That the inferiority of the Son was generally, if not uniformly, asserted by the ante-Nicene Fathers, has been admitted by several learned advocates of the doctrine of the Trinity. Cudworth fully and expressly asserts it of "the generality of the Christian doctors for the first three hundred years after the Apostles' times"; and Brucker, Petavius, and Huetius...and we may add Le Clerc, entertained substantially the same opinion. That the opinion is well founded, has been incontestably proved, we conceive, by Whiston, author of "Primitive Christianity Revived"; and by Whitby, in a work which never has been, and, we hazard nothing in saying, never can be, refuted. That they viewed the Son as distinct from the Father is evident from the circumstance that they plainly assert his inferiority. Besides, they often either directly affirm it, or use language which necessarily implies it.
[In fact, the Fathers of the council of Nice, and their predecessors, never thought of asserting that the Son and the Father were numerically one. This was a refinement of later times. The term "consubstantial," as used by these Fathers and by the Platonists, the learned well know, implied, not a numerical, but only a specific identity. By saying that two beings were consubstantial, as that the Son was consubstantial with the Father, they only meant to affirm that they partook of the same common or specific nature, as two individual men partake of a common nature, — that is, a human nature,— though they constitute two distinct beings, having a separate will and consciousness.]
They considered him distinct and subordinate. This appears, as it regards Justin...in the account given of his views of the Logos. We shall now exhibit further evidence of the fact.
First, we would observe that Justin expressly contends for two Gods and two Lords, against what he considered the cavils of the Jews. He speaks of the "Lord in heaven" as "Lord of that Lord who appeared on earth," and the source of all his power, titles, and dominion; "the cause of his being powerful and Lord and God." The expression, "The Lord rained fire from the Lord out of heaven upon Sodom," he contends, shows that they are really two in number. The same is implied, he says, in the words, "Adam has become as one of us": words, he maintains, which are not to be regarded as a mere figure of speech, as sophists contend. He then quotes the passage from Proverbs already repeatedly referred to; and adds, whence "you may understand, if you will attend, that this progeny of the Father was begotten of him before all creatures; and that which is begotten, as all know, is different in number from that which begets it"; that is, they constitute two beings numerically distinct. Again: "There is another God and Lord under the Creator of the universe, who is also called Angel, because he announces to men what the Creator of the universe — above whom there is no other God — wishes to declare He who is said to have appeared to Abraham, to Jacob, and to Moses, and is called God, is other than the God who made all things. I say, in number, but not in will; for he never did anything except what the Creator of the universe — over whom there is no other God — willed him to do and say." On this, point, the language of Justin is too plain to be misunderstood. Trypho had challenged him to show that there is mentioned in the Old Testament any other Lord and God except the Supreme. In reply, he maintains that there is another often spoken of, who appeared to the patriarchs, — the Son and minister of the Supreme; voluntarily begotten of him, not from eternity, — this he nowhere asserts, — but before the creation of the world, that he might be employed as his agent in its production and afterwards in executing his commands: for all the Old Testament theophanies, according to Justin, belong to the Logos, or Christ; not to the Supreme God, whose visible personal appearance upon earth he regarded as impossible and absurd.
Again: Justin frequently applies to the Son such phrases as these, — "next in rank," or "next after" God; as the Logos, or Son, is "the first power after God the Father and sovereign Lord of all." Again: "We reverence him next after God." And he sometimes states the ground of this reverence; which is, not because he is of one essence with the Father, but "because for our sakes he became man, and partook of our infirmities, that through him we might be healed." Such phrases, implying inferiority, we say, occur, not once, but repeatedly; and their import cannot be mistaken.
Of the derivation of the Son from the Supreme God, and his subjection to him as the minister of his will, of his names and offices, and especially of his title to be called God in an inferior sense of the term, the following account is given. He is God, because he is the first-born of every creature; the "Lord of hosts, by the will of the Father giving him the dominion";. and, "according to the will of the Father, God." Again: he "received of the Father, that he should be King and Christ and Priest and Angel, and whatever other such things" (that is, titles, rank, and offices) "he has and had." Again: he "came according to the power of the Omnipotent Father given to him." God gave glory to Christ alone, whom he constituted a light to the nations. Again: the Lord and Father of the universe is represented as raising him from the earth, and placing him at his right hand. He expressed reliance on God, says Justin, for support and safety; nor, he continues, does he profess to do anything of his own will or power. He refused to be called "good"; replying, "One is good, — my Father, who is in heaven." Again: Justin speaks of him in the following terms: "Who, since he is the first-begotten Logos of God, is God"; that is, he is God by virtue of his birth: in other words, he derived a divine nature from God, just as we derive a human nature from human parents. This was what Justin and others meant when they spoke of the divinity of Christ.
No comments:
Post a Comment