66 66 363. 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 66 are two Gods, God the Father and God the Son: "which assertion has driven many into the greatest "error: who, 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 now explain his unity. When we speak of "God the Father and God the Son, we do 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 "it were an overflowing fountain, the other like a "stream flowing from it: the one is as the sun, the "other as a ray proceeding from the sun; who, be"cause he is 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 66 id potissimum genus mortis elegerit, quo affici eum sineret, hæc ratio est. Dicet enim fortasse aliquis, Cur si Deus fuit et mori voluit, non saltem honesto aliquo mortis genere affectus est? Illa quoque præcipua fuit causa, cur Deus crucem maluerit, quod illa exaltari eum fuit necesse, et omnibus gentibus passionem Dei notescere. "the body. Since therefore he is called by the pro 66 66 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 is as two, and two 66 as one. Nor is that to be wondered at, because "the Son is in the Father, (for the Father loveth "the Son ;) and the Father is in the Son, because "he faithfully obeys his Father's will, nor ever does 66 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 "cannot be worshipped except through the Son. "He who thinks that he worships the Father only, 66 as he does not worship the Son, also does not worship the Father. But he who receives the Son, "and bears his name, together with the Son worships the Father also; since the Son is the Am"bassador, and Messenger, and Spirit of the supreme "Father "." 66 b Fortasse quærat aliquis, quomodo, cum Deum nos unum colere dicamus, duos tamen esse asseveremus, Deum Patrem et Deum Filium; quæ asseveratio plerosque in maximum impegit errorem. Quibus cum probabilia videantur esse, quæ dicimus, in hoc uno labare nos ar bitrantur, quod et alterum et mortalem Deum fateamur. De mortalitate 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 The corresponding passage in the Epitome is this. "Nor yet is this to be taken, as if there are two "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"fore the Son is by the Father, and the Father by "the Son; 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 66 quidem nec Pater sine Filio nuncupari, nec Filius potest sine Patre generari. Cum igitur et Pater Filium faciat, et Filius Patrem, una utrique mens, unus spiritus, una substantia est: sed ille quasi exuberans fons est, hic tanquam defluens ex eo rivus; ille tanquam sol, hic quasi radius a sole porrectus: qui quoniam summo Patri et fidelis et carus est, non separatur; sicut nec rivus a fonte, nec radius a sole; quia et aqua fontis in rivo est, et solis lumen in radio: æque nec vox ab ore sejungi, nec virtus aut manus a corpore divelli potest. Cum igitur a prophetis idem manus Dei et virtus et sermo dicatur, utique nulla discretio est ; quia et lingua sermonis ministra, et manus, in qua est virtus, individuæ sunt corporis portiones.Sic hic mundus una Dei domus est: et Filius ac Pater, qui unanimes incolunt mundum, Deus unus, quia et unus est tanquam duo, et duo tanquam unus. Neque id mirum, cum et Filius sit in Patre, quia Pater diligit Filium, et Pater in Filio, quia voluntati Patris fideliter paret, nec unquam faciat aut fecerit, nisi quod Pater aut voluit aut jussit. -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 colit, ita ne Patrem quidem. Qui autem Filium suscipit et nomen ejus gerit, is vero cum Filio simul et Patrem colit, quoniam legatus et nuntius et sacerdos summi Patris est Filius. "the other, who separates either the Father from "the Son, or the Son from the Father " 66 66 66 364. Lactantii Instit. 1. IV. c. ult. p. 353. The following passage concerning heretics is of 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 impossible or unbecoming that God should be con"fined in the womb of a woman, and that that heavenly majesty cannot be lowered to such weakness, 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 learning, they have departed from the right path, and corrupted the scriptures, that they might compose "a new doctrine for themselves without any root "and stability." He then names the Phrygians, Novatians, Valentinians, and Marcionites, &c. "or "whatever other name they bear, they have "ceased to be Christians; who, losing the name of "Christ, have assumed human and foreign titles. It "is the catholic church alone which retains the true "worship d". 66 ' c Nec tamen sic habendum est, tanquam duo sint Dii. Pater enim ac Filius unum sunt. Cum enim Pater Filium diligat, omniaque ei tribuat, et Filius Patri fideliter obsequatur, nec velit quidquam, nisi quod Pater, non potest utique necessitudo tanta divelli, ut duo esse dicantur, in quibus et substantia et voluntas et fides una est. Ergo et Filius per Patrem, et Pater per Filium. Unus est honos utrique tribuendus, tanquam uni Deo, et ita dividendus est per duos cultus, ut divisio ipsa compage inseparabili vinciatur. Neutrum sibi relinquet, qui aut Patrem a Filio, aut Filium a Patre secernit. c. 49. p. 37. d Quidam vero non satis cœlestibus literis eruditi, cum veritatis accusatoribus respondere non possent objicientibus 66 365. Lactantii Instit. 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 the Christians was well known to Hierocles. After having specified many miracles worked by Apollonius, he says, "I have mentioned "these, that a comparison may be drawn between "the accurate and safe judgment passed by us in vel impossibile vel incongruens esse ut Deus in uterum mulieris includeretur, nec cœlestem illam majestatem ad tantam infirmitatem potuisse deduci, ut hominibus contemptui, derisui, contumeliæ et ludibrio esset, postremo etiam cruciamenta perferret, atque execrabili patibulo figeretur; quæ omnia cum neque ingenio neque doctrina defendere ac refutare possent, depravati sunt ab itinere recto et cœlestes literas corruperunt, ut novam sibi doctrinam sine ulla radice ac stabilitate com ponerent.- -Cum enim Phry ges, aut Novatiani, aut Valentiniani, aut Marcionitæ, aut Anthropiani, aut Ariani, seu quilibet alii nominantur, Christiani esse desierunt, qui Christi nomine amisso humana et externa vocabula induerunt. Sola igitur catholica ecclesia est, quæ verum cultum retinet. I have taken no notice of the word Ariani in my translation of this passage, because it is wanting in the oldest MSS. e Noster vero et potuit Deus credi, quia magus non fuit; et creditus est, quia vere fuit. |