. it to be so, we must necessarily allow the preexistence of Christ, though we might say that he was inferior to the Father: but it may be clearly proved, that the same words, which are ascribed in the Old Testament to God the Father, are quoted by many early writers as spoken by Christ in his own person. Thus Tertullian says, that the words in Isaiah i. 18. were spoken "in the person of the Lord himselft;" and he explains by the context that the Lord means Christ. Irenæus 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 "." So far therefore from it being said that Christ spoke in the person of the Father, we must conclude, unless we 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. 66 66 80. Clementis Pædagog. 1. I. 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 Psalm is addressed to God Almighty every verse of it shews this; and the name Jehovah leaves no doubt: and yet Clement refers it to Christ. He says, "Here some rise up "and say, that the Lord is not good on account of "his rod, and his threats, and his terror-forgetting the greatness of his mercy, that for our sakes "he became man: and indeed the prophet prays 66 Adv. Marc. IV. 10. p. 420. u Et minifestavit se esse Deum Patrum IV. 5. 2. p. 232. "to him in a more familiar manner in these words, "Remember us, that we are but dust: i. e. Have 66 " a fellow-feeling for us, because by thy own sufferings thou hast experienced the weakness of the "flesh *." 66 Whether Clement was right or no, in thus commenting upon the Psalmist's words, is a different question but it seems undeniable that Clement considered Jehovah and Christ to be one God: indeed he expressly says so in this same page, "No"thing therefore is hated 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 Word "was Gody." 66 81. Clementis Pædagog. 1. I. c. 11. p. 155. In this chapter he shews that it was Jesus who discharged his office of Instructor by the Law and 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 speech2; with knowledge, because "he is the 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 66 * Ενταῦθα ἐπιφύονταί τινες, οὐκ ἀγαθὸν εἶναι φάμενοι τὸν Κύριον διὰ τὸν ῥάβδον, καὶ τὴν ἀπειλὴν, καὶ τὸν φόβον—ἐκλαθόμενοι δὲ τὸ μέσ γιστον αὐτοῦ τῆς φιλανθρωπίας, ὅτι δι' ἡμᾶς ἄνθρωπος ἐγένετο. καὶ δὴ οἰκειότερον αὐτῷ ὁ προφήτης προσεύχεται, διὰ τούτων, Μνήσθητι ἡμῶν, ὅτι χοῦς ἐσμέν· τουτέστι, Συμπάθη σον ἡμῖν, ὅτι τὴν ἀσθένειαν τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοπαθῶς ἐπείρασας. Θεοῦ· ἀλλ ̓ οὐδὲ ὑπὸ τοῦ Λόγου· ν γὰρ ἄμφω, ὁ Θεός· ὅτι εἶπεν, Ἐν ἀρχῇ ὁ Λόγος κ. τ. λ. z These three requisites are probably borrowed from Ari stotle, who names φρόνησις, ἀρετὴ and εὔνοια as necessary to make an orator believed. Rhet. II. 1. a These words are not to be found in the Old Testament : there is something like them in "was not any thing made: and with good-will, "because he alone gave himself as a sacrifice for "us"." We must observe, that in this passage Cle 66 b Clement read this passage like many other of the Fathers: he put a stop after ovdè è, and coupled yéyover with what follows. He quotes it thus in so many passages, that it is useless to specify them: but in Pæd. II. 9. p. 218. he expressly quotes ὃ γέγονεν ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν, as do Irenæus (I. 8, 5. p. 41.) and the fragments of Theodotus. (ad fin. Clem. Alex. p. 968, 973) Origen also has a yeyover ἐν τῷ Λόγῳ ζωὴ ἦν. (c. Cels. VI. 5. p. 632. and in Joan. II. 6. p. 64.) The quotation in Cyprian, p. 285, might be pointed in either way. Epiphanius in the fourth century objected to the division being made after οὐδὲ ἓν, and proposed one which differed from both the others èv Zwn οὐδὲ ἐν ὃ γέγογεν ἐν αὐτῷ. Ζωὴ K. T. λ. (Ancorat. c. 74, 75. p. 80.) and yet in different parts of his works he uses both the other modes of punctuation. Chrysostom (A. D. 398.) condemns the ancient division as heretical, and expressly says that we are to read ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ v. (Hom. 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. Præp. Evang. XI. 19.) Eusebius did the same. Dem. Ev. p. 150. Eccles. Theol. II. 14. p. 123. : have not met with one exception to this mode of dividing the sentence in any undoubted writing of the three first centuries and it may be mentioned, as an additional proof, that the work " De recta in Deum "fide" is falsely ascribed to Origen, that it contains the modern division xwpis avtoũ ¿yéνετο οὐδὲν ἐν ὃ γέγονεν. I. p. 850. The same may be said of the Synopsis Scripturæ, which is ascribed to Athanasius, and contains the modern division of this text; vol. II. p. 129. whereas Athanasius appears always to have divided it otherwise: and also of the Sermo contra omnes Hæreses p. 230, though in the same treatise the words are twice quoted without yéyovev. The Homily in Nativitatem Christi is generally considered spurious, and it contains the modern division of the text: ib. p. 412. Griesbach mentions three of the oldest MSS. as connecting yeyover 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 1810 it is pointed otherwise: it ought to be "... and withouten him was maad no thing. That thing that was maad in him was lyf. ..." 66 66 66 66 c ̓Αξιόπιστος ὁ θεῖος Παιδαγωγός, τρισὶ τοῖς καλλίστοις κεκοσμημένος, ἐπιστήμῃ, εὐνοίᾳ, παῤῥησίᾳ. ἐπισ στήμῃ μὲν, ὅτι σοφία ἐστὶ πατρική· 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 as God. 82. Clementis Pædagog. 1. II. c. 3. p. 190. This chapter is directed against the use of costly 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 disciples sit down on the ground upon the grass: the unpresuming God and Lord of the world washed "their feet, having girded himself with a towel d." 66 66 83. Clementis Pædagog. 1. II. c. 8. p. 214. In pursuance of the same subject he condemns the use of crowns, or garlands, which were generally worn at feasts and sacrifices. He prohibits them as being an appendage to luxury or superstition, and therefore unworthy of Christians. This leads him to mention the crown of thorns which the Jews put upon Jesus, meaning it as an insult, but in fact 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: they saw not God: they denied "the Lord: they lost the true character of Israel: 66 66 they persecuted God: they hoped to insult the "Word: and him whom they crucified as a male"factor, they crowned as a king. For this reason "the Lord, whom they did not believe as man, they “shall know as the merciful and just Lord God f.” παρρησίᾳ δὲ, ὅτι Θεὸς καὶ δημιουργός—εὐνοίᾳ δὲ, ὅτι μόνος ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἱερεῖον ἑαυτὸν ἐπιδέδωκεν. σαβάνῳ περιζωσάμενος ὁ ἄτυφος Θεὸς καὶ Κύριος τῶν ὅλων. e i. e. seeing God. 66 84. Clementis Pædagog. 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 g :” and I quote the words again, because they seem to give some support to the received reading in 1 Tim. iii. 16. In our English version the passage is thus : "Without controversy great is the mystery of god"liness: God was manifest in the flesh." In the Greek it is ὁμολογουμένως μέγα ἐστὶ τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυ στήριον· Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί. With respect to the meaning of these words in the translation or in the original, there can be no doubt. Jesus, who was manifested in the flesh, is expressly called God. But it is known to all biblical scholars, that there is a difference of opinion concerning the true reading of this passage. Instead of Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη, God was manifest, some MSS. read ὃς ἐφανερώθη, he who was manifest, or ὃ ἐφανερώθη, that which was manifest. If we adopt either of the latter readings, the passage is merely this, he who was manifest in the flesh was justified in the Spirit, &c. which, though it makes an intelligible sense, certainly does not contain any great mystery, which the words of St. Paul would lead us to expect. The question however is one altogether of testimony at least before we have recourse to any other arguments, we must inquire what is the reading of the oldest MSS. Griesbach is decisive upon this πεπλανημένος—οὐκ εἶδεν τὸν Θεόν. τὸν Κύριον ηρνήσατο· ἀπολώλεκεν τὸ εἶναι Ἰσραήλ ̓ ἐδίωξεν τὸν Θεόν· και θυβρίζειν ἤλπισε τὸν Λόγον· καὶ ὃν ἐσταύρωσεν ὡς κακοῦργον, ἀνέστεψεν ὡς βασιλέα· διὰ τοῦτό τοι εἰς ὃν οὐκ ἐπίστευσαν ἄνθρωπον, τὸν φιλάνθρωπον Θεὸν ἐπιγνώσονται Κύριον, καὶ δίκαιον. 8. Λόγος γὰρ αὐτὸς μυστήριον ἐμφανές· Θεὸς ἐν ἀνθρώπῳ, καὶ ὁ ἄνθρωπος Θεός. |