Sidor som bilder
[ocr errors]

the sum of all that is human in its highest significance, both the sum total and the renovation of mankind, the new Adam; comp. v. 29, 2, iii. 18, 7, and other passages quoted by Duncker, s. 157 ff. He frequently repeats the proposition, that Christ became what we are, that we might be what He is, e.g. iii. 10, 20, and in the Præfatio: Jesus Christus, Dominus noster, propter immensam suam dilectionem factus est quod sumus nos, uti nos perficeret esse, quod est ipse. [Irenæus, iii. 18 Filius Dei, existens semper apud patrem, incarnatus est et homo factus, longam hominum expositionem in se ipso recapitulavit, in compendio nobis salutem præstans, et quod perdideramus in Adam, i.e. secundum imaginem et similitudinem esse, hoc in Christo Jesu reciperemus. Comp. v. 16.] Irenæus also says that Christ represents the perfect man in all the stages of human life. Similar views were entertained by the theologians of the Alexandrian school; see the passages quoted on the Logos. On the other hand, Tertullian, De Carne Christi, c. 6, thinks that the incarnation of Christ had reference to the sufferings He was to endure. (At vero Christus, mori missus, nasci quoque necessario habuit, ut mori posset.) According to Cyprian, the incarnation was necessary, not so much on account of the sin of Adam, as because of the disobedience of the later generations, on whom the former revelations did not produce their effect (Heb. i. 1), De Idol. Van. p. 15: Quod vero Christus sit, et quomodo per ipsum nobis salus venerit, sic est ordo, sic ratio. Judæis primum erat apud Deum gratia. Sic olim justi erant, sic majores eorum religionibus obediebant. Inde illis et regni sublimitas floruit et generis magnitudo provenit. Sed illi negligentes, indisciplinati et superbi postmodum facti, et fiducia patrum inflati, dum divina præcepta contemnunt, datam sibi gratiam perdiderunt. . . . Nec non Deus ante prædixerat, fore ut vergente sæculo, et mundi fine jam proximo, ex omni gente et populo et loco cultores sibi allegeret Deus multo fideliores et melioris obsequii; qui indulgentiam de divinis muneribus haurirent, quam acceptam Judæi contemtis religionibus perdidissent. Hujus igitur indulgentiæ, gratiæ disciplinæque arbiter et magister, sermo et filius Dei mittitur, qui per prophetas omnes retro illuminator et doctor humani generis prædicabatur. Hic est virtus Dei, hic ratio, hic sapientia ejus

et gloria. Hic in virginem illabitur, carnem, Spiritu Sancto coöperante, induitur. Deus cum homine miscetur. Hic Deus noster, hic Christus est, qui, mediator duorum, hominem induit, quem perducat ad patrem. Quod homo est, esse Christus voluit, ut et homo possit esse quod Christus est. Comp. Rettberg, s. 305. In this last position he coincides with Irenæus.

$ 65.

The God-man.

Along with more indefinite and general expressions concerning the higher nature of Jesus (1), the elevation of His doctrine and person (2), and His Messianic character (3), we find even in the primitive Church allusions to the intimate union between the divine and the human in His person. But the relation in which they stand to each other is not exactly defined, nor is the part which each takes in the formation of His personality sharply or philosophically determined (4). The earlier Fathers endeavoured, on the one hand, to avoid the low views of the Ebionites and Artemonites (Alogi), who considered Jesus as only the son of Joseph and Mary (while the more moderate Nazarenes, in accordance with the Catholic confession, admitted a supernatural conception) (5). On the other hand, they combated still more decidedly the tendency of the Docetæ, who rejected the true humanity of Christ (6). They also opposed the opinion (held by Cerinthus and Basilides) that the Logos (Christ) had descended upon the man Jesus at His baptism, according to which the divine and human are united only in an external, mechanical way; and the still more fanciful notions of Marcion, according to which Christ appeared as Deus ex machina (7); and lastly, the view of Valentinus (also docetic), who admitted that Christ was born of Mary, but maintained that He made use of her only as of a channel, by which He might be introduced into this finite life (8).

(1) Thus in the letter of Pliny to Trajan (Ep. x. 97): Carmen Christo quasi Deo dicere.-The usual doxologies, the baptismal formulas, the services of the Christian festivals and of divine worship, bear witness to the divine homage paid to Christ by the primitive Church; comp. Dorner, 1.c. s. 273 ff. Even art and Christian customs testify the same; ibid. s. 290 ff. [Comp Münter, Schöne, Bingham, Piper, Didron, Jameson, in their works, referred to § 8; also, especially, Louis Perret, Catacombes de Rome, 5 vols. fol. Paris 1851 (by the Institute).] The calumnies which the Jew of Celsus brings against the person of Christ, that He was born from the adulterous intercourse of Mary with a Roman soldier, Pantheras, are refuted by Origen, and the miraculous birth of the Saviour vindicated in view of His high destination (in connection with the doctrine of the pre-existence of the soul); Contra Cels. i. 32 (p. 345-351).

(2) According to Justin Martyr, the excellency of His doctrine elevates Christ over the rest of mankind (Apol. i. 14): Βραχεῖς δὲ καὶ σύντομοι παρ' αὐτοῦ λόγοι γεγόνασιν· οὐ γὰρ σοφιστὴς ὑπῆρχεν, ἀλλὰ δύναμις θεοῦ ὁ λόγος αὐτοῦ ἦν, and this human wisdom would be sufficient by itself (according to c. 22) to secure to Jesus the predicate of the Son of God, even though He were a mere man. But He is more than this: ibidem. Origen also appeals to the extraordinary personal character of Jesus (apart from His divine dignity), which he considers as the bloom and crown of humanity; Contra Cels. i. 29 (Opp. t. i. p. 347, in reference to Plato, De Rep. i. p. 329, and Plutarch in Vita Themistoclis): "Jesus, the least and humblest of all Seriphii, yet caused a greater commotion in the world than either Themistocles, or Pythagoras, or Plato, yea more than any wise man, prince or general.” He unites in Himself all human excellences, while others have distinguished themselves by particular virtues, or particular actions; He is the miracle of the world! c. 30 (altogether in the sense of the modern apologists). Minucius Felix does not go beyond the negative statement, that Jesus was more than a mere man; generally speaking, we find in his writings little or nothing positively Christological; Octav. 29, § 2, 3 (comp. with 9, 5): Nam quod religioni nostræ hominem noxium et crucem ejus adscribitis, longe de vicinia

veritatis erratis, qui putatis Deum credi aut meruisse noxium aut potuisse terrenum. Næ ille miserabilis, cujus in homine mortali spes omnis innititur; totum enim ejus auxilium cum extincto homine finitur. Comp. Novatian, De Trin. 14: Si homo tantummodo Christus, cur spes in illum ponitur, cum spes in homine maledicta referatur ? Arnobius, Adv. Gentes, i. 53: Deus ille sublimis fuit, Deus radice ab intima, Deus ab incognitis regnis, et ab omnium principe Deus sospitator est missus, quem neque sol ipse, neque ulla, si sentiunt, sidera, non rectores, non principes mundi, non denique dii magni, aut qui fingentes se deos genus omne mortalium territant, unde aut qui fuerit, potuerunt noscere vel suspicari. On the Christology of the apostolical Fathers, see Dorner, l.c. s. 144 ff.

(3) Justin M. Apol. i. 5, 30 ff.; Dial. c. Tryph. in its whole bearing. Novatian, De Trin. c. 9. Orig. Contra Cels. in various places.

(4) Thus Justin M. defended, on the one hand, the birth of Christ of a Virgin, in opposition to the Ebionites; and, on the other, His true humanity, in opposition to the Gnostics; Dial. c. Tryph. c. 54: Οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ Χρ. ἄνθρωπος ἐξ ἀνθρώπων, κατὰ τὸ κοινὸν τῶν ἀνθρώπων γεννηθείς. Apol. i. 46 : Διὰ δυνάμεως τοῦ λόγου κατὰ τὴν τοῦ πατρὸς πάντων καὶ δεσπότου θεοῦ βουλὴν διὰ παρθένου ἄνθρωπος ἀπεκυήθη. Comp. Semisch, ii. s. 403 ff. Iren. iii. 16 (Gr. 18), 18 (Gr. 20), p. 211 (Gr. 248): "Ηνωσεν οὖν καθὼς προέφαμεν, τὸν ἄνθρωπον τῷ θεῷ ... Εἰ μὴ συνηνώθη ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῷ θεῷ, οὐκ ἂν ἠδυνήθη μετασχεῖν τῆς ἀφθαρσίας. Ἔδει γὰρ τὸν μεσίτην θεοῦ τε καὶ ἀνθρώπων διὰ τῆς ἰδίας πρὸς ἑκατέρους οἰκειότητος εἰς φιλίαν καὶ ὁμόνοιαν τοὺς ἀμφοτέρους συναγαγεῖν καὶ θεῷ μὲν παραστῆσαι τὸν ἄνθρωπον, ἀνθρώποις δὲ γνωρίσαι θεόν, c. 19 (21), p. 212, 213 (250): "Ωσπερ γὰρ ἦν ἄνθρωπος, ἵνα πειρασθῇ, οὕτως καὶ λόγος, ἵνα δοξασθῇ· ἡσυχάζοντος μὲν τοῦ λόγου ἐν τῷ πειράζεσθαι . . . καὶ σταυροῦσθαι καὶ ἀποθνή σκειν' συγγινομένου δὲ τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ ἐν τῷ νικᾶν καὶ ὑπομένειν καὶ χρηστεύεσθαι καὶ ἀνίστασθαι καὶ ἀναλαμβάνεσθαι. Irenæus also advocates the true manhood of the Saviour in opposition to the Docetæ, and His true Godhead in opposition to the Ebionites. As Adam had no human father, so Christ is begotten without the act of a man; as the former was Q


formed from the virgin soil, so the latter is born of a pure virgin. Contrasted with the sinful flesh of Adam is this sinless nature; a spiritual (πvevμatikós) man is set over against the carnal (psychical, fuxirós), iii. 21, 10. Duncker, s. 218 ff. Comp. Novatian, De Trin. c. 18: Quoniam si ad hominem veniebat, ut mediator Dei et hominum esse deberet, oportuit illum cum eo esse et verbum carnem fieri, ut in semetipso concordiam confibularet terrenorum pariter atque cœlestium, dum utriusque partis in se connectens pignora, et Deum homini et hominem Deo copularet, ut merito filius Dei per assumtionem carnis filius hominis, et filius hominis per receptionem Dei verbi filius Dei effici possit. Hoc altissimum atque reconditum sacramentum ad salutem generis humani ante sæcula destinatum, in Domino Jesu Christo Deo et homine invenitur impleri, quo conditio generis humani ad fructum æternæ salutis posset adduci.

(5) Comp. § 23, 24, and 42, note 1. On the mild manner in which Justin M. (Dial. c. Tryph. § 48) and Origen (in Matt. t. xvi. c. 12, Opp. iii. p. 273, comparison with the blind man; Mark x. 46) judged of the view of the Ebionites, see Neander, Kirchg. i. s. 616, 617. But Origen expresses himself in stronger terms against them in Hom. xv. in Jerem. ib. p. 226: Ἐτόλμησαν γὰρ μετὰ τῶν πολλῶν τῶν ἀνθρωπίνων κακῶν καὶ τοῦτο εἰπεῖν, ὅτι οὔκ ἐστι θεὸς ὁ μονογενὴς ὁ πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως· ἐπικατάρατος γὰρ, ὃς τὴν ἐλπίδα ἔχει ἐπ' ἄνθρωπον. But even common Ebionites supposed that a higher power had united itself with Jesus at His baptism, though it was indeed only an (abstract) power. The Ebionites, whose views are represented by the Clementine Homilies, differed from the former by asserting that Jesus had from the beginning been penetrated with this higher power; hence He is in one rank with Adam, Enoch, and Moses, who all had the same prophetic character; comp. Schliemann, s. 200 ff., 483 ff., 523 ff. Dorner, s. 296 ff. Concerning the birth from the Virgin, it is remarkable how little the primitive Church hesitated about adducing analogies from pagan myths as a kind of evidence, though the reality of the fact was held fast. Thus Orig. Contra Cels. i. 37 (Opp. t. i. p. 355-Plato, a son of Apollo and Amphictyone); in the same connection an analogy is drawn from nature (in the case of the hawk), in

« FöregåendeFortsätt »