18. The opinions of the Christian Fathers respecting Jesus Christ

THE OPINIONS OF THE CHRISTIAN FATHERS RESPECTING JESUS CHRIST. The sacred scriptures contain a perfect system of religion. Their parts correspond and harmonize.

Those doctrines, which are most momentous run through the whole sacred volume. They not only cast light upon each other; but they are their own interpreters. The same doctrine, expressed in different ways, exhibited indifferent points of view, and attended with different circumstances, presents itself with greater clearness, than if it made but a solitary appearance. So fully and clearly are the leading truths of the Gospel expressed, that we need not depend on the creeds of others for articles of our own belief. On the other hand, we ought not to be so self-wise as to refuse a hearing of the opinions and arguments of others. We ought to examine them with impartiality, and bring them, for decision, to the test of God’s word.

We feel an anxiety to know the religious sentiments of those eminent Christians, who were cotemporary with the apostles, or succeeded them during a few of the first centuries. We do not look fo them for infallibility. But if we look to any, since the apostolic age, for the greatest correctness of sentiment and purity of character, we naturally look to those Christians, who lived nearest to the time of 228 OPINIONS OF THE CHRISTIAN FATHERS divine inspiration; who were best acquainted with apostolic example; and whose creeds were tried by tire. In the first century disputes arose in the church, which required the authority of apostles to decide.

It is not surprising that difference of sentiment should early obtain in the church, when it is considered that it was composed of Jews and Gentiles, who had not entirely outgrown their attachment to their former religions; and blended their different systems of philosophy with Christianity. Modern writers are not agreed in opinion, what was then truth, and what was error; or what was orthodoxy, and what was heresy.

People of opposite sentiments find something in that early period, which they enlist into the service of their own cause. It is contended that the apostles taught that Christ was merely human; and that a belief of his divinity, and of the doctrine of the Trinity, were innovations in the Christian system. The first, who openly avowed the mere humanity of Christ, are considered by some the legitimate followers of the apostles; and those, who believed his divinity, are considered by them, corrupters of the Christian faith. (See Priestley’s History of the Corruptions of the Church.) In the latter part of the first, and in the beginning of the second century, the Gnostics, or Docetje, and the Ebionites, commanded considerable notice. The Gnostics pretended to restore to mankind a knowledge of the Supreme Being. They derived their origin from blending the oriental philosophy with Christianity. They held that the world was created by one or more evil, or imperfect beings. They denied the divine authority of the books of the O’d Testament. They said much in favor of the serpent, who beguiled Eve. They held that evil resided in matter as its centre; and many other things equally repugnant to the mspired writings. When they had so far departed from the simplicity of the Gospel, it cannot be expected that they would entertain very RESPECTING JESUS CHRIST. 229 just notions of Christ. “They denied his Deity, looking upon him as the Son of God, and consequently inferior to the Father; and they rejected his humanity^ upon the supposition that every thing concrete and corporeal is in itself essentially and intrinsically evil. From hence the greatest part of the Gnostics denied that Christ was clothed with a real body, or that he suffered really.’^ Some of them subjected themselves to the greatest austerities; but others gave themselves up to almost unbounded licentiousness.” (See Mosheim’s Eccles. His.) It is presumed that none, at the present day, will contend that their sentiments were congenial with those of the apostles; or that they had not corrupted the doctrines of the Gospel.

John undoubtedly had this class of Christians in view, when he wrote his first epitsle. “Hereby know ye the Spirit of God; every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the fiesh, is of God. And every spirit, that confesseth not^ that Jesus Christ is come in the Jlesh, is not of God; and this is that spirit of Antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come, and even now already is it in the world,” 1 John 4:1-21; 1 John 3:1-24; 1 John 2:1-29 S The Ebionites made their first appearance near the close of the first century. These Jewish Christians are thought to have derived their name from their poverty. They disbelieved the miraculous conception of Jesus; but held that he was the son of Joseph and Mary, according to the ordinary course of nature.

They denied his divinity. But what evidence is there that this class of Christians had kept the faith, as it was delivered to the saints? They were members of the church at Jerusalem, which had been planted by the apostles, therefore, it is inferred, they must have retained the doctrines taught by the apostles. This inference is not conclusive, if the premises were correct, because even in the apostle*s days, many had departed from sound doctrine; and had imbibed gross opinions of the Gospel. The church of Laodicea had 230 OPINIONS OF THE CHRISTIAN FATHERS departed from her first faith before the apostle John had passed off from the stage. Of course, their proximity to the apostles does not prove the correctness of their sentiments. The Ebionites beheved that the ceremonial law of Moses was of universal obligation; and that an observance of it was essential to salvation. They held the apostle Paul in abhorrence, and treated his writings with the utmost disrespect. They incorporated with the ceremonial law the superstitions of their ancestors, and the ceremonies and the traditions of the Pharisees. They denied that Christ made a propitiatory sacrifice for sin; and they believed that justification came by the works of the law. (See Mosheini’s Eccles. His. vol. i, p. 174; and Milner, vol. i, p. 138.) Is it to this class of Christians we are to look for sound doctrine? Is it to those, who discarded a considerable part of the New Testament, we are to look for primitive faith; for right sentiments of Jesus Christ? There appears to be as much authority for admitting the correctness of the sentiments of the Gnostics and Docetas, as for admitting the correctness of those of the Ebionites. Suppose then we admit them both. They counteract each other. One maintains the humanity of Christ; the other denies it. One maintains his derived divinity; the other denies it.

Between them both, they deny his existence. The writings of St. John were evidently levelled against these two denominations of Christians. It is generally admitted that his First Epistle was directed against the Gnostics or Docetse. He was very particular; and very decisive. “Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is of God. And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is not of God,” 1 John 4:21John 4:2,1 John 4:3. These declarations bear also, directly against the Ebionites. The Jews expected that the Messiah was the Christ; that the Christ was the Son of God, and that the Son of God was divine. Andrew said to RESPECTING JESUS CHRIST. 231 his brother, “we have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ.” A woman of Samaria said unto Jesus at a certain time, “I know that Messias Cometh, which is called Christ,” John 1:41; John 4:25. Peter, at a certain time, expressed his behef in the most decisive manner. “We beheve and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the hving God,” John 6:69. When Jesus was tried before Caiphas, “the high priest, he answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the hving God, that thou tell us, whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God,” Matthew 26:63. In both these texts, Christ and Son of God, are equivalent. When Christ called God his Father, or himself the Son of God, the Jews understood him to make himself God, or equal to God,” John 5:18; John 10:33. From this it is evident that it was an opinion among the Jews, that the Christ had existence before he came into the world, and that he was divine. With this in view we easily get the meaning of John, when he applies his observations to the Ebionites, who were Jews. “Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God.” In the flesh, expresses the manner, in which he came. Is come in the flesh, conveys an idea, that he had existence before he appeared in this manner.

If Christ had been a mere man, and John had believed him to be no more, it is not probable he would have used this phraseology. That he did consider him to be more than a man, appears evident from the beginning of his epistle. Here he speaks of the Word of life, which he had heard, seen, contemplated on, and handled. In the next verse he calls the Word of life, the Life. “For the Life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal Life, which was with the Father, and wa?manifested unto us.” What, or who was the Word of life; that Life; that eternal Life, which was with the Father, which was manifested to the apostles, and of which they testified? It is evident that it was Jesus 232 OPINIONS OP THE CHRISTIAN FATHERS

Christ. Christ, according to the record which John made of him, called himself the Life. But we will let St. John speak for himself. In the beginning of his Gospel he says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. In him was life; and the Life was the light of men. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us,” John 1:1,John 1:2,John 1:4,John 1:14. It appears evident that St. John exhibited the same personage in the beginning of his Epistle, which he exhibited in the beginning of his Gospel; and it is evident that he, whom he introduced in the beginning of his Gospel was Jesus Christ. If St. John designed, by the names, the Word, God, eternal Life, to convey an idea of a mere man, he used these words in an unusual sense. If a belief of the divinity of Christ had been the prevailing heresy of the time, it is not probable that St. John would have endeavored to discountenance this error by applying a divine attribute, a divine name, a divine work to Jesus Christ.

It cannot be supposed he would have used this language to establish the mere humanity of Christ.

It is evident that the doctrine of the Ebionites respecting the mere humanity of Christ, was considered heretical by the church in the time of Irenaeus, “who wrote his books against heresies in the year 176 or 177. For in the list, which he hath given of heretics, lib. 1, he places the Ebionites between the Cerinthians and Nicolaitans, both of them acknowledged heretics. And in his third book, he refutes by testimonies from the scriptures, the opinion of those, who affirmed that Christ was a mere man, engendered of Joseph; which was precisely the opinion of the proper Ebionites.” (Macknight.’) “It is certain that Gnostics and Ebionites were always looked on as perfectly distinct from the Christian church. There needs no more evidence to prove this than their arrangement by IrenaBUs and Eusebius under heretical parties.” (Milner.) If this doctrine was so early considered heretical, it is RESPECTING JESUS CHRIST. 233 not probable that it was a doctrine taught by the apostles. (See Horseky’s third Sup. Disq.) In the second century Christianity suffered much, by attempts to blend with it the oriental and Egyptian philosophy. Praxeas, a man distinguished for genius and learning, undertook to explain the doctrine of the Trinity, so that it might be understood. “He denied any real distinction between the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and maintained that the Father, sole Creator of all things, had united to himself the human nature of Christ.” (Mosheim.) His followers were called Monarchians, and also Patropassians, because they believed, or it was inferred from their belief, that the Father was so intimately united with the man Christ, that he actually suffered with him. But “it does not appear that this sect formed to themselves a separate place of worship, or removed themselves from the ordinary assemblies of Christians.” From this circumstance it does not follow that they were sound in faith; or that they were not considered heretics. The orthodox and the heterodox have, more or less, worshipped together from the first century. But this is essentially different from retaining in the bosom of the church those, who had perverted the doctrines of Christianity. Praxeas was persecuted for the sentiments he inculcated respecting the Father, Son and Spirit. If this cast a shade upon the disposition of his opponents, it proves that he was in the minority; and the church esteemed his doctrine heretical. It can hardly be supposed that the church generally, at so early a period, had lost the knowledge of the nature and character of Jesus Christ; and that this knowledge was preserved among those, who denied the Lord Jesus Christ. It is more p|K]^able that sound doctrine could, at this early period, be found in the body of the church, than among those individuals and parties, who had blended philosophy with Christianity; and attributed real suffering to the Father. The opinion of Praxeas is not very different from the 30 234 OPINIONS OF THE CHRISTIAN FATHERS opinion of some of modern time. If he, so soon after the apostle’s days, was deemed a heretic, it is not surprising that those of similar opinions, at the present day, should be deeoied the same.

There is a number of men, who succeeded the apostles, very different in sentiment from the Docetas, Gnostics, Corinthians, Ebionites and Patropassians; and much more like the apostles. We should rather look to them for apostolic sentiments.

Clement, bishop of Rome, was for a time cotemporary with the apostle Paul; but survived him a number of years. The apostle makes honorable mention of him; calls him his fellow laborer; and says that his name was in the book of life. Many writings have been attributed to him, of which, it is generally agreed, he was not the author. This circumstance affords evidence that his name was of great weight in the church. One epistle to the Corinthians, bearing his name is considered genuine. In this he expresses much of the sentiuient and spirit of the apostles.

Speaking of Christ, he says, “Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Sceptre of the Majesty of God, came not in the pomp of arrogance and pride; though who can understand the thunder of his power? But he was meek and lowly.” The Sceptre of the Majesty when applied to Christ conveys an idea of his authority and government; and it appears lo be parallel with what Christ said of himself after his resurrection. “All power (i. e. authority) is given unto me in heaven and in earth.” To be the Sceptre of God’s Majesty; to possess all authority in heaven and in earth, conveys an idea of divine authority. If it was delegated, it appears that the recipient must be divine; or he would not be capable of performing its functions. “Who can understand the thunder of his power?” This sublime language, which he applied to Christ, he borrowed from Job, who applied it to God in his description of his Power and Majesty. In this he imitated the apostles, who applied to Christ what had been.

RESPECTING JESUS CHRIST. 235 in the Old Testament, applied to God. After Clement had thus spoken of the divine dignity and glory of the Savior, he adds, “he was meek and lowly.” In this manner, he imitated the apostles by exhibiting the Lord Jesus in his divine and human nature; as the Sceptre of God’s Majesty; and as occu[)ying the low condition of humanity.

Again Clement speaks of Christ, “Have we not all one God, one Christ, one Spirit of grace poured upon us, and one calling in Christ?”— “Through him, that is Jesus Christ, let us behold the glory of God shining in his face.” This language appears much like that of the apostles; and if their’s were not explained away, it appears that this would naturally give us an idea of Christ’s divinity. When the dispute ran high, whether Christ was merely divine, or merely human, it appears that Clement, who was well acquainted with the apostle’s opinion on this subject, if he had believed the simple humanity of Jesus, would not have spoken of him in language, which was appropriate to God.

Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, sulfered martyrdom in the year 107. He was a disciple of St. John; and was, undoubtedly, acquainted with his sentiments of Jesus Christ. When he was questioned by Trajan respecting his religion, among other things he said, “There is only one God, who made heaven, and earth, the sea and all that is in them; and one Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, whose kingdom be my portion.” By the name only begotten Son, he undoubtedly meant “what Christ meant, when he called himself the Son of God; what Peter meant, when he called him the Son of the living God; what the higb priest meant when he adjured him to tell them whether he was the Christ, the Son of God. It is evident that by Son of God, the Jews understood God, or equality with God. It 13 probable he used the name Son of God in its popular sense.

Ignatius, in his salutation to the Church at Ephesus, calls them “elect in the genuine sullcring, by the will 236 OPINIONS OP THE CHRISTIAN FATHERS of the Father, and of Jesus Christ our God,” &c. It is not surprising, that he should imitate the apostle, whose disciple he was; and call his Master God; and by this name mean the same, which he meant.

“One Physician there is, bodily and spiritual, begotten and unbegotten, God appearing in flesh, in immortal, true life, both from Mary and from God, first suffering then impassible.” This language appears to be plain. It naturally conveys an idea of two natures in the Physician Jesus Christ; that one nature was literally begotten; that the other nature was not thus begotten; that divine nature appeared in humanity; that the one was from Mary, the other from God; that one was capable of suffering, and the other was not. It is worthy of notice, that Ignatius called this Physician God appearing in flesh; and alsoyj-om God.

If God without distinction in his nature dwelt in the man Christ Jesus, there appears to be an incongruity in saying that God was from God. He states that this Physician is both from Mary and from God. That he was from Mary in his human nature, is not disputed. But in what sense was \\efrom God? Is it in no other sense than he was sent from God as John was sent? Suppose this to be the meaning. Suppose Christ to be a mere man, as was his forerunner. In what sense then was he unbegotten; in what sense was he God appearing in flesh; in what sense was he impassible? It is difficult to explain away all the parts of this passage of Ignatius by any one rule; or by difi*erent rules, which will not clash.

Ignatius, endeavoring to bring off, or preserve the Ephesians from Judaism, observes, “The divine prophets lived according to Jesus Christ. For this they were persecuted, being inspired by his grace to assure the disobedient that there is one God, who manifested himself by Jesus Christ his Son, who is his eternal Word. — But live according to the life of the Lord, in which also our Life rose again by himself. — That you may be well assured of the nativity, suffer- RESPECTING JESUS CHRIST. 23/ ing and resurrection, during the government of Pontius Pilate, of which literally and really, Jesus Christ was the subject.” This language, which he applied to Christ, bears a strong resemblance of the language of St. John. They both call Jesus Christ Son of God. They both call him the Word. Ignatius calls him eternal Word. They both call him Life. St. John calls him “that eternal Life.” They both attribute to him eternity. This attribute cannot, with propriety, be applied to a mere creature, or to a derived being.

Ignatius, in view of his death speaks of Christ thus, “He is my gain laid up tor me, suffer me to imitate the passion of my God.” In a preceding quotation he represented Christ first suffering, then impassible. In this quotation he calls him God, and in this name attributes to him sufferings. He did not, probably, design to convey an idea that divine nature suffered. He had declared the contrary. In consequence of the intimate union of human and divine nature in Jesus Christ, he called him God, without making a distinction of natures; and without this distinction he attributed suffering to him. This is agreeable to our manner of speaking concerning man. We say he is mortal; whereas his better part is immortal. The phraseology of Ignatius clearly conveys an idea of two natures in Jesus Christ.

Again he speaks of the Savior. “I glorify Jesus Christ, our God, who hath given you wisdom. For I understand that you are perfect in the immovable faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, who really was of the seed of David according to the flesh; born of the virgin really; who really suffered under Pontius Pilate.

Consider the times, and expect him, who is above all time, who is unconnected with time, the invisible One, made visible for us, the impassible, but passible for us; who bore all sorts of sufferings for us.” When Ignatius was led to execution, “He prayed to the Song of Solomon 238 OPINIONS OF THE CHRISTIAN FATHERS of God in behalf of the churches, that he would put a stop to the persecution.” (^Milner.)

If we consider the time, in which Ignatius lived, his writings will appear with greater perspicuity and pertinence. The Docetce and Ebionites had gained ground, and were prevailing. He wished to discountenance these sects, and he directed his observations against them. When he said that Christ was really of the seed of David, was born of the virgin really, and 7’eally suffered under Pontius Pilate, he repelled the sentiment of the Doceta3, Avho held that Christ was not really human, but had only the appearance of a man. When he called him impassible, unconnected with time, eternal Word and God, he repelled the sentiment of the Ebionites, who believed that Christ was merely human. Had Ignatius been of this opinion, and designed to discountenance the behef that Christ was divine, it is incredible that he should call him impassible, eternal, and even call him God. This language would be directly opposite to his design. But if he believed that Christ was both human and divine, his language appears to be appropriate. He sets forth both natures in language, which is adapted to both. When it is considered that Ignatius was the disciple of John; that his language and sentiment bore a striking resemblance of, and coincidence with, the language and sentiment of that apostle, the testimony of this Christian father appears with great authority.

After he had given such a representation of Christ, he appears consistent with himself, when, at the close of life, he directs his prayer to him in behalf of the church.*

Justin Martyr bore testimony, in a clear and decisive manner, to the divinity of Jesus Christ. He was “a man of eminent piety and considerable learning, who from a pagan philosopher, became a Christian martyr.

He had frequented all the different sects of philoso-

• Concerning the genuineness and authenticity of Ignatius’ epistles, see Horseley’b Letters to Priestley.

RESPECTING JESUS CHRIST. 239 phy in an ardent and impartial pursuit of truth, and finding neither among stoics nor Peripatetics, neither in the Pythagorean, nor Platonic schools, any satisfactory account of the perfections of the Supreme Being, and the nature and destination of the human soul, he embraced Christianity on account of the light which it cast upon these interesting subjects.” This Christian philosopher expressed his belief in the following manner, when he was arraigned before an officer and questioned respecting his religion. “We believe the one only God, to be the Creator of all things, visible and invisible, and confess our Lord Jesus Christ to be the Son of God, foretold by the prophets of old, and who shall hereafter appear the Judge of mankind, a Savior, teacher, and master to all those, who are duly instructed by him. As for myself I am too mean to be able to say any thing becoming his infinite Deity. This was the business of the prophets, who ages ago had foretold the coming of the Son of God into the world.” In this quotation, Justin makes a distinction between God and the Son of God. But he attributes to him unqualified divinity, viz. ^Hnfinite Deityy He understood the prophets to prophesy of Christ, possessing infinite Deity. He appeared to agree with the Jews in this particular, that by the name. Son of God, was to be understood God, or one equal with God. In his dialogue with Trypho, the Jew, this enemy of Christianity charges him with paradox and foolishness. Justin takes him on his own ground, and shews that if Christ’s divinity could not be demonstrated, he ought to be acknowledged the Christ of God, on account of the exact correspondence between his character and the Messiah, predicted by the prophets.

“in another part of the same dialogue, (p. 56,) he speaks of Christ as the God of Israel, who was with Moses, and shews what he meant when he said that true Christians regarded what they were taught by the prophets. In his First Apology, he tells the 240 OPINIONS OP THE CHRISTIAN FATHERS emperor in what sense the Christians were atheists, they did not worship the gods commonly so called, but they (p. 137) worshipped and adored the true God and his Son, and the prophetic spirit, honoring them in word and in truth.” This quotation needs no comment. It is plain, and expressive of the sentiment which he entertained of the Son and Spirit.

Justin suffered martyrdom about the year 163. He appears to have imbibed the sentiments of the apostles respecting the Son and Spirit. He appears to be clear in his belief of their distincfion and divinity. His sentiments of Christ and of the Holy Spirit, are of no inconsiderable weight. He was a man of learning.

He appeared to be an impartial inquirer after truth.

He evinced his sincerity by suffering death for the cause of Christ.

Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, suffered martyrdom, A. D. 167. “The apostles, and we may apprehend St. John particularly, ordained him to this office. He had been familiarly conversant with the apostles, and received the government of the church from those who had been eye witnesses and ministers of our Lord, and continually taught that which he had been taught by them.”* It does not appear that he sought the honor of martyrdom. But when he was brought to execution he suffered death with Christian fortitude. When he was bound, and the preparations were made for burning him, he addressed the following prayer to God. “O Father of thy beloved and blessed Son Jesus Christ, through whom we have attained the knowledge of thee, O God of angels and principalities, and of all creation, and of all the just, who live in thy sight, I bless thee that thou hast counted me worthy of this day, and this hour, to receive ray portion in the number of martyrs, in the cup of Christ, for the resurrection to eternal life, both of soul and body, in the incorruptionof the Holy Ghost, among whom may * Milner’s Church History, vol. i, p. 176, Soslon edition.

RESPECTING JESUS CHRIST. 241

I be received before thee this day as a sacrifice well savored, and acceptable, as thou the faithful and true God hast prepared, declaring beforehand, and fulfilhng accordingly. Wherefore 1 praise thee for all those things, I bless thee, I glorify thee, by the eternal High Priest, Jesus Christ, thy well beloved Son; through whom with him in the Holy Spirit, be glory to thee, both now and forever. Amen.” This prayer is expressed in language truly apostolical. The martyr addressed the Father through his beloved and blessed. Son. In connection with him he named the Holy Spirit. He called Jesus Christ the eternal High Priest. There is nothing in his language, which appears to be directed particularly against any prevailing error. It appears to be truly devotional.

Whoever would gather the doctrine of the Trinity from the language of the apostles, would undoubtedly perceive it in his. The church of Smyrna wrote a letter to the church of Philomeliura concerning the character and death of Polycarp. Speaking of Jesus Christ, they said, “that it is not possible for us to forsake Christ, who suffered for the salvation of all, who are saved of the human race, nor ever to worship any other. For we adore him as being the Son of God.” This sentiment expressed by a church, appears to be of no inconsiderable weight, when it is considered what honorable mention was made of it by Christ to his servant John.

“I know thy works and tribulation and poverty, but thou art richy

Melito, bishop of Sardis, belongs to the second century. Speaking of the Christians, he says, “the Christians do not adore insensible stones, but that they worship one God alone, who is before all things, and in all things, and Jesus Christ, who is God before all ages.” Milner makes the following quotation from Eusebius. “Who knoweth not that the works of Irenaeus, Melito, and all other Christians, do confess Christ to be both God and man. In fine, how many 31 242 OPINIONS OP THE CHRISTIAN FATHERS psalms and hymns, and canticles were from the beginning by faithful Christians, which celebrate Christ, the Word of God, as no other than God indeed?”

Irena3us lived in the latter part of the second, and in the beginning of the third century. He suiFered martyrdom under Septimius Severus. Speaking of tradition, he said, “It is what several barbarous nations observe, who believe in Jesus without paper or ink, having the doctrine of salvation written on their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and faithfully keeping up to ancient tradition concerning one God, the Creator, and his Son Jesus Christ.”

Speaking of Christ, Irenasus observed, “He united man to God; for if man had not overcome the adversary of man, the enemy could not have been legally conquered. And again, if God had not granted salvation, we should not have been put in firm possession of it, and if man had not been united to God, he could not have beea made partaker of immortality. It behoved then the Mediator between God and man, by his afhnity with both, to bring both into agreement with each other. The Word of God, Jesus Christ, on account of his immense love, became what we are, that he might make us what he is.” In these quotations Ircnffius has declared his belief that the Son of God, or the Word of God, is Jesus Christ; and that he partakes of human and divine nature. The book, entitled the Epistle of St. Barnabas^ though not the composition of the apostle Barnabas, is allowed to have been written in the apostolic age.

“The Lord,” says Barnabas, “submitted to suffer for our soul, although he be the Lord of the whole earth, unto whom he said the day before the world was finished, “Let us make man after our image, and our likeness.” Again, — “for if he had not come in the flesh, how could we mortals seeing him have been preserved, when they, who behold the sun, which is to perish, and is the work of his hands, are unable to RESPECTING JESUS CHRIST. 243 look directly against its rays.” Again, — “If then the Son of God being Lord, and being to judge the quick and dead, suffered to the end that his wound might make us alive; let us believe that the Son of God had no power to suffer, had it not been for us.” And again, — “Meanwhile thou hast [the whole doctrine], concerning the majesty of Christ, how all things were made for him and through him; to whom be honor, power, and glory, now and for ever.” There is evidence from his writings, that he was a Hebrew Christian. He did not labor to prove the divinity of Christ, as he probably would have done, had those to whom he wrote, disbelieved it; but he made his assertions, as if his sentiments of Christ were generally received by Jewish converts, and would not be disputed. (See Horseley’s eighth Letter to Priestley.^ Tertullian lived in the second and third century.

He wrote against Praxeas. He observes on the subject of the Trinity, “Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, yet one God.” Milner represents him in the following manner. “He speaks of the Lord Jesus, as both God and man. Son of man, and Son of God, and called Jesus Christ. He speaks also of the Holy Spirit, the Comforter, the Sanctifier of the faith of those who believe in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. He observes that this rule of faith had obtained from the beginning of the Gospel, antecedent to any former heretics, much more to Praxeas, who was of yesterday.” If this be a fair representation of his ideas, he was clear and decisive in his belief of the Trinity. If he was, in some respects, unsound in the faith, this would not invalidate his testimony respecting the rule of faith, which had obtained from the beginning of the gospel; nor would it prove him to be incorrect respecting the doctrine of the Trinity.

Clemens Alexandrinus was cotemporary with Irena3us and Tertullian. Contrasting the authors of idolatry with Christ, he observes, “Whereas Jesus Christ, who from all eternity was the Word of God, 244 OPINIONS OP THE CHRISTIAN FATHERS always had a compassionate tenderness for men, and at last took their nature upon him, to free them from the slavery of demons, to open the eyes of the bhnd, and the ears of the deaf, to guide their paths in the way of righteousness, to deliver them from death and hell, and to bestow on them everlastino: life, and to put them into a capacity of living an heavenly life here upon earth; and lastly, that God made himseif man to teach man to be like unto God. — Believe, therefore, in one God, who is God and man, and receive eternal salvation for a recompense.”

Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, was distinguished for his natural abilities, for his eloquence, for his fervent })iety, and for his exertions to promote the cause of Christ. He suffered martyrdom in the third century. In his writings, he expresses his sentiments respecting Jesus Christ. In one of his letters, he writes thus, “How shameful must it be for a Christian to be unwilling to suffer, when the Master suffered first; and that we should be unwilling to suffer for our sins, when he who had no sin of his own, suffered for us. The Son of God suffered that he might make us the sons of God.” In this quotation, he calls Christ by the scriptural names. Master, and Son of God. If his use of these names do not prove what were his particular sentiments of Christ’s nature and character, what he said of his sufferings carries evidence that he believed that his death was an expiatory sacrifice.

Again this Christian father remarks, “What glory! what joy! to be admitted to see God, to be honored, to partake of the joy of eternal light and salvation with Christ the Lord your God.” Again he gives the same divine name to Christ. “We ought not by a long delay and neglect, to suffer the temples of God to remain in captivity, but to labor with all our might and quickly to shew our obsequiousness to Christ our Judere, our Lord and our God.’

Cyprian, a little before his execution, bemg interrogated and threatened by the proconsul, rephed.

RESPECTING JESUS CHRIST- 245

“My safety and virtue is Christ the Lord, whom I desire to serve for ever.” In these quotations he viewed Christ as a sacrifice for sin; he called him our Lord and our God; and he expressed a desire to serve him for ever. If he beheved Christ’s divinity, he was consistent in making these expressions.

Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, expressed his ideas on the doctrine of the Trinity with clearness and decision. “The Father, (says he) cannot be separated from the Son, as he is the Father; for that name at the same time establishes the relation. Neither can the Son be separated from the Father, for the word Father implies the union; and the Spirit is in their hands, because it cannot exist without him, who sends it to him who bears it. Thus we understand the indivisible Unity of the Trinity; and we comprehend the Trinity in the Unity without any diminution.”

It is not foreign to our purpose to introduce here Paul of Samosata, who was bishop of Antioch. He taught that Christ “was by nature a common man as we are.” In consequence of this sentiment, and of the irregularities of his life, a large council was called at Antioch. He “was induced to recant, and gave such appearances of sincerity, that Firmilian and the council believed him;” and he was suffered to retain his bishopric. His dissimulation did not remain long concealed. After a few years another council, consisting of seventy bishops, was convened. “The ambiguous Paul” at this time disclosed his sentiments respecting Christ. “All the bishops agreed to his deposition and exclusion from the Christian church.” This decision was made in the year 269; and it proves that a disbelief of the divinity of Christ was not the prevailing opinion of that time; and that it was discountenanced by the Christian church.

Felix was the successor of Dionysius of Rome. He wrote a letter to Maximus of Alexandria, ’in which he sjieaks thus, probably on account of Paul’s heresy.’

“We believe that our Savior Jesus Christ was born of 246 OPINIONS OP THE CHRISTIAN FATHERS the virgin Mary; we believe that he himself is the eternal God, and the Word, and not a man whom God hath taken into himself, so as that man should be distinct from him: for the Son of God being perfect, God was also made perfect man, being incarnate of the virgin.”

Origin flourished in the third century. He was acknowledged to be a man of ability, learning, piety and indefatigable in his labors. Trinitarians and Unitarians, both have claimed him. Sometimes lie expressed his ideas concerning the Father, Son, and Spirit in language, which entitled him to the ranks of Trinitarians. At other times his language naturally imported that he was a Unitarian. It is not necessary to contend about his sentiments. On whichever side he may stand, his opinion will not affect the question.

If he believed a plurality in the divine nature he will add only one to the long list of fathers, who for three centuries believed the same. If he held only to an allegorical Trinity, as some contend that he did, he was one of those, who appeared to adhere more closely to his system of philosophy than to express declarations of scripture. In whichever scale he falls, his weio”ht will be less than if he had been generally correct in his views of the other parts of Christianity.

Speaking of Origen, Mosheim says, “I would not believe this witness upon his oath, vending as he manifestly does, such flimsy lies.” This is a brief view of the opinions of the most distinguished fathers of the three first centuries concerning the doctrine of the Trinity, especially concernino- the nature and character of Jesus Christ. It appears by their language that they believed he was divine; and that they and the church considered those heretical, who denied his divinity. This appears to be the testimony of the friends of Christianity. Let us attend to the testimony of some of its early enemies, so that by the mouth of both witnesses the subject may be well established.

RESPECTING JESUS CHRIST. 24T

Pliny, It is well known, was a bitter enemy of the Christians. In his letter to Trajan, early in the second century, he writes thus: “And this was the account, which they gave me of the nature of the religion they once had professed, whether it deserves the name of crime or error, that they were accustomed on a certain day to meet before day light, and to repeat among themselves an hymn to Christ, as to a God, and to bind themselves by an oath with an obligation of not committing any wickedness,” «fec. This account of the practice of Christians was given to Pling by some apostate Christians. This account clearly shews that the Christians of that time tendered divine honors to Jesus Christ. Their credibility is not invalidated by their being apostates. They had been with the Christians. They knew their practice; and it appears they would have no temptation to make a false statement on this point.

Lucian, another enemy of Christianity, belongs to the second century. He was remarkable for his sarcasm. In his account of Peregrinus he speaks thus of Christians: “However, these people adore that great Person, who had been crucified in Palestine, as being the first who taught men that religion. — Since they separated from us, they persevere in rejecting the gods of the Grecians, and ivoi’shipping that deceiver, who was crucified.” This is another evidence that Christians in the second century gave divine honors to Jesus Christ.

Celsus wrote near the close of the second century.

Infidelity never, perhaps, appeared with greater malignity than in this man. A few quotations from him will shew what was then understood by Christians that Christ pretended to be, and what they understood that he really was. “Christ was privately educated, and served for hire in Egypt; got acquainted with miraculous arts there, returned, and for those miracles, declared himself God. Why should you, when an infant, be carried into Egypt, lest you should be mur- 248 OPINIONS OF THE CHRISTIAN FATHERS, &C. dered? God should not fear being put to death. You say that God was sent to sinners, &c. He had no reason to fear any mortal now, after he died, and as you say he was a God.” These quotations prove that Christians in the latter part of the second century believed that Christ made himself God; and that they also believed that he was God. The testimony of Porphyry is similar to that of Celsus. He wrote in the third century. “Men wonder now, (said he) that distempers have seized the city so many years, iEsculapius and the other gods no longer dwelling among them; for since Jesus was honored, no one has received any public benefit from the gods.” Porphyry tells the following story: “A person asked Apollo how to make his wife relinquish Christianity? It is easier perhaps, replied the oracle, to write on water, or to fly into the air, than to reclaim her. Leave her in her folly to hymn in a faint mournful voice the dead God, who publicly suffered death from judges of singular wisdom.”