vine nature, but we are speaking of Him as united to the human nature. In this sense, but in this sense only, 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 lowering the divinity of Christ, and containing a doctrine which was in unison with that of the heretic Paul. It asserts Jesus Christ to be God in the highest sense of the term. It states him to have been God before his incarnation in the womb of the Virgin; and clearly distinguishes between his divine and human natures; which is diametrically opposite to the opinion of Paul, 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 "." 66 327. Symbolum Antiochenum. 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." There seems to be 66 66 2 Τὴν φροντίδα εἶχον πᾶσαν, ὅπερ ἐπενόησεν ὁ Σαμοσατεὺς ἀνελεῖν, καὶ δεῖξαι πρὸ πάντων εἶναι τὸν υἱὸν, καὶ Θεὸς ὢν ἐνεδύσατο δούλου μορφὴν, καὶ Λόγος ὢν γέγονε σάρξ. Ex Athanas. de Syn. Arim. et Seleuc. apud no doubt but that the name of Nice in this passage is 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 this creed" was brought forward to convict the he"retic Nestorius of holding the same opinions with "Paul of Samosata, who was anathematized 160 years before by the orthodox bishops." From the year 269, when the council of Antioch was held, to 431, when that of Ephesus assembled, the interval is just 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 of Samosata. The creed is as follows: "We acknowledge our Lord Jesus Christ, begotten "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 66 heavenly divinity and human flesh, and one with "respect to his being man: both altogether God, "and altogether man; altogether God, even with "the body, but not God with respect to the body; " and altogether man with the divinity, but not man "with respect to the divinity: thus altogether to be "worshipped even with the body, but not to be worshipped with respect to the body; altogether worshipping even with the divinity, but not worship"ping with respect to the divinity; altogether un 66 a There seems some corruption here: it is proposed to read, καθὸ Θεὸς καὶ καθὸ ἄνθρωπος πρόσω πον ἕν. bi. e. Christ in his human nature, while he was upon earth, worshipped the Father. 66 66 "created even with the body, but not uncreated with 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 "one substance with men with respect to his divinity, 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 according to the Spirit, 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"stance with men according to the flesh, we do not 66 66 66 66 66 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 distinguished 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." 66 • Ομολογοῦμεν τὸν Κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν, τὸν ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς κατὰ πνεῦμα πρὸ αἰώνων γεννηθέντα, ἐπ' ἐσχάτων τῶν ἡμερῶν ἐκ παρθένου κατὰ σάρκα τεχθέντα, ἓν πρόσωπον σύνθετον ἐκ θεότητος οὐρανίου καὶ ἀνθρωπείας σαρκός· καὶ καθὸ ἄνθρωπος, ἕν· καὶ ὅλον Θεὸν, καὶ ὅλον ἄνθρωπον· ὅλον Θεὸν καὶ μετὰ τοῦ σώματος, ἄνθρωπον μετὰ τῆς θεότητος, ἀλλ ̓ οὐχὶ κατὰ τὴν θεότητα ἄνθρωπον· οὕτως ὅλον προσκυνητὸν καὶ μετὰ τοῦ σώματος, ἀλλ ̓ οὐχὶ κατὰ τὸ σῶμα προσκυνητόν· ὅλον προσκυνοῦντα καὶ μετὰ τῆς θεότη τος, ἀλλ ̓ οὐχὶ κατὰ τὴν θεότητα προστ κυνοῦντα· ὅλον ἄκτιστον καὶ μετὰ τοῦ σώματος, ἀλλ ̓ οὐχὶ κατὰ τὸ σῶμα ἄκτιστον· ὅλον πλαστὸν καὶ μετὰ 328. ARCHELAUS, A. D. 278. Archelaus was bishop of Caschar in Mesopotamia, and we have still remaining a disputation which he held with Manes or Manichæus d. The conference between these two persons took place first at Caschar, and afterwards at Diodoris, a village not far off. The date of it is supposed to be about the year 278. The disputation is said to have been originally written in Syriac; but the account which we have of it is in Latin, and the translation seems to have been made, not from the original Syriac, but from a Greek version. I do not pretend to decide the question, whether the account, which we have of this dispute, is genuine or no. Beausobre has written at considerable length to prove that the conference never took place, and that the work in question was written A. D. 330 or 340e. The names of those who have adopted or opposed this notion, may be seen in Dr. Routh's Reliquiæ Sacræ, vol. IV. p. 133-4. I have already θεότητα πλαστόν· ὅλον ὁμοούσιον Θεῷ καὶ μετὰ τοῦ σώματος, ἀλλ ̓ οὐχὶ κατὰ τὸ σῶμα ὁμοούσιον τῷ Θεῷ ὥσπερ οὐδὲ κατὰ τὴν θεότητα ἀνθρώποις ἐστὶν ὁμοούσιος, καίτοι γε μετὰ τῆς θεό τητος ὢν κατὰ σάρκα ὁμοούσιος ἡμῖν· καὶ γὰρ ὅταν λέγωμεν αὐτὸν κατὰ πνεῦμα Θεῷ ὁμοούσιον, οὐ λέγομεν κατὰ πνεῦμα ἀνθρώποις ὁμοούσιον· καὶ πάλιν, ὅταν κηρύσσωμεν αὐτὸν κατὰ σάρκα ἀνθρώποις ὁμοούσιον, οὐ κηρύσσομεν αὐτὸν κατὰ σάρκα ὁμοούσιον Θεῷ· ὥσπερ γὰρ κατὰ πνεῦμα ἡμῖν οὐκ ἔστιν ὁμοούσιος, ἐπειδὴ Θεῷ ἐστι κατὰ τοῦτο ὁμοούσιος, οὕτως οὐδὲ κατὰ σάρο κα ἐστὶ Θεῷ ὁμοούσιος, ἐπειδὴ ἡμῖν ἐστι κατὰ τοῦτο ὁμοούσιος· ὥσπερ δὲ ταῦτα διήρθρωται καὶ σεσαφήνισται, οὐκ εἰς διαίρεσιν τοῦ ἑνὸς προσώπου τοῦ ἀδιαιρέτου, ἀλλ ̓ εἰς δήλωσιν τοῦ ἀσυγχύτου τῶν ἴδιωμάτων τῆς σαρκὸς καὶ τοῦ Λόγου, οὕτω καὶ τὰ τῆς ἀδιαιρέτου συνθέσεως πρεσβεύομεν. Concil. Eph. part. III. c. 6. p. 979. tom. III. Concil. Labb. It is printed also in Reliq. Sacr. II. 524. and in the edition of the works of Dionysius Alex. p. 289. See Epiphan. Hær. LXVI. 10. vol. I. p. 627. e Hist. de Manichée, vol. I. p. 129-154. mentioned that in the course of the dispute Archelaus calls the Virgin Mary the Mother of God: (see p. 108.) and in a fragment of another work of the same Archelaus, we find the following remarkable passage concerning the prodigies which accompanied our Lord's crucifixion, "These divine won"ders proclaimed with a loud voice that he was "God f." It may be mentioned, that Archelaus quotes Luke iv. 34. "We know thee who thou art, "the holy God." There is no other authority for this reading. 329. THEONAS, A. D. 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 Lucianus, who held a high station in the household of the emperor Diocletian. The letter was certainly written in Greek; but we have only a Latin translation of it. Lucianus was a Christian, as were several other persons, who held similar employments. Theonas in this letter gives directions to them all, how they should conduct themselves in their several situations and addressing himself particularly to him, who had the care of the emperor's library, he says, that he should take every opportunity to bring the scriptures before the notice of the emperor: "He will sometimes speak in commendation of the Gospel and of the apostle Paul: mention may be "made incidentally of Christ; and he will explain 66 τῶν θεοπρεπῶν τούτων θαυ- 8 Scimus te qui sis sanctus μάτων ἀνακηρυττόντων αὐτὸν εἶναι Deus. Rel. Sacr. vol. IV. p. Θεὸν λαμπρᾷ τῇ φωνῇ. apud Routh 257. Rel. Sacr. IV. p. 284. |