장음표시 사용
271쪽
the evangelisis, mahes up the fuit account of our Sariour's .hole disposition by the expressions of these severat nare tors together. He does not then ask of tho Father what the Father Wilis not. For the words, is Thou illing,' meredemonstrative of subjection and docili , not of ignorance orhesitancy. And just as When We mahe any request that maybe aecordant With his judgment, at the hand of father or
possibis.' For unlem me adapt the sense in this Way, fome
272쪽
way, and a different method os car ing out ons and thesanae transaction, Whicli is also a thing agreeable to both; choosing, to Wit, in place of the mode whicli is tho inferior, and whicli appears unsatisWing also to Himself, the superior anil more admirabie mode marhed out by tho Father. For
the Fathees determination, and to surmount ali apprehen-
273쪽
exclamation Was in duo accordanco with the roquesis He had
274쪽
Albeit He drank out the cup at once, as His plea had implied, and then passed aWay. And the vinegar Whichmas handed in Him seems in me is have been a symbolicalthing. For the turned Wine indicated very weli the quia turning and change Which He sustianed When He passedfrom His passion to impassibility, and hom doath in doath- lessness, and Dom the position os one judged to that os onejudging, and from subjection under the despoes pomer totho exerciso of hingly dominion. Αnd the sponge, as Ithinh, signified the completo transfusion of the Holy Spiritthat was realiged in Him. And the reed symbollaed thoroyal sceptro and tho divine law. And the hyssop expressed that quichening and saving resurrection os His by which Hohas also brought health to us. But We have gone throughtheso matters in suffcient dotali on Matthew and Jolin. With the permission os God, we shali speis also of the account given is Marh. But at present κε inali Mep to What
275쪽
trial .hata ver in these circumstances, ory that no manner
276쪽
strumles against it himself, and unless God protecta his with His sitield that man has entered into temptation, andis in it, and is brought under it like one that is led captive. But is one millistands and Endures, that man is indein temptod; but he has not entered into temptation, or fallenunder it. Thus Jesus mas ted up of the Spirit, not indeinto enter into temptation, but to bo tempted of tho dovit. λAnd Abraham, again, did not enter into temptation, netiner
training us for our salvation.
Now this mord V I am ' expresses His eternat subsistencae For is IIo is the reflection of the eternal light, ΗΘ must alsobo eternat Himself. For is tho light subsista for over, it is evident that the reflection also subsista for evor. And that this light subsista, is known only by iis shining ; neither canthere bo a light that does not give light. We come bach,
277쪽
But God is eternal light, having neither beginning nor end. d along mith Ηim there is tho reflection, also Mithout ginnium and evertasting. The Father, then, being ete nia, the Son is also eternat, being light of light; and ii Godis tho light, Christ is the reflection; and is God is also a Spirit, as it is Written, God is a Spirit,' Christ, again, is
278쪽
us not thrust from us those Who seeli a penitent retum; butiet us receive them gladiy, and number them Once more Withthe stodiast, and mahe up again What is defective in them.
279쪽
CERTAm memorabis Disputation, Which Wasconducted is a bishop of the namo es Archelaus with the horatio Manes, is mentioned by Various riters of an early date. Thus Cyril of Jor salem, in the fixin book of his mirae aes, i 27 and 30, tolla us hoW Manos fled into Mesopotamia, and was metthero by that inield of righteousnem μπλον δικαιοσυνης Bis p Archelaus, and was refuted by him in the presenceos a number of Greeli philosophers, Who had Men brought together as ju es of the discussion. Epiphanius, in his
Heressea, lari., and again in his Wois De Mensuris et P demissius, 3 20, maes large reference to the fame occasion, and oves some excerpta fram the Aeta of the Disputation. And there ars also passages of greater or less importancs in Jerome De mr. illustri ch. 72 , Socrates mat. Metis. i.
22), Heraclianus biinop of Chalcedon found in Photius, Balisthaea, Cod. xcv. , Petrus Siculus HistoriaManishoeorum,pp. 25, 35, 373, Photius indversus Manis eos, book i., edited in tho Biblioth. Coistis., Montgaueon, pp. 356, 358), and
the anonymous authors of the Lubellus Synodie , ch. 27, and thε Historia mereama Mantehoeorum in the Codex Regius of Turin. What prosesses to M an account of that Disputation has come domn in us in a form mainly Latin, but with paris in Orook. A considerable portion os this Latin version Waspublishod is Valesius in his edition of Socrates and Sogomen, and subsequently by othere in greater completeness, and with
280쪽
tho addition os the Greeli fragments: as by Zacagnius at Rome, in 1698, in his Collectanea Monumentorum Veterum etesiae Groeem ac Latinoe; by Fabricius, in the Spioilegium Sanetorum Putrum Soeeuli, iii., in his edition of Hippolytus,
etc. Thero seems to be a differenco among the ancient authorities cited above as to the person Who committed theso
A eis to writing. Epiphanius and Jeromo take it to have been Archelaus himself, while Heraclianus, bishop of Chalcedon, representa it to have been a certain person named
Hegemonius. In Photius Biblioth. Cod. lxxxv. there is
a statement to the effect that this Heraclianus, in consu ing the errors of the Manichaeans, made use os certain Acts of tho Disputation os Bishop Archelaus With Manes which mers written by Hegemonius. And there are various passages in the Aeta themselves Which appear to confirm thoopinion os Heraclianus. See especialty ch. 39 and 55. Zacagnius, hoWever, thinhs that this is but an apparent di crepancy, Which is eastly reconcited on the supposition thattho book was first composed by Archelaus himseli in Syriae, and asterWarda edited, With certain amendments and additions, by Hegemonius. That the work was written originalty in Syriac is clear, not only from the express testimony of Jerome De vir. illustr. ch. 72), but also fram internalevidence, and specialty from tho explanations offered noWand again of tho use of Greeh equivalenta. It is uncertainwho was the author of the Greeli version; and we can onlyconjecture that Hegemonius, in publishing a neW edition, may also have undertaken a translation into the longuo which would secure a much larger audience than the original Syriae. Butthat this Greeli version, by Whoms ver accomptished, dates from the very earliest period, is proved by the excerpis givenin Epiphanius. As to the Latin interpretation iraeli, allthat we can allego is, that it must in ali probabiliu havsboen published aster Jerome's time, Who might reasonablybe expected is have made some allusion to it is it was extant in his day; and before the sevenili centur , because, in quot-ing the Scriptures, it does not Iollow the Vulgato edition, Which Was received generalty thmughout the West is that