图书图片
PDF
ePub

care.

peccare, ergo ipse potuit peccare. 2. Nihil laudis Christo homini subtrahendum est : sed in laudem viri justi dicitur Ecclesi xxxi. 10. Qui potuit transgredi et non est transgressus : ergo hoc Christo convenire dicendum. 3. Sicut peccatum requirit voluntarium ; ita et meritum : sed secundum Augu. nullus peccat in eo quod non potuit vitare : ergo et nullus meretur vel laudatur de hoc quod dimittere non potuit. Si ergo Christus non potuit peccare, non est laudandus de hoc quod non peccavit. 4. Propheta dicit in iv. Jobi quod Deus et studiosus potest prava agere, sed in Christo non invenitur aliquid quare non potuerit peccare, nisi quia Deus est, et quia bonus perfecte fuit; ergo potuit pec

5. Joh. vii. dicitur a Christo “Si dixero, quia non novi eum ero similis vobis mendax ; sed potuit illa verba dicere sine additione-ergo potuit mentiri, ergo et peccare.--Sed contra. Heb ii. Eum quod paulo minus, &c. dicit glo. quia natura humanæ mentis quam Deus assumpsit et quod nullo modo peccato depravari potuit solus Deus major est: sed quodcunque potest peccare, mens ejus potest peccato depravari : ergo Christus non potuit peccare. 2. Hæc est perfectio naturæ glorificatæ ut jam peccare non possit : sed Christus ab instanti suæ conceptionis fuit verus comprehensor: ergo nunquam peccare potuit. 3. Quicquid fecit ille homo potest dici Deus fecisse : si ergo ille homo peccasset, sequeretur quod Deus peccasset, quod est impossibile : ergo primum.” To these Thomas Aquinas answers thus:“ Dicendum quod simpliciter loquendo Christus nullo modo peccare potuit,” &c. And in the next section,

And in the next section, “Ergo dicendum quod sicut Deus non potuit descendere ad hoc quod peccaret, et ideo Christus nunquam peccavit-Ita et non potuit descendere ad hoc quod peccare posset, et ideo etiam Christus nunquam peccare potuit: et etiam si Deus ad hoc descendere potuisset, non tamen conveniebat, quia hoc magis impediebat finem incarnationis, secundum quam est dux et regula nostrorum operum quarum juvaret. Ad 2. dicendum quod aliquid potuit pertinere ad laudem inferioris quod attributum superiori magis est in vituperium. Ad 3. dicendum quod impotentia coactionis quæ opponitur voluntario tollit rationem meriti et demeriti : non in potentia quæ est ex perfectione in bonitate vel malicia quia hoc voluntarium non tollit, sed ponit voluntatem confirmatam ad unum.

Ad 4. dicendum quod sicut dicit Rabbi Mos. verbum prophetæ intelligendum est cum conditione : quia sic posset si vellet. Ad 5. dicendum quod Christus potuisset si voluisset illa verba exprimere : sed velle non potuit.”.

Under the nineteenth distinction, Lombard thus writes : “ Mors igitur Christi nos justificat dum per eam charitas excitatur in cordibus nostris. Si ergo recte fidei intuitu in illum respicimus, quem pro nobis pependit in ligno, a vinculis diaboli solvimur i. e. a peccatis: et ita a diabolo li

beramur, ut nec plus hanc vitam in nobis inveniat quod puniat. Morte sua quippe uno verissimo sacrificio quidquid culparum erat unum nobis diabolus ad luenda supplicia detinebat : Christus extinxit; ut in hac vita tentando non prevaleat. Licet enim nos tentet post mortem Christi, quibus modis ante tentabat, non tamen vincere potest, sicut ante vincebat. Nam Petrus qui ante Christi mortem voce ancillæ territus negavit; post mortem Christi, ante reges et presides ductus non cessit. Quare ? Quia fortior, i.e. Christus veniens in domum fortis, i.e. in corda natura, ubi diabolus habitabat, alligavit fortem, i.e. a seductione compescuit fidelium ; ut tentationem, quæ ei adhuc permittitur, non sequatur seductio.... Incideramus enim in principem hujus seculi, qui seduxit Adam et servum fecit, cepitque nos quasi vernaculos possidere. Sed venit redemptor et victus est deceptor. Et quid fecit redemptor captivatori naturo? Tetendit ei muscipulam crucem suam; posuit ibi quasi escam sanguinem suam. Unde ergo diabolus tenebat deletum est sanguine redemptoris.... Venit ille, alligavit fortem vinculis passionis suæ, intravit in domum ejus, i. e. in corda natura : ubi ipse habitabat, et vasa ejus scil. nos diripuit; quæ ille impleverat amaritudine sua. Deus autem noster vasa ejus eripiens, et sua faciens fudit amaritudinem, et implevit dulcedine, per mortem suam a peccatis redimens et adoptionem gloriæ filiorum largiens.... Ideo Dei Filius hominem passibilem sumpsit, in quo et mortem gustavit, quo celum nobis aperuit, et a servitute diaboli, i. e. a peccato : servitus enim diaboli peccatum est....Unde Mediator dicitur secundum humanitatem, non secundum Divinitatem. Non est enim Mediator inter Deum et Deum, quia unus est; sed inter Deum et hominem quasi inter duo extrema. Mediator est igitur in quantum homo. Nam inquantum Deus non Mediator, sed equalis Patri est, hoc idem quod Pater cum Patre unus Deus. Mediator

ergo

inter homines et Deum Trinitatem: secundum hominis naturam in qua suscepit illa per quæ reconciliamur Deo Trinitati; et secundum eandem habendum aliquid simile Deo, et aliquid simile hominibus, quod Mediatori congruebat: ne per omnia similis hominibus longe esset a Deo, aut per omnia Deo similis longe esset ab hominibus, et ita Mediator non esset. Verus igitur Mediator Christus inter mortales peccatores et immortalem justum apparuit. Mortalis cum hominibus, justus cum Deo. Per infirmitatem propinquans nobis, per justiciam Deo. Recte igitur Mediator dictus est, quia inter Deum immortalem et hominem mortalem Deus-homo reconcilians hominem Deo. Intantum Mediator inquantum est homo. Inquantum autem Verbum non est medius, quia unus cum Patre Deus. Si

ergo

Christus secundum vos o heretici unam tantum habendum naturam, unum medius erit ? Nisi ita sit medius ut Deus sit propter naturam divinitatis, et hoc propter humanitatis

naturam, quomodo in eo humana reconciliantur divinis ? Nam ipse veniens prius in se humana sociavit divinis per utriusque naturæ conjunctionem in una persona*. Deinde omnes fideles per mortem reconciliavit Deo: dum sanati sunt ab impietate, quicumque humilitatem Christi credendo dilexerunt, et diligendo imitati sunt."

All this is not only curious, as shewing the struggles of every thinking man under the bondage of the Papal superstition, but highly instructive to every independent man, who, unshackled by superstition, will follow it out honestly. Another extract we make, for the additional reason that it explains a passage in Augustine, a fragment of which misled one of our opponents, and perhaps some of his readers. “De statibus hominis, et quod de singulis Christus accepit. Est hic notandum Christum de omni statu hominis aliquid accepisse, qui omnes venit salvare sunt enim quatuor status hominis. 1. ante peccatum ; 2. post peccatum et ante gratiam; 3. sub gratia; 4. in gloria. De prima statu accepit immunitatem peccati. Unde Augustinus illud Joannis exponens, Qui de sursum venit super omnes est, dicit Christum de venisse sursum, i.e. de altitudine humanæ naturæ ante peccatum. Quia de illa altitudine assumpsit Dei Verbum humanam naturam dum non assumpsit culpam, cujus assumpsit penam. Sed pænam assumpsit de statu secundo et alios defectus t. De tertio vero gratiæ plenitudinem. De quarto non posse peccare, et Dei perfectam contemplationem. Habuit nempe simul bona viæ quædam et bona patriæ; sicut et quadam viæ mala.”—To which we have only room for a small portion of Thomas Aquinas's comment. “Sed quia mors inest Christo ratione humanæ naturæ : ideo sicut simpliciter concedimus quod Christus mortuus est; ita similiter concedere possumus simpliciter quod necessitatem moriendi habuit non solum ex causa finali, sed etiam necessitatem absolutam ut moreretur etiam si non occideretur, ut quidam dicunt. Unde Augustinus : Si non occisus fuisset, naturali morte dissolutus fuisset; et idem opus redemptionis fuisset quod per passionem fecit : et cum hoc necessitatem coactionis quantum ad mortem violentam quam sustinuit.”

In our next we shall give entire one of those dialogues published by Beza, which, though not written by Athanasius, represents the theology of the age immediately succeeding him, and is so exceedingly applicable to the present state of the controversy that it will be not only better, but even more pertinent, than any thing we could ourselves say.

* “ For he coming, first reconciled human and divine things in himself, by the conjunction of both natures in one person."

† “ From the state after sin he took the punishment and other defects."

329

ON THE HERESY OP HYMENEUS AND PAILETUS CONCERN

ING THE FIRST RESURRECTION.

(2 Tim. ii. 16-19)

The revealed will of God forms a complete system of Divine truth. The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, comprising the whole of this Revelation, are not to be regarded merely as so many detached and independent books, but must be received as all combining to the formation of one grand consistent whole. Throughout, they manifest a unity of design, to which all the parts are subordinated. Not only is each of these parts valuable in itself; they all likewise mutually reflect light on each other, thus contributing to the full development of the purposes of the Most High. As each of the numerous objects which adorn a landscape may have attractions in itself, while the peculiar features and general loveliness of the scene are the combined effect of the whole ; so, in order to obtain full and accurate conceptions of the will of God, it is necessary not merely to view individually the various revelations He has given, but to study them also in their combined and relative character.

Our ignorance, therefore, of any one of these revelations, or of the place which it occupies in relation to others, must to a proportionate extent mar our perception of the general design of all, and destroy, to our apprehension, the beautiful harmony which pervades them. Not only so, but as all Revelation has been vouchsafed on the principle of its unity, it abounds with such allusions as render necessary a full knowledge of all its parts to the perfect understanding of any one of them. In later communications of the Divine will, an acquaintance with, and reception of, those previously given, are both enjoined and assumed. The command to “search the Scriptures,” has no limitations to particular portions of the Divine word, but extends alike to all; and those only will derive the full benefit it is designed and fitted to impart, who, by comparison of Scripture with Scripture, can be said truly to search for their full testimony concerning Christ and his people. The duty of searching the whole Scriptures, historical, prophetical, and doctrinal, thus so explicitly expressed, is also in innumerable instances clearly implied. The truth of this remark is indeed evidenced by the very nature of many of the communications of our Lord and of his Apostles. Their statements pre-suppose a previous acquaintance with the Law and the Prophets : reference is made for illustration to the usages they record. Christ appealed to prophecy in testimony of his Messiahship; the Evangelists relate the fulfilment of many predictions concerning him; and the Apostle of the

VOL. U.-NO, Jl.

2 U

Gentiles proved his authority for preaching to them the Gospel of Jesus, from the predictions that they should be given to Him for an inheritance.

Alluding to those events which typify the destruction of his enemies at his second coming—the overthrow of an ungodly world by the flood, and of Sodom and Gomorrah by fire from heaven (Luke xvii. 27—30)—the Saviour takes it for granted that his auditors are fully acquainted with the history and fate of the antediluvians, and the cities of the plain. So, also, in making Jonah's miraculous preservation in the belly of the whale typical of his own continuance in the tomb, the Saviour again assumes that the Jews whom he addressed were already intimate with the remarkable history of that rebellious prophet.

The Apostle James, in his Epistle (ii. 21), deduces an argument from the circumstance of Abraham's offering his son Isaac, as if he knew that his readers were previously well

informed of the trial of the patriarch's faith on Mount Moriah. The same Apostle reasons with equal confidence on the faith of Rahab the harlot, manifested in her receiving and concealing the Israelitish spies, as if they must also be intimately acquainted with the circumstances which prepared the way for the overthrow of Jericho (James ii. 25). Again does this Apostle pre-suppose their acquaintance with the history and the virtuous lives of the servants of God in earlier times, when he presents to them “the prophets, who have spoken in the name of the Lord, for an example of suffering affliction, and of patience” (James v. 10): and, particularizing the “man of the land of Uz,” he expressly affirms, “ Ye have heard of the patience of Job” (ver. 11); so assured was he of their acquaintance with the Scripture record.

So, also, the Apostle Paul, in his Epistle to the Romans, reasoning on the certainty of the future conversion of Israel, expresses surprise that they should not have drawn an important inference from a fact recorded in sacred bistory; and, as if astonished at their dulness of apprehension, or want of recollection, exclaims, “ What! wol ye not what the Scripture saith of Elias, how he maketh intercession to God against Israel ? ” (Rom. xi. 2.) The question implies strongly the Apostle's conviction that even that Gentile Roman church could not be ignorant of the reply of the Hebrew prophet to the remonstrance of God (1 Kings xix. 18), when, having escaped the threatened vengeance of Jezebel, he believed himself to be the only surviving worshipper of the true God.

In all these instances, it will be observed, the references made are to matters of fact recorded in the Old Testament Scriptures; and thus the allusions of the Saviour and his Apostles plainly intimate the duty of being fully and accurately acquainted with sacred history. In all of these, as in many others, their state

« 上一页继续 »