. 214.

is-

P- 334p. 216.

p. 10, 86, 267,

362, 371, 424.

P- 5719.
p. 311.
8.
p. 214.

36.

xiv.

fnr

271.

10.

ix. 5.

417.

p. 17.

24.

p. 140.

433-

p.

p.

10.

xj.

Pp.

274.
238.

p. 84.

16.

viii.

149, 442.

p.

3, 4- P- 10, 86, 135,

p. 414.

34.
20.

xxii.

John

no.

P- 237-

36.

240.

i-

P- 237.
134, 360,
37i-

p. 4.

vi. 2.

327.

p.

p.

20.

xxviii.

R.om

381.

p.

15.

xx. 28.

P 83.

35-

33-

p. 129.

24.

x.

p. 272.

33-

P-

33ii.

ix.

p. 149.

2.

i.

9-

23.

-36.

p. 140.

3.

43-

J 34291.

10.

Acts

p. 253, 279.

20

Pp. 185.

xvn. 5.

327.
288.

P- 175-

F*

xiv. 6.

149, 442.
p. 227.
p. 228.

O fil

T)

31.

xiii.

291.

p.

41.

xii.

298.

34.
xxvi. 38.

F'

40.

x. 18.

P- 347p. 55.

Pp.

n
a nfii
p. 300.
p. 96.

P- i5-

20.

6.

v11 1

p.

XVlll. 2.

p. 209, 37I.

140.
27. p. 91, 177, 222.
238, 268, 300.

p. 2IO.

13.

vi.

p. 124.

6.

111.

x. 39.
xi. 10.

210.

14. \\
p. z 7> 33 37 1
T Q
p. IOO,
19.
p. I 80.

p.

p.

T A

53p. 164.
p. 30. 140.
p. 24O.

1.

iii.

13.

1.

370.

P-

8, 9.

ii.

J ohn

271.

19.

vii.

Zech.
Malachi

100, 363.

Ixv. 1.

24.
6, 8.
8.

v. 7.
vi.

19, 20.

viii. 6.

x. 9.
xii.

28.

p. 174.
P- i75-

p. 224.
p. 262.
p. 25.
P- 55. 72.

p. 40.
p. 163.

INDEX OF TEXTS.
1

Cor.

xiv. 19.

p. 56.

xv. 2

p. 56.

22.

p. 97.

27.

P- 95-

2 Cor.

ii.

17.

iv.

6.

217.
217.
177212.

TO.

v. 8

10.

167.
216.
p .216.
p. 214.
P- 216.
286.
P-

5-

19.

2T.
X. 4.

5-

P 163.
P 217.

xi. 2.

Galat.

xii.

19.

xiii.

4.

11.

p.

20.

iii.

Eph.

p.

19.

ii.

v.

25.

p. 216.

i.

9.

Coloss.

p.

113

3-

1.

i.

215.

23.

p.

p. 212.
p. 114.

9.

P- 133-

14.

p. 217.
p. 13, 120, 145,

P-

55

81, 324,

424.
19.
20.

p. 126.

2.

p. 217.

3-

p. 25.
p. 174.

i5-

412, 426.
P- 372.

20.

p. 214.

9. p. 126,

2 Pet.
1

John

1,

16-8.

iii.

1.

iv.

12.

9
57
P- 36
p. 272

15-

p.

p.

P-

3.

p.

9
55
142

24.

p.

216

19.

P- 215.
p.

iv.

6.

p.

ii.

p.
P-

14-7.

iii.

p. 163.

10.

Pet.

305
56
177*387
p. 208

P- 54. 55.

7. 9.

12

P-

2.

ii.

p. 85.

32.

16.

ii.

115

p.

p. 215.
p. 126.

287, 301, 302, 33*

321, 324* 326, 337,
422.

p.

13.

15.

1.

11.

3^4-P

1.

1 r.4.

"5

ii.

Heb.

p.

P-

iv.

xi. 3.

11.6,7^.7,9. H7358.
410.

i.

21.
10.

i.

p. 70.

5-

iii.

p.

p.

10.

3.
iv. 1 1-2.

Titus

3.

12-5.

v. 2.

iii.

Phil.

p. 85.

23.

Tim.

p. 150.

111.

v.

339> 372.
339> 37 2
p. 215.
p. 278.

iv. 7.

217
166
P- 23, 213
1 Thess iii. 11.
p. 114
2Thess, i. 12.
p. 114
ii. 8.
p. 294
1. Tim. ii. 5.
P 78,
iii. 16.
p 27. T 58,i7
40

p. 215= 275-

1.

i.

Coloss.

18.

i.

1.

i.

1.

P-

iv. 3.

4-

Revel.

i.

P-

20.

v.

Jude

165
253
200
200, 216
p. 114
p.

36

327. 363
P- 3 6

"5

P-

P- 383
p. 80

1.

4-

-8.
ii.

p. 164, 238,

8.

v 5-

p.

xi. 17.

p.

xii.

p.

5-

p.

xix. 6.

p.

10.

P-

13-

xxi. 6.
xxii. 9.

268
68
246
268
247
441
164

p.

p.

359
3i7

360, 363
P-

359

INDEX

369, 4i> 49> 424. 459-

'Ayevvjro? et a,ykvv(\t%y 26.

Christ the living God, T43, 185.

Lord of hosts, 43, 123,

316.
Apelles, 201.

Alooveq,

Apollinarians, 21, 250, 256.

Arians, 3, 14, 27, 40, 47, 60,
106, 177, 232, 281, 34T,
344* 379> 3 8l > 3 8 5> 46>

435> 438,
486.

237, 274, 358, 405.

to

4 6 9> 472, 473-

two natures

Cerinthus, 191, 197, 476.

Christ Almighty, 163, 237, 268.
an Angel, 36, 5 1,5 2, 209.
appeared to the Patriarchs,

321,323,324,325,327,330,
335>33 8 >339>35 6 363>3 6 9>
>

37 T >37 2 <37 6 >3 8 i>3 8 3>425>

428,430, 440, 447, 449, 459,

152,

306,

460.

309, 361. 425^

Christus and Chrestus, 142,

Clarke, Dr. 113, 160, 164, 300.

consubstantial, 102, 346,

388, 431.

Clemens Romanus, 2d

29, 30, 61, 76,

34> 176, 185, 257,

eternal,
J

344, 385, 386,

399 4i> 44> 45>
408, 412, 417, 421.
everywhere, 171,259,384.
higher than angels, 1 1, 40,
54, 171, 203, 208, 218, 290,
32i, 369in the Father, 29, 59, 123,
128, 148, 150, 155, 269,
401, 409, 421, 465.
. not created,
13, 76, 80,

Clerke, G. 164, 474.

Consubstantiality, 346, 388.
Council of Alexandria, 344,

266, 305,

82, 203, 254, 300, 395, 401,

418, 421, 430.

'

264,

55*
273,

l66 >

258,

293,

315,

259,
324,

Creeds, 69, 236, 337, 475.

Ebionites, 99, 149, 193, 197,

340, 392, 476, 478. 481.

101, 186, 210,

Emmanuel, 86,
37>4 6 Encratites, 6t.

Creator, 3, 54, 59,

80, 81, 96, 104, 112, 117,
1

Antioch, sixth, 434.

Carthage, 349, 364.
Ephesus, third, 107,

429.

the

13^

Epistle,

6.

3 8 7>

26,

235, 240, 241, 244, 246, 248,

249, 251, 252, 254, 255,256,
258, 261, 262, 265, 269, 272,
273, 275, 278, 286,290,291,
29 8 >37>3 0 9>3i^3i7>3J 8 >

Britain, 186.

79, 84, 102,

222, 226, 302,

10,

210, 218, 221, 223,229,233,

Beron, (heretic,) 249, 255.

Blood of God, 17.

52,

of,

30, 49, 62, 67, 85, 97, 101,

102, 104, 105, 154, 166, 171,
180, 190, 198, 201, 202, 207,

Belsham, 20, 55, 60, 87, 94,

138, 160, i6t, 427, 474.

77> 97>

128, 143, 186,

88, 243, 304, 3

1 8,
359, 409,
430, 443, 444, 465.
1

'ApnocyiAov 7jy7<r6at y

177,

be worshipped, 42, 48,

51, 66, 101,

Aristides, 434.

38,

II.

'EiTKpdvtia 115.

Eusebius 95, 146, 164.

Tev/jTo^ et yew/jToi;, 26, 300.
Ytvou.ou

8l.

INDEX
Gnostics, 76, 85, 99, 102, 192,

265^390, 427.
Gregorius Thaumaturgus, 59,

Noetus, 90, 266.

OiKovopia 70, 268.
c

O[Aoov<rio<;
e

393-

Hebrews, Epistle

to

the,

10,

388, 43

Hypostasis, 341.
I AM, 80, 237.
Improved Version, 87, 94, 138,
193, 196, 295, 315, 427.

Latin translation

380, 397,
423, 429.
Persecution of Decius, 221, 244,
281, 349, 367, 378.
Diocletian, 448,450.

Maxi minus, 435.

Maxi mus, 244,287.

of,

Valerian,349, 367,

19, 68, 88, 109, 169, 394.

Israel,

etymology

of,

50,

153,

306.
Jews, their expectation of Christ,
48, 188.
corrupted the Septuagint,

49.
Jones, 87.
Joshua, a type of Christ, 49,
226, 310.
Lindsey, 31, 34, 42, 59, 69,
87, 381, 408, 473.
Logos, 65, no, 175, 183, 271,
316.
Lucian, 147.
Luke St., beginning of, 193,
202.
Magi, offerings of, 83, 290.
Manichaeans, 21.
Marcion and Marcionites, 21,
61, 67, 119, 166, 187, T93,

201, 209, 219, 221, 224, 225,

23 1 > 265, 336, 477.
Matthew, St., beginning of, 32,
193, 202.
Mediator, 98, 278, 356.
Miraculous Conception, 28, 32,
35> 3 6 > 52, 7> 71, 73, 98,
101, 106, 179, 189, 193,
197, 204, 209, 233, 235,
236, 240, 246, 247, 258,

262,

263,

276*

>

264, 269, 272,

35 6 3 6 3> 4> 47>
419, 459, 475.

Montanus, 181.
Nestorius 106.

I.

80, 112.
Patripassians, 21, 90, 235, 266,
uv,

34L 477Paul of Samosata,

176.
Helix, (heretic,) 249.
Hierocles, 468.

Irenaeus,

II.

378.
Person, 341.
Pleroma, 126, 427.

in,

Polycarp, 68, 88,

329.

Porphyry, 147.
Praxeas, 235.
Preexistence of Christ,
9,

11,

13,

28,

2, 3, 7,

36, 42, 46,

47, 50, 61, 67, 84, 97, 112,

173,245,264, 294,315,442.
Dr., 32, 34, 35, 48,
73, 99, no, 130,
145, 146, 192, 338, 342,
343 347> 47 8

Priestley,

60, 70,

Quadratus, 34.
Revelations,

Rufinus,

Book

of,

248.

281,
284, 307, 308, 320, 339.
Sabellius, 36, 95, 267, 341,343,
373> 378, 420, 477.
Septuagint, 49.
Substance, 182, 341, 394,423.
Syriac Version, iS, 169, 193.
Tatian's Diatessaron, 196.
91,

125,

169,

Theodotus, (heretic,) 192.

Theognostus, 393.
eoTo/co?, 106, 433.
Velentinus and Valentinians,6i,

101, 102, 201, 210, 250,255,

265, 277, 340,477.

Vatican MS. 18.
Wetstein, 20.

Whitby, Dr., 6, 59.

Wisdom of God, 47, 155, 174,
264, 360.

pp

Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process.

Neutralizing agent:

Magnesium Oxide

Treatment Date: July 2005

PreservationTechnologies
A

WORLD LEADER
111

IN

PAPER PRESERVATION

Thomson Park

Drive

Cranberry Township.
(724) 779-21 1

PA 16066