Testimonies of the Ante-Nicene Fathers to the Divinity of Chist

in the latter case it is colatis, in the former adoratis: so that we cannot doubt but that religious worship was paid to Christ; and yet the object of Arnobius throughout this work, as of all the apologists for Christianity, was to shew, that the Christians worshipped only one God.

339. Arnobii adversus Gentes 1. I. p. 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, still he deserved to be worshipped as God. "Even if 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, "and without the uncertainty of any doubtful mat"ter, do you think we can deny that he is worshipped in the highest degree by us, and called the "Guardian of our society? What! some one will say in a violent passion, is that Christ God? Yes, we answer, God, and God in the highest sense m."

340. 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 "or any law, and what was peculiar, fitting and

m Natum hominem colitis. Etiam si esset id verum, tamen pro multis et tam liberalibus donis, quæ ab eo profecta in nobis sunt, Deus dici appellarique deberet. Cum vero Deus sit re certa, et sine ullius rei dubitationis ambiguo, inficiatu

ros arbitramini nos esse, quam maxime illum a nobis coli, et Præsidem nostri corporis nuncupari? Ergone, inquiet aliquis furens, iratus, et percitus, Deus ille est Christus ? Deus, respondebimus, et interiorum potentiarum Deus.

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

words, diseases, fevers, and other bodily torments, "fled? Was he one of us, whose presence and sight "that race of dæmons buried deep in the body "could not endure, and, frightened by the new power, retired from possession of the limbs "?"

341. Arnobii adversus Gentes 1. I. p. 28.

In the same manner he goes through nearly all the miracles of Jesus, prefacing each by saying, "Was he one of us?" Unus fuit e nobis? and concludes thus; "It is 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; and when we

Atqui constitit Christum sine ullis adminiculis rerum, sine ullius ritus observatione, vel lege, omnia illa quæ fecit nominis sui possibilitate fecisse: et quod proprium, consentaneum, dignum Deo fuerat vero, nihil nocens, aut noxium, sed opiferum, sed salutare, sed auxiliaribus plenum bonis potestatis munificæ liberalitate donasse. Quid dicitis, O iterum? Ergo ille mortalis, aut unus fuit e nobis, cujus imperium, cujus vo

verbis missam, valetudines, morbi, febres, atque alia corporum cruciamenta fugiebant? Unus fuit e nobis, cujus præsentiam, cujus visum gens illa nequibat ferre mersorum in visceribus dæmonum, conterritaque vi nova membrorum possessione cedebat?

• Sole ipso est clarius, potentiorem illum fuisse quam fata sunt, cum ea solvit et vicit, quæ perpetuis nexibus et immobili fuerant necessitate devincta.

find a Christian writer telling his adversaries that Christ was superior to the fates, we shall see at once, that it could never have been believed that Christ was a mere man, but that he must have been considered as God.

342. Arnobii adversus Gentes 1. I. p. 31.

"Was it therefore human, or out of a mouth "nourished with earthly food could such power be given, such authority proceed, and was it not divine, was it not holy? or, if the thing admits of any excess, something more than divine and more "than holy?"

343. Arnobii adversus Gentes 1. I. p. 32.

"There was nothing magical, as you suppose, "nothing human, juggling, or illusive, no deceit lay "hid in Christ, although you deride us according to "custom, and break out into indecent laughter. He "was the sublime God, God of the highest origin; "God was sent as a Saviour from unknown regions, "and from God the Sovereign of all, &cr."

344. Arnobii adversus Gentes 1. I. p. 37. "But they say, if Christ was God, why did he 66 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, in

of the fates, says, Tanta vis est, ut plus possint quam cælestes universi, quamque ipse Rector ac Dominus. Instit. I. 11. p. 45.

a Ergo illud humanum fuit, aut ex ore terrenis stercoribus innutrito tale potuit jus dari, talis licentia proficisci, et non divinum et sacrum? aut si aliquam superlationem res capit, plusquam divinum et sacrum ?

Nihil, ut remini, magicum, nihil humanum, præstigiosum aut subdolum, nihil fraudis delituit in Christo, derideatis licet ex more atque in lasciviam dissolvamini cachinnorum. Deus ille sublimis fuit, Deus radice ab intima, Deus ab incognitis regnis, et ab omnium Principe Deus sospitator est missus.

"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 quality 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, " and which he bore together with his own s."

Sed si Deus, inquiunt, fuit Christus, cur forma est in hominis visus ? et cur more est interemptus humano? An aliter potuit invisibilis illa vis et habens nullam substantiam corporalem, inferre et commodare se mundo, conciliis interesse mortalium, quam ut aliquod tegmen materiæ solidioris assumeret, quod oculorum susciperet injectum, et ubi se figere inertissimæ posset

est enim mortalium, qui quiret eum videre, quis cernere, si talem voluisset inferre se terris, 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

345. Arnobii adversus Gentes 1. II. p. 85. "And 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 of the Sovereign God under the form of man hath taught us '," &c. &c.

PETRUS ALEXANDRINUS, A. D. 306.

Peter succeeded Theonas in the see of Alexandria about the year 300. The persecution of Diocletian was felt severely in his days; and after retiring for a time to escape the fury of it, he at length suffered martyrdom " in the year 310. We have accounts of several works written by this Father, but only a few fragments remain, from which the following extracts are taken; and it will perhaps be thought that they confirm what Ephrem patriarch of Antioch said of Peter, "that he held the union of two natures in the "one person of Christ *."

I 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 interemptus. Non ipse: neque enim cadere divinas in res potest mortis occasus; nec interitionis dissolutione dilabi id, quod est unum et simplex, nec ullarum partium congregatione compactum. Quis est ergo visus in patibulo pendere, quis mortuus est? homo, quem induerat, et secum ipse portabat.

t Et ideo Christus licet vobis invitis Deus, Deus inquam Christus, hoc enim sæpe dicen

dum est, ut infidelium dissiliat et dirumpatur auditus, Dei Principis jussione loquens sub hominis forma-præcepit &c.

" Athanas. Apol. c. Arian. 59. vol. I. p. 177. Vita Antonii, 47. p. 832. Epiphanius, Hær. LXVIII. 3. vol. I. p. 719.

* Οτι δὲ δύο φύσεων ἕνωσιν καὶ μίαν ὑπόστασιν καὶ πρόσωπον ἐν ὁμο λογεῖν, τοῦ ὀρθοῦ φρονήματός ἐστιν, καὶ τῶν πατέρων κήρυγμα, Ἰωάννης μὲν ὁ Χρυσόστομος μαρτυρεῖ ἀλλὰ καὶ Πέτρος ὁ ̓Αλεξανδρείας καὶ μáprus. Phot. Cod. 229.

« Предыдущая Продолжить »

Книги