Following
pictures taken from http://www.earlham.edu/~seidti/iam/index.html
Minuscule
2813 A 13th-century manuscript of
John on parchment.
Codex 666 Codex 666 (Ms. Gr. 1) 12th or 13th Cent
Codex
669 A mid-tenth century minuscule
manuscript of the gospel of Mark
Codex Washingtonensis Codex Washingtonensis (W, 032) 5th/7th Cent.
Codex Bezae Codex Bezae or Cantabrigiensis (D, 05) Sixth Century
Codex Alexandrinus Codex Alexandrinus (A, 02) Fifth Century
Codex
Sinaiticus (01) 350 A.D. Includes John 1:14 By permission of the British Library.
Codex Vaticanus (B or 03) 325 A.D. (Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Ms. Vat. gr. 1209) Used with permission.
Papyrus Bodmer II (p66) 200 C.E John 10:13-17 By permission of the Bodmer Library, Geneva.
Papyrus Bodmer XV (p75) 175-225 C.E. Luke 24:31-50 By permission of the Bodmer Library, Geneva
P52 (117 - 138 CE) Gospel of John 18:31-33 and 37-38, recto, verso, respectively
http://www.historian.net/P52.html
Recto:
It is not lawful for us to put to death
No one; that the w ord of Jesus might be fulfilled;
Which he spoke signifying by what death
He was about to die. Entered therefore into the
Praetorium again Pilate and called
Jesus and said to him, "Are you the King of
The Jews?"
Verso:
For this I have been born, and for this I have been born into
The world that I may bear witness to the truth.
Everyone that is of the truth hears my voice.
Says to him Pilate, "what is truth?"
And this having said again, he went out
To the J ews and says to them;
I not any fault find in him.
"Dead Sea Scroll" (IQIsa), 125-100 B.C. Isaiah 53 By permission of the Israel Museum, Jerusalem.
Following taken from (http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/debate5.htm):
Answer to
Harold Kupp on the Ante-Nicene Church Fathers
Holy Trinity
and Modern Arians Part 2
These posts
originated from 1994 on the old FidoNet/Phileonet conferences.
See also Old Testament Proofs of the
Trinity by Jamie K. Roth
Also my part 1 of Holy Trinity and Modern
Arians
Harold and all,
I noticed others are
taking up the Trinity debate from the Bible, so I'll tackle the issue with you
from the Church Fathers. I would like to compliment you on your debating
ability. You are extremely adept at using arguments and scholarly sources to
support you. However, on the issue of the Trinity and the Church Fathers --
sorry, Harold, you are no match for me. :)
======================================================================
Proposition: Did the
ante-Nicene Fathers teach the Trinity?
Harold Kupp: NO.
Phil Porvaznik: YES
======================================================================
I have the burden of
proof here which I gladly accept. I have to prove the ante-Nicene Fathers
taught the Trinity.
For a definition of
the Trinity, you gave the following in the 8/13/94 post --
HK> The doctrine of the Trinity
is based on a syllogism which goes something like this:
HK> Major Premise: There is only
one God.
HK> Minor Premise: The Father,
Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are called God.
HK> The Father, Jesus, and the
Holy Ghost are one God.
I would accept this
definition with some further clarifications. The Trinity as historic orthodox
Christians believe is --
(1) the Father, the
Son, and the Holy Spirit are equal in NATURE, or ONE God in substance or
essence (that would deny Arianism, a form of which you accept).
(2) the Father, the
Son, and the Holy Spirit are distinct PERSONS, yet ONE God (that would deny
Monarchianism).
(3) That ONE God is
the TRUE God as distinguished from all other false "gods", idols,
devils, etc. There are many "so-called" gods but only ONE true God --
Mark 12:29; 1 Cor 8:5; Gal 4:8; etc. (that would deny Polytheism).
Okay, now that we
got this straight, let's examine the evidence you put forward of Church Fathers
who you think denied the above definition of the Trinity.
(from previous post)
HK> As you know, the third
century Roman church under Constantine was the source of the Trinity Doctrine.
The tradition of the Trinity as such, was not taught by the first and second
century church leaders. None of the Ante-Nicene fathers taught that the Supreme
Being was composed of three persons, each co-equal and co-eternal. Believe It
or Not!
PP> Nope, I don't believe it
because I have a three volume set THE FAITH OF THE EARLY FATHERS
by William Jurgens which disproves this. I have also read such works as EARLY
CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES by Church history scholar J.N.D. Kelly which
disproves this. We can get into this in depth if you like. What Church history
sources have you studied?
HK> Phil, quoting a book title
is not proof of anything. All you have to do to prove me wrong is to show me
where the Ante-Nicene fathers taught the doctrine of the Trinity as expressed
in the Athanasian Creed. You do not have to get into it in depth; two or three
quotes from the first hundred years after Jesus would be sufficient. But
remember, if they do not teach all the elements of the Trinity (3 beings, one
God, co-equal, co-eternal) it is not the doctrine of the Trinity...
Okay, let us begin.
Did the ante-Nicene Fathers teach the Trinity?
===================================
ORIGEN (c. 185 - 254 A.D.)
===================================
HK> For example, these quotes
from Bishops and theologians of the early church are in reference to the
declaration which Jesus made in John 14:28: "The Father is greater than
I"
There is no question
that John 14:28 is a "problem text" for Trinitarians. That one must
be answered. I'll get into this later -- for now let's look at the Fathers.
I might concede
Origen did not EXPLICITLY teach the Trinity as I have defined above -- however,
he was certainly much closer to the orthodox Trinitarian position than to your
anti-Trinitarian position. I'll explain below with many quotes from Origen.
Origen, although a
fine scholar and theologian as you noted, held to many beliefs that almost all
Christians today (whether Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant) would consider unorthodox
or heretical.
Since the time of
St. Jerome, Origen has never been considered orthodox. Not only did he make
ambiguous statements such as your quote regarding the relation of the Father to
the Son (see below), but he also taught the pre-existence of souls, that Hell
was temporary, that everyone (including demons) would be saved (also known as
"universalism"), and he used a very allegorical method in
interpreting Scripture.
The source I will be
using is the three-volume set I mentioned -- THE FAITH OF THE EARLY
FATHERS by William A. Jurgens (Liturgical Press, 1970, 1979) which
contains the original quotes of all the major Church Fathers from the beginning
to the end of the entire patristic period (from St. Clement of Rome 80 A.D. to
St. John Damascene 750 A.D.)
Here's what Jurgens
says concerning Origen and his teachings --
"The disputes known as the Origenist
controversies, in respect to the orthodoxy of his doctrine, arose never during
his life, but three times after his death: c. A.D. 300, c. A.D. 400, and c.
A.D. 550. He was a great scholar and a great theologian, and strove always to
be Catholic in his faith. Yet, he came finally to be regarded as a heretic,
which accounts largely for the fact that so many of his writings have perished
entirely....It is generally stated that Origen's heresies are nowhere clearer
than in his work on 'The Fundamental Doctrines' [De principiis]. Nevertheless,
it should be noted that he is generally very careful to distinguish between
Catholic doctrine and his own speculations, which latter he presents as no more
than possibilities which would have to stand the test of acceptance or
rejection in the teaching Church. The work undoubtedly suffers from an overly
active Platonic influence, and from allegorical interpretation of Scripture;
yet, it stands firmly and immovably and without pretence as neither more nor
less than a theological monument of absolutely epic proportions."
(Jurgens, volume 1, p. 189-190)
Now let's look at
the quote you gave from Origen.
HK> "ORIGEN (C. 253) is
free from all ambiguity..."I admit", he says "that there may be
some.....(sic) who maintain that the Saviour is the Most High God over all, but
we do NOT certainly hold such a view, who believe Him when He said Himself:
"THE FATHER WHO SENT ME IS GREATER THAN I"; and again: "Clearly
we assert.....(sic) that the Son is not mightier than the Father, but
INFERIOR." (The Gospel According To John B.F. Wescott commentary p.213)
First, it looks like
you are quoting from a secondary source. Do you have Origen's own writings
themselves? Jurgens supplies quite a list although not the exact quote you give
from John 14:28.
Yes, it does look
like Origen interpreted John 14:28 to mean that Christ was "inferior"
(although what Origen means by this is not clear) in nature to God the Father.
However, the statement that Origen "is free from all ambiguity" is
simply not true.
Look at some of
Origen's other statements on this -- [my comments appear in brackets]
"The specific points which are clearly handed
down through the apostolic preaching are these: First, that there is ONE
GOD who created and arranged all things, and who, when NOTHING
existed, CALLED ALL THINGS INTO EXISTENCE....and that
in the final period this God, just as He had promised beforehand through the Prophets,
sent the Lord Jesus Christ....
"Secondly, that Jesus Christ Himself, who came,
was born of the Father BEFORE all creatures [i.e.
Christ Himself is NOT a creature or created thing]; and
after He had ministered to the Father IN THE CREATION OF ALL THINGS
[i.e. Christ Himself CREATED ALL THINGS] -- for through
Him WERE ALL THINGS MADE [i.e. John 1:3] -- in the
final period he emptied Himself and was made man. Although HE WAS
GOD, He took flesh; and having been made man, HE
REMAINED WHAT HE WAS, GOD. He took a body like our body, differing
only in this, that it was born of a Virgin AND THE HOLY SPIRIT.
"Moreover, this Jesus Christ was truly born and
truly suffered; and He endured this ordinary death, not in mere appearance, but
did truly die; for He truly rose again from the dead, and after His
resurrection He conversed with His disciples, and was taken up. Third, they
handed it down that THE HOLY SPIRIT IS ASSOCIATED IN HONOR AND
DIGNITY WITH THE FATHER AND THE SON [sounds like the Trinity to
me].
"...And it is most clearly taught in the
Churches that this Spirit inspired each one of the holy men, whether Prophets
or Apostles; and that there was not one Spirit in the men of old, and another
in those who were inspired after the coming of Christ."
(De Principiis or The Fundamental Doctrines
1:preface:4, from Jurgens, volume 1, p. 191)
"John says in the Gospel, 'No one has at any
time seen God' [John 1:18], clearly declaring to all who are able to
understand, that there is no NATURE to which God is
visible: not as if He were indeed visible by NATURE....He
is by NATURE impossible to be seen. And if you should
ask of me what I think even of the Only-begotten Himself [the Son], whether I
could say that the NATURE of God, which is naturally
invisible, is not visible even to Him....for we will give you a logical answer.
[compare NATURE to DEITY below]
"For it is just as unsuitable to say that the SON
is able to see the FATHER, as it is unbecoming to
suppose that the HOLY SPIRIT is able to see the SON.
It is one thing to see, another to know. To see and to be seen belongs to
bodies. To know and to be known belongs to an intellectual being [or NATURE
in Latin]. That, therefore, which is proper to bodies is not to be attributed
to either the FATHER or to the SON;
BUT THAT WHICH PERTAINS TO DEITY IS COMMON TO THE FATHER AND THE SON."
(The Fundamental Doctrines 1:1:8, Jurgens, volume 1,
p. 193)
[and now for a more
ambiguous statement]
"For we do NOT hold
that which the heretics imagine: that some part of the substance of God was
converted into the Son, or that the Son was procreated by the Father from
non-existent substances, that is, from a substance outside Himself, so that THERE
WERE A TIME WHEN HE DID NOT EXIST [i.e. the Son ALWAYS
existed according to Origen].
"No, rejecting every suggestion of corporality,
we hold that the Word and Wisdom was begotten OUT OF
the invisible and incorporeal God, without anything corporal being acted upon,
in the manner of an act of the will proceeding from the mind....The expression
which we employ, however, -- that there NEVER was a
time when He did not exist -- is to be taken with a certain allowance.
"For these very words WHEN
and NEVER are terms of temporal significance, while
whatever is said of the FATHER, SON,
and HOLY SPIRIT, is to be understood as transcending ALL
TIME, ALL AGES, and ALL
ETERNITY.
[here is where
Origen specifically uses the term "Trinity"]
"For it is the TRINITY ALONE
which exceeds every sense in which not only temporal but even ETERNAL
may be understood. It is all OTHER things [i.e. not the
SON, not the HOLY SPIRIT],
indeed, which are OUTSIDE the TRINITY,
which are to be measured by times and ages."
(The Fundamental Doctrines 4:4:1, Jurgens, volume 1,
p. 199)
[and a less
ambiguous statement]
"We believe, however that there are THREE
PERSONS, the FATHER and the SON
and the HOLY SPIRIT; and we believe none to be
unbegotten except the Father [however, clearly from the above Origen does not
say the SON was CREATED --
hence "begotten" is ambiguous]. We admit, as more pious and true,
that ALL THINGS were produced through the WORD,
and that the HOLY SPIRIT is the most excellent and the
first in order of all that was produced by the Father through Christ."
(Commentaries on John 2:6 [al 2,10,75], Jurgens,
volume 1, p. 202)
So in conclusion,
Origen can certainly be considered more within the Trinitarian camp than in
your camp. IOW, Origen was implicitly (if not explicitly) a Trinitarian,
although he made some ambiguous statements concerning the relation of the
Father to the Son.
Next up --
=========================================
TERTULLIAN (c. 155 - 250 A.D.)
=========================================
HK> Tertullian wrote:
"...but the Logos did not become Son of God until He was brought forth to
be the instrument of creation; there was a time when the Son (as Son) did not
exist (Adv Hermog. 3). The Father has the fullness of Deity, the Son ONLY A
PORTION OF IT, derived from Him." Tertullian is relying on the
subordinationist Logos doctrine of the apologists, especially Theophillus,"
(Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia Of Religious Knowledge)
Here you are wrong
on Tertullian. Not only did Tertullian believe in the Trinity, he formulated
the basic terminology used in formal expressions of the doctrine. The word
"Trinity" (Latin trinitas) as well as the distinction between
"one God" and "three persons" was first developed by
Tertullian -- he wrote explicitly of "a Trinity of ONE
divinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit" (from De Pudicitia 21). I'll
demonstrate this below.
You are again
quoting from a secondary source. The phrase you quoted "...there was a
time when the Son (as Son) did not exist" was NOT made by Tertullian
himself but by a modern scholar to summarize a statement made by Tertullian
(see "Elucidations" in the ANF 3:629 by Schaff), who argued that God
was always God, but not always Father of the Son. The full context of the
statement is found in Jurgens --
"We say that the name of God always existed
with Himself and in Himself, but the name of Lord not always. There is a
difference in what is to be understood by each of the terms. God, of course, is
the name of the SUBSTANCE itself, which is Divinity;
Lord, however, is not the name of a substance but of a power. The SUBSTANCE,
I maintain, ALWAYS EXISTED with its own name, which is GOD
[see below concerning the SON].
"The name Lord came afterwards, when, of
course, something was added. Ever since those things began to exist, over which
the power of the Lord might act, from that very moment, through the accession
of power, He both became Lord and received that name. God is Father and
likewise God is Judge; but it does not follow that He is always Father and
Judge, simply on the grounds that He is always God; for He could not be Father
before the Son was, nor Judge before there was sin."
(Against Hermogenes 3:3-4; Jurgens, volume 1, p.
134)
Here Tertullian is
asserting that the title of "Son" did not apply to the second person
of the Trinity until he began to relate to the "Father" as a
"Son" in the work of creation (Heb 1:1ff; John 1:1ff).
But did Tertullian
believe in the Trinity as I have defined above?
Yes, he certainly
did -- (all from Against Praxeas)
"We do indeed believe that there is ONLY
ONE GOD; but we believe that under this dispensation, or as we
say, -oikonomia- [relationship between the persons], there is also a Son of
this one only God, His Word [Sermo], who proceeded from Him, and through whom
all things were made and WITHOUT WHOM nothing was made
[John 1:3]. We believe that He was sent by the Father into a Virgin and was born
of her, GOD AND MAN, Son of Man and Son of God, and was
called by the name Jesus Christ....
"We believe that He sent down from the Father,
in accord with His own promise, the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, the Sanctifier
of the faith of those who believe in the FATHER and in
the SON and in the HOLY SPIRIT."
"...in the case of the present heresy, which
considers itself to have the pure truth when it supposes that one cannot
believe in the ONE ONLY GOD in any other way than by
saying that Father, Son, and Spirit are the very selfsame Person [i.e.
Monarchianism]. As if One were not All even in this way, that ALL
[THREE PERSONS] ARE ONE --
through UNITY OF SUBSTANCE, of course!"
"And at the same time the mystery of the
-oikonomia- is safeguarded, for the UNITY is
distributed in a TRINITY [Latin trinitas]. Placed in
order, the THREE are FATHER, SON,
and SPIRIT. THEY are THREE,
however, not in condition, but in degree [non statu sed gradu], not in
substance, but in form [nec substantia sed forma], not in power, but in kind
[nec potestate sed specie]; OF ONE SUBSTANCE, however,
and one condition, and ONE POWER, BECAUSE HE IS ONE GOD OF WHOM
THESE DEGREES AND FORMS AND KINDS ARE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN THE NAME OF THE
FATHER, AND OF THE SON, AND OF THE HOLY SPIRIT."
"Keep always in mind the rule of faith which I
profess and by which I bear witness that THE FATHER AND THE SON AND
THE SPIRIT ARE INSEPARABLE FROM EACH OTHER, and then you will
understand what is meant by it.
"Observe, now, that I say the Father is other,
and the Son is other, and the Spirit is other. This statement is WRONGLY
understood by every uneducated or perversely disposed individual, as if it
meant diversity and implied by that diversity a SEPARATION
of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
"I say this, however, out of necessity, since
they contend that the Father and the Son and the Spirit are the selfsame
Person, thus extolling the monarchy at the expense of the -oikonomia-
[relationship between the persons] -- that the Son is other than the Father not
by diversity but by distribution. He is not other by division but by DISTINCTION;
for the Father is not the SAME as the Son, since they DIFFER
one from another by a kind of measure [modulo alius ab alio].
[next is the part
you quoted -- but you ignored the whole context]
"The Father is the whole substance, while the
Son, indeed, is a derivation and portion of the whole [derivatio totius et
portio] as He Himself professes: 'Because the Father is greater than I' [John
14:28]. In the psalm His minority is sung as being a little less than the
angels [Psalm 8:6]. Thus the Father is OTHER than the
Son, because He is greater than the Son [in POSITION];
because He that begets is OTHER than Him that is
begotten; because He that sends is OTHER than Him that
is sent; because He that makes something is OTHER than
him through whom He makes it [OTHER refers to
distinction of PERSONS within the TRINITY].
"Happily the Lord Himself used this expression
in regard to the PERSON of the Paraclete [HOLY
SPIRIT], signifying not division but disposition: 'I will ask the
Father,' He says, 'and He will send you ANOTHER
Advocate, the Spirit of truth' [John 14:16]. Thus He showed that the Son is OTHER
than the Father. He showed in the Paraclete a THIRD
degree, just as we believe that the Son is a SECOND
degree, by reason of the ORDER observed in the
-oikonomia- [relationship]."
"We who by the grace of God examine the times
and the motives of the Scriptures, and who are disciples not of men but
especially of the Paraclete, we do indeed define that THERE ARE TWO,
FATHER and SON, and WITH
THE HOLY SPIRIT EVEN A THIRD, in accord with the principle of the
-oikonomia-, which distinguishes as to NUMBER, lest, as
your perversity would infer, the Father Himself be believed to have been born
and to have suffered [called Patripassianism], which in fact, it is not lawful
to believe, since it has not been handed down.
"That there are TWO
Gods and TWO Lords, however, is a statement which we
will NEVER ALLOW to issue from our mouth -- not as if
the Father and the Son WERE NOT GOD, NOR the SPIRIT
GOD, and EACH OF THEM GOD; but formerly TWO
were spoken of as GODS and TWO
as LORDS, so that when Christ would come, He might both
be acknowledged AS GOD AND BE CALLED LORD BECAUSE HE IS THE SON OF
HIM WHO IS BOTH GOD AND LORD."
"The Father and the Son are distinguished by
what is proper to each. He promises to send the Paraclete also, for whom He
will ask the Father, after He has ascended to the Father; and He calls the
Paraclete 'ANOTHER' [John 14:16]. How it is that He is
'another' we have already explained. Further, He says, 'He will receive of what
is mine,' just as He Himself has received from the Father.
"Thus the connection of the Father in the Son,
and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces THREE who,
though coherent, are DISTINCT ONE FROM ANOTHER. THESE
THREE ARE ONE, and yet NOT one: for 'I and
the Father ARE ONE' [John 10:30] was said in regard to
their UNITY OF SUBSTANCE, but not in regard to a
singularity of number."
"This, then, must be the point of our inquiry:
How the Word [Sermo] became flesh [John 1:14], whether as if by being
transfigured in the flesh, or by actually being clothed in the flesh. Certainly
it was by actually being clothed in flesh; for it is still necessary to believe
that God is immutable and unchanging, inasmuch as He is eternal....
"God, however, neither ceases to be, nor can He
become other than He is. THE WORD, INDEED, IS GOD [John
1:1]....In fact, however, we find Him expressly set forth as GOD AND
MAN....We see a twofold state, not confused but conjoined in ONE
PERSON, JESUS, GOD AND MAN."
(Against Praxeas 2:1-4; 9:1-3; 13:5-6; 25:1;
27:7,10-11; Jurgens, volume 1, p. 154-157)
I think these
statements are very clear. Tertullian was explicitly a Trinitarian. Next --
========================================
NOVATIAN (c. 235 A.D.)
========================================
HK> "NOVATIAN (c. 250) is
scarcely less bold in his mode of expression: 'It is necessary that [the
Father] have priority (prior sit) as Father, since He who knew no origin must
needs have precedence over (antecedat) Him who has an origin. At the same time
[the Son] must be LESS, since He knows that He is in Him AS HAVING AN ORIGIN
because He is BORN'." (The Gospel of John According to B.F. Wescott
Commentary p.213)
Again, as with
Origen, Novatian is not considered completely orthodox by the Catholic Church.
In fact, he began a sect (Novatianist schism) which spread with some success to
Spain and to Syria. In the latter place it lasted for several centuries. The
sect was schismatic not so much for doctrinal differences but for its
insistence on rigorist practices (Jurgens, volume 1, p. 246).
Why didn't you quote
from the major ante-Nicene Saints -- St. Ignatius, St. Justin, St. Irenaeus,
St. Cyprian? I'll show you why below -- they all believed in the Trinity.
The quote you are
giving above comes from a work of Novatian titled.... THE TRINITY!
(Latin De Trinitate c. 235 A.D.) so obviously he didn't deny the Trinity
explicitly -- he was more in Origen's camp.
There is NO
Church Father that explicitly says -- "I deny the Trinity... I deny God is
three persons.....I deny the Son is God....." etc. Yes, there was a
certain development of doctrine but no one really explicitly denied the Trinity
of God in three persons.
Here's the quotes
from Novatian's De Trinitate ("The Trinity") --
"Neither, then, do we acknowledge as our Christ
the Christ of the heretics [Gnostics], who, as it is said, was but an
appearance and not a reality; for He had done nothing real among all the
actions He performed, if He was Himself a phantasm and not a reality. Nor do we
acknowledge one who had nothing of our flesh in Himself, since He received
nothing of Mary; nor one who did not come to us, since He appeared as a vision
and not in our substance; nor one who put on flesh which was either ethereal or
starry, as other heretics would have it. We could perceive no salvation for us
in Him, if we could not recognize in Him even the solidity of our flesh.
"We do not treat of the substance of [Christ's]
body in such a way as to say that He was only and solely a man; rather, we hold
that by the association of the DIVINITY of the Word in
that very corporality, HE WAS, in accord with the
Scriptures, ALSO GOD [John 1:1; Col 2:9].
"It is [the HOLY SPIRIT]
that effects with water a second birth. HE [personal
pronoun] IS a kind of seed of divine generation and the
consecrator of heavenly birth, the pledge of a promised inheritance [Eph 1:14],
and, as it were, a kind of surety bond of eternal salvation. It is HE
[personal pronoun] that can make of us a temple of God [1 Cor 3:17], and can
complete us as HIS house; HE
[personal pronoun] that can accost the divine ears for us with unutterable
groaning [Rom 8:26], fulfilling the duties of advocate and performing the
functions of defense; HE [personal pronoun] that is an
inhabitant given to our bodies, and a worker of holiness.
[next is the part
you quoted -- although you ignored context again]
"God the Father, founder and creator of all
things, who alone knows no beginning, who is invisible, immeasureable,
immortal, and eternal, is ONE GOD. Neither His
greatness nor His majesty nor His power can possibly be -- I should not say
exceeded, for they cannot even be equalled. FROM Him,
when He willed it, the WORD was born, HIS
SON. ...And the latter, since He was born of the Father, is ALWAYS
IN the Father. And I do indeed say ALWAYS,
not to prove Him unborn, but born. HE THAT EXISTS BEFORE ALL TIME
must be said to have been IN the Father ALWAYS;
for HE THAT EXISTS BEFORE ALL TIME cannot be spoken of
in relation to time. And ALWAYS must He be IN
the Father, otherwise the Father were not ALWAYS the
Father. And yet the Father even precedes Him, because it is necessary for the
Father to be prior, in order to be the Father.
"It is necessary for Him who knows no origin to
be antecedant to Him who has an origin...He, then, when the Father willed it, PROCEEDED
FROM the Father. And He that was IN the
Father because He was FROM the Father, was afterwards WITH
the Father because He PROCEEDED FROM the Father -- that
DIVINE SUBSTANCE, I mean, whose name is WORD,
and through whom ALL THINGS WERE MADE [John 1:3], and WITHOUT
WHOM WAS MADE NOTHING. For ALL THINGS are AFTER
Him, because they are made through Him; and properly He is BEFORE
ALL THINGS but AFTER the Father, since ALL
THINGS were made through Him, while He proceeded from Him of whose
will all things were made: assuredly, HE IS GOD PROCEEDING FROM GOD,
CAUSING, A SON, A SECOND PERSON AFTER THE FATHER, BUT NOT TAKING AWAY FROM THE
FATHER THE FACT THAT GOD IS ONE."
(The Trinity, 10, 11, 29, 31; Jurgens, vol 1, p.
246-248)
This is somewhat
ambiguous but seems to agree with Origen. This is a far cry from denying the
Trinity and saying "Christ was CREATED."
Clearly, Novatian believed that Christ WAS THE CREATOR OF ALL THINGS
and was BEFORE ALL THINGS, that Christ is GOD,
that the Holy Spirit is a PERSON, and that God is ONE.
Sounds like the Trinity to me.
How Novatian put all
this together was a little ambiguous but he certainly cannot be said to deny
the Trinity, the title of this work!
Now let's go into
some of the ante-Nicene Fathers and Saints that you did not mention. First up
--
==============================================
St. Ignatius
of Antioch
(c. 110 A.D.)
==============================================
"Ignatius, also called Theophorus, to the
Church at Ephesus in Asia, which is worthy of all felicitation, blessed as it
is with greatness by the fullness of GOD THE FATHER,
predestined FROM ETERNITY for a glory that is lasting
and unchanging, UNITED and chosen through true
suffering by the will of the Father IN JESUS CHRIST OUR GOD...."
"There is ONE Physician, who is both flesh and
spirit, born AND NOT BORN, WHO IS GOD IN MAN, true life
in death, both from Mary AND FROM GOD, first able to
suffer and then unable to suffer, JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD."
"You are like stones for a temple of the
Father, prepared for the edifice of GOD THE FATHER,
hoisted to the heights by the crane of JESUS CHRIST,
which is the cross, using for a rope THE HOLY SPIRIT.
Your faith is what pulls you up, and love is the road which leads you TO
GOD."
"For OUR GOD, JESUS CHRIST,
was conceived by Mary in accord with GOD'S plan: of the
seed of David, it is true, but ALSO OF THE HOLY SPIRIT."
(Letter to Ephesians addr; 7:2; 9:1; 18:2; Jurgens,
vol 1, p. 17-18)
"The prophets, who were men of GOD,
lived according to JESUS CHRIST. For that reason they
were persecuted, inspired as they were by His grace to convince the disobedient
that THERE IS ONE GOD, WHO manifested Himself through HIS
SON, JESUS CHRIST, who is HIS WORD
proceeding from silence, and who was in all respects pleasing to Him that sent
Him....through which mystery we received faith, through which also we suffer in
order to be found to be disciples of Jesus Christ, our ONLY
Teacher -- how then will we be able to live without Him of whom even the
propehts were disciples IN THE SPIRIT, and to whom they
looked forward as their Teacher...."
"Take care, therefore, to be confirmed in the
decrees of the LORD and of the Apostles, in order that
in everything you do, you may prosper in body and in soul, in faith and in
love, IN SON AND IN FATHER AND IN SPIRIT, in beginning
and in end, together with your most reverend bishop..."
(Letter to the Magnesians 8:1-2; 9:1-2; 13:1;
Jurgens, p. 19-20)
"Ignatius, also called Theophorus, to the
Church that has found mercy in the greatness of the Most High Father AND
in Jesus Christ, His only Son; to the Church beloved and enlightened after the
love of Jesus Christ, OUR GOD, by the will of Him that
has willed everything which is; to the Church also which holds the presidency
in the place of the country of the Romans...named after Christ AND
named after the Father: her therefore do I salute in the name of Jesus Christ,
the Son of the Father. To those who are united in flesh and in spirit by every
commandment of His, who are filled with the grace of GOD
without wavering, and who are filtered clear of every foreign stain, I wish an
unalloyed joy in Jesus Christ, OUR GOD."
(Letter to the Romans address; Jurgens, p. 21)
"I give glory to Jesus Christ, THE
GOD who has made you wise; for I have observed that you are set in
faith unshakable, as if nailed to the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ in body
and in soul; and that you are confirmed in love by the Blood of Christ, firmly
believing in regard to our Lord that He is TRULY of the
family of David according to the FLESH, and GOD'S
SON by the will and power of GOD, truly
born of a Virgin, baptized by John so that all justice might be fulfilled by
Him..."
(Letter to the Smyrnaeans 1:1; Jurgens, p. 24)
=========================================
Aristides of
Athens
(c. 140 A.D.)
=========================================
"Christians trace their origin to the Lord
Jesus Christ. He that came down from heaven in the Holy Spirit for the
salvation of men is confessed to be the Son of the Most High God. He was born
of a holy Virgin without seed of man, and took flesh without defilement; and He
appeared among men so that He might recall them from the ERROR OF
POLYTHEISM...they who continue to observe the righteousness which
was preached by His disciples are called Christians. These are they who, above
every people of the earth, have found the truth; for they acknowledge GOD,
the Creator and Maker of all things, IN the
only-begotten SON and IN the HOLY
SPIRIT. Other than HIM, no god do they
worship. They have the commandments of the Lord Jesus Christ impressed upon
their hearts...."
(Apology 15; Jurgens, p. 49)
=============================================
St. Justin
the Martyr
(c. 100 - 165 A.D.)
=============================================
"Well, we do indeed proclaim ourselves atheists
in respect to those whom you call gods, but not in regard to the MOST
TRUE GOD, the Father of righteousness and temperance and the other
virtues....On the contrary, we reverence and worship Him AND THE SON
who came forth from Him and taught us these things...AND THE
PROPHETIC SPIRIT..."
"...they are led by us to a place where there
is water; and there they are reborn in the same kind of rebirth in which we
ourselves were reborn: in the name of GOD, the Lord and
Father of all, AND of our Savior, Jesus Christ, AND
of the Holy Spirit, they receive the washing with water...."
"Although the Jews were always of the opinion
that it was the Father of all who had spoken to Moses, IT WAS IN
FACT THE SON OF GOD, who is called both Angel and Apostle, who
spoke to him; they are, therefore, justly accused by both the PROPHETIC
SPIRIT AND BY CHRIST HIMSELF of knowing neither the Father nor the
Son. They who assert that the Son is the Father are proved to know neither the
Father, nor that the Father of all has a Son, who is both the first-born Word
of God AND IS GOD [John 1:1]."
"...but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made
incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so
too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by
the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, and by the change of which our blood
and flesh is nourished, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated
Jesus."
"For everything that has been given to our use,
we praise the Creator of all THROUGH HIS SON JESUS CHRIST AND
THROUGH THE HOLY SPIRIT."
(First Apology 6, 61, 63, 66, 67; Jurgens, p. 51,
54-55)
"To the Father of all, who is unbegotten, no
name is given; for anyone who has been given a name has received the name from
someone older than himself. Father and God and Creator and Lord and Master are
not names but appellations derived form His beneficences and works. His Son,
who alone is properly called Son, who was BOTH WITH HIM AND WAS
BEGOTTEN BY HIM BEFORE ANYTHING WAS CREATED, when in the beginning
the Father created and put everything in order through Him -- He is called
Christ, from His being anointed...."
(Second Apology 6; Jurgens, p. 57)
"...it is inescapable that this is the Christ
of God...that He pre-existed as the Son of the Creator of all things, BEING
GOD, and that He was born a man by the Virgin."
(Dialogue with Trypho 48; Jurgens, p. 60)
============================================
St. Melito
of Sardes
(c. 177 A.D.)
============================================
"The activities of Christ after His Baptism,
and especially His miracles, gave indication and assurance to the world of THE
DEITY hidden in His flesh. BEING GOD and
likewise perfect man, He gave positive indications of His two natures: OF
HIS DEITY, by the miracles during the three years following after
His Baptism; of His humanity, in the thirty years which came before His
Baptism, during which, by reason of His condition according to the flesh, He
concealed the signs of HIS DEITY, although He was THE
TRUE GOD EXISTING BEFORE THE AGES."
(Fragment in Anastasius of Sinai, The Guide, Ch 13;
Jurgens, p. 81)
=============================================
Athenagoras
of Athens
(c. 180 A.D.)
=============================================
"The Son of God is the Word of the Father, in
thought and in actuality. BY HIM AND THROUGH HIM ALL THINGS WERE
MADE, the Father and the Son BEING ONE.
Since the Son is IN the Father and the Father is IN
the Son BY THE UNITY AND POWER OF THE SPIRIT, the Mind
and Word of the Father is the Son of God. And if, in your exceedingly great
wisdom, it occurs to you to inquire what is meant by 'the Son', I will tell you
briefly: He is the First-begotten of the Father, NOT AS HAVING BEEN
PRODUCED -- FOR FROM THE BEGINNING GOD HAD THE WORD IN HIMSELF...
Who, then, would not be astonished to hear those called atheists, who speak of GOD
THE FATHER AND OF GOD THE SON AND OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, and who
proclaim THEIR power in UNION
and THEIR distinction in order...Just as we assert that
there is a God, and a Son who is His Word, and a Holy Spirit, UNITED
IN POWER -- THE FATHER, THE SON, AND THE SPIRIT...."
(Supplication for the Christians 10, 24; Jurgens, p.
70)
============================================
St.
Theophilus of Antioch (c. 181 A.D.)
============================================
"God, therefore, having His own Word [the Son]
internally in His very organs, begot Him, emitting Him ALONG WITH
His own Wisdom [the Holy Spirit], BEFORE ALL THINGS. He
had this Word for a Helper in the things which He made, and THROUGH
HIM WERE ALL THINGS CREATED. He is called Beginning [Rev 3:14
arche] because He RULES [archei] and has dominion OVER
EVERYTHING WHICH WAS FASHIONED BY HIM....
"He, then, being Spirit of God and Beginning
and Wisdom and Power of the Most High, descended upon the prophets and through
them spoke of the creation of the world and of all the rest; for the prophets
did not exist when the world came to be, but there was Wisdom, which was IN
Him and which was OF God, AND
His Holy Word, WHO IS ETERNALLY PRESENT WITH HIM."
"The three days before the luminaries were
created are types of the TRINITY [this is the first recorded
use of the term referring to the Godhead]: GOD [the
Father], HIS WORD [the Son], AND HIS WISDOM
[the Holy Spirit]."
"And what else is this voice, but the Word of
God, which also is His Son, not as poets and writers of myths tell of the sons
of gods begotten of intercourse, but, as truth recounts, the Word WHICH
ALWAYS EXISTS internally in the heart of God? FOR
BEFORE ANYTHING WAS CREATED, He had this Counsellor, being His own
Mind and Thought; and when God wished to create what He had decided upon, He
begot this uttered Word, the First-born of all creation, not emptying Himself
of the Word, but having begotten the Word, and conversing ALWAYS
WITH His Word.
"This is what the Holy Scriptures teach us, as
do all the inspired men, one of whom, John, says, 'In beginning was the Word,
and the Word was WITH God' [John 1:1], showing that at
first God was alone, AND the Word was IN
Him. Then he says, 'And the Word was God; all things were made through Him, and
WITHOUT HIM was made NOTHING'
[1:3]. The Word, then, BEING GOD and being GENERATED
FROM [ambiguous term here] God, is sent to any place at the will
of the Father of the universe; and when He comes, having been sent by Him and
being found in place, He is both heard and seen."
(To Autolycus 2:10; 2:15; 2:22; Jurgens, p. 75-76)
============================================
St. Irenaeus
of Lyons
(c. 140 - 202 A.D.)
============================================
(excerpts from AGAINST
HERESIES; Jurgens, p. 84-104)
"For the Church, although dispersed throughout
the whole world even to the ends of the earth, has received from the Apostles
and from their disciples the faith in ONE GOD, Father
Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth and sea and all that is in them; and in
one Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became flesh for our salvation; and in
the Holy Spirit, who announced through the prophets the dispensations and the
comings, and the birth from a Virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection
from the dead, and the bodily ascension into heaven of the beloved Christ Jesus
our Lord, and his coming from heaven in the glory of the Father to re-establish
all things; and the raising up again of all flesh of all humanity, in order
that to JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD AND GOD AND SAVIOR AND KING,
in accord with the approval of the invisible Father, every knee shall bend of
those in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue shall
confess Him, and that He may make just judgment of them all...." (1:10:1)
"We hold, however, the rule of truth, according
to which there is ONE ALMIGHTY GOD, who formed ALL
things through His Word, and fashioned and made ALL
things which exist out of that which did not exist; in which regard the
Scripture says: 'For by the Word of the Lord were the heavens established, and
all their strength by the Spirit of his mouth' [Psalm 33:6]. And again, 'All
things were made through Him, and WITHOUT HIM WAS MADE NOTHING'
[John 1:3]. From ALL, however, THERE IS NO
EXCEPTION [that would include the SON];
and the Father made ALL things through Him, whether
visible or invisible, whether of sense or of intelligence, whether temporal and
for a certain dispensation or eternal and through the ages." (1:22:1)
"[The Gnostic heretics] transfer the generation
of the uttered word of men to the ETERNAL WORD OF GOD,
attributing to HIM A BEGINNING of utterance and a COMING
INTO BEING in a manner like to that of their own word. In what
manner, then, would the WORD OF GOD -- INDEED, THE GREAT GOD HIMSELF
SINCE HE IS THE WORD -- differ from the word of men, were He to
have the same order and process of generation?" (2:13:8)
"This Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is
revealed through His Word, who is His Son -- through Him is He revealed and
made manifest to all to whom He is revealed. For they know Him, those to whom
the Son has given revelation. The Son, however, ALWAYS CO-EXISTING
WITH THE FATHER, of old and from the beginning, ALWAYS
reveals the Father to the Angels and Archangels and Powers and Virtues and to
all to whom God wished to give revelation." (2:30:9)
"Nevertheless, what cannot be said of anyone
else who ever lived, that He [Jesus Christ] is Himself in HIS OWN
RIGHT GOD AND LORD AND ETERNAL KING AND ONLY-BEGOTTEN AND INCARNATE WORD,
proclaimed as such by all the Prophets and by the Apostles and by the SPIRIT
HIMSELF" (3:19:2)
"For WITH HIM [God the
Father] ALWAYS are the Word and the Wisdom, the SON
and the SPIRIT, through whom and in whom He made all
things freely and spontaneously; and to whom He spoke, saying: 'Let US
make man in our image and likeness' [Gen 1:26]." (4:20:1)
"God is powerful in all things. He was SEEN
through the SPIRIT of Prophecy, and by His own choice THROUGH
THE SON. He will also be SEEN as the FATHER
in the kingdom of heaven. THE SPIRIT prepares man
through the SON OF GOD, the SON
leads him to the FATHER, and the FATHER
gives him incorruption in eternal life, which comes to everyone by the fact of
his SEEING GOD." (4:20:5)
==========================================
St.
Hippolytus of Rome (c. 200 A.D.)
==========================================
"God, existing ALONE
and having nothing coeval with Himself, willed to create the world....Besides
Himself there was no one; but THOUGH HE WAS ALONE, HE WAS MIGHTY
[or EXISTED IN PLURALITY]. For He was not without
reason, not without wisdom, not without power, and not without counsel. All
things were in him, and He was All. When He willed and in the manner in which
He willed and in the times determined by Himself, He made known His Word, THROUGH
WHOM HE CREATED ALL THINGS...
"And since He had this Word WITHIN
HIMSELF, invisible to the created world, He made Him visible.
First of all giving vocal utterance, and then begetting LIGHT FROM
LIGHT, He sent Him forth....Thus, there appeared ANOTHER
besides Himself. When I say 'ANOTHER', however, I
DO NOT MEAN THERE ARE TWO GODS. Rather, it is as if there were LIGHT
FROM LIGHT, or water from a fountain, or a ray from the sun. For
there is but ONE power, which is from the All; and the
Father is the All, from whom comes the Power, the Word."
"Let us believe, then, dear brethren, according
to the tradition of the Apostles, that GOD THE WORD
came down from heaven into the holy Virgin Mary, in order that, taking flesh
from her and taking also a soul, I mean a rational soul, and thus becoming all
that man is except in regard to sin, He might save the fallen and confer immortality
on such men as believe in His name. In all this, then, the word of truth is
demonstrated to us: namely, THAT THE FATHER IS ONE, AND HIS WORD,
THROUGH WHOM HE CREATED ALL THINGS, IS PRESENT WITH HIM."
"And in just the way in which it was announced of
Him, did He come and manifest Himself, made a new man of the Virgin AND
THE HOLY SPIRIT. As the Word, He had from the Father what is
heavenly, just as from the old Adam he had what is earthly, having become
incarnate through the Virgin. He came forth into the world and, in the body, SHOWED
HIMSELF TO BE GOD, although it was as perfect man that He came
forth. For He was made man, not in appearance nor in seeming, but in
truth."
(Against Noetus 10, 11, 17; Jurgens, p. 164-165)
"The ONE GOD, the first
and ONLY, both CREATOR AND LORD OF ALL....
...this SOLE and universal God, by reflecting, first
brought forth the Word -- not a word as in speech, but as a mental word, the
Reason for everything. Him only did He produce from what existed: for the
Father Himself WAS BEING, FROM WHICH He produced Him.
[i.e. ONE IN BEING WITH THE FATHER as the Creed states]
"The Word was the CAUSE
of those things which CAME INTO EXISTENCE, carrying out
in Himself the will of Him by whom He was begotten.... Only HIS WORD
IS FROM HIMSELF, AND IS THEREFORE ALSO GOD, BECOMING THE SUBSTANCE OF GOD....FOR
CHRIST IS THE GOD OVER ALL [cf. Romans 9:5]."
(Refutation of all Heresies 10:32,33,34; Jurgens, p.
173-174)
"...through your Son, Jesus Christ our Lord,
through whom be glory, might, and honor to you, TO the
Father AND the Son WITH the
Holy Spirit, both now and through the ages of ages. Amen."
"Gather as one in the fullness of the Holy
Spirit your saints who participate; and confirm their faith in truth so that we
may praise and glorify you through your Son Jesus Christ, through whom be glory
and honor to you, TO the Father AND
the Son WITH the Holy Spirit, in your holy Church, both
now and through the ages of ages. Amen."
"And now, O LORD, grant
that there may be ever preserved among us the Spirit of your grace, and make us
worthy that, in faith, we may give praise to you and minister to you in
simplicity of heart: through your Son Jesus Christ, through whom be glory and
honor to you, TO the Father AND
the Son WITH the Holy Spirit, in your holy Church, both
now and through the ages of ages. Amen."
"O GOD, who have
created all things and have set them in order THROUGH YOUR WORD;
Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, whom you sent to minister to your will and to
make clear to us your desires, grant the Holy Spirit of grace and care and
diligence to this your servant...through your Son Jesus Christ, through whom be
glory and honor to you, TO the Father AND
the Son WITH the Holy Spirit, in your holy Church, both
now and through the ages of ages. Amen."
"O LORD GOD, who made
them worthy of the remission of sins through the Holy Spirit's washing unto
rebirth, send into them your grace so that they may serve you according to your
will: for there is glory to you, TO the Father AND
the Son WITH the Holy Spirit, in the holy Church, both
now and through the ages of ages. Amen."
"I anoint you with holy oil in THE
LORD, the FATHER ALMIGHTY AND CHRIST JESUS AND THE HOLY
SPIRIT."
(The Apostolic Tradition 3, 4, 8, 9, 22; Jurgens, p.
166-167)
=================================================
St. Clement
of Alexandria (c. 150 - 216 A.D.)
=================================================
"The Word, then, the Christ, is the CAUSE
both of our ancient beginning -- for He was IN GOD --
and of our well-being. And now this same Word has appeared as man. HE
ALONE IS BOTH GOD AND MAN, and the SOURCE
of all our good things....He is the New Song, the manifestation which has now
been made among us, of the Word WHICH EXISTED IN THE BEGINNING AND
BEFORE THE BEGINNING. The Savior, who existed before, has only
lately appeared. He that has appeared is IN Him that
is; for the Word that was WITH God [John 1:1], the Word
BY WHOM ALL THINGS WERE MADE, has appeared as our
Teacher; and He, who bestowerd life upon us in the beginning, when, AS
OUR CREATOR, He formed us, now that He has appeared as our
Teacher, has taught us to live well so that, afterwards, AS GOD,
He might furnish us abundantly with eternal life."
"Despised as to appearance but in reality ADORED,
the Expiator, the Savior, the Soother, the Divine Word, HE THAT IS
QUITE EVIDENTLY TRUE GOD, HE THAT IS PUT ON A LEVEL WITH THE LORD OF THE
UNIVERSE BECAUSE HE WAS HIS SON -- AND THE WORD WAS IN GOD [John
1:1]...
"Whence He was and who He Himself was, was
demonstrated by what He taught and did. He showed Himself as the Herald of a
truce, our Mediator and Savior, the Word, the Font of Life and Peace poured out
over the face of the earth; and through Him, so to speak, the universe has
already become an ocean of good things...."
(Exhortation to the Greeks 1:7:1; 10:110:1,3;
Jurgens, p. 176-177)
"NOTHING EXISTS except
that which GOD causes to be. There is nothing,
therefore, which is hated by God; nor is there anything hated BY THE
WORD. BOTH ARE ONE, BOTH ARE GOD; for he says: 'In the beginning
the WORD WAS IN GOD, AND THE WORD WAS GOD' [John
1:1]."
"That this is a mystery is clear: GOD
IS IN A MAN, AND A MAN IS GOD, the Mediator fulfilling the will of
the Father. The Mediator is the WORD who is COMMON
TO BOTH, being the Son of GOD and the Savior
of MEN."
(Instructor of Children 1:8:62:3,4; 3:1:2:1;
Jurgens, p. 179-180)
"When [John] says: 'What was from the beginning
[1 John 1:1],' he touches upon the generation WITHOUT BEGINNING OF
THE SON, WHO IS CO-EQUAL WITH THE FATHER. 'Was,' therefore, is
indicative of an ETERNITY WITHOUT A BEGINNING, just as
the Word Himself, that is the SON, BEING ONE WITH THE FATHER IN
REGARD TO EQUALITY OF SUBSTANCE, IS ETERNAL AND UNCREATED. THAT THE WORD ALWAYS
EXISTED is signified by the saying: 'In the beginning was the
Word' [John 1:1]."
(fragment in Eusebius History, Bk 6 Ch 14; Jurgens,
p. 188)
============================================
St. Cyprian
of Carthage (c. 250 A.D.)
============================================
"He cannot have God for his Father who does not
have the Church for his Mother. If anyone outside the ark of Noah was able to
escape, then perhaps someone outside the pale of the Church may escape.... The
Lord says, 'THE FATHER AND I ARE ONE' [John 10:30] and
again, it is written of the FATHER, SON, AND HOLY SPIRIT, 'AND THE
THREE ARE ONE.' [cf. 1 John 5:7-8; Cyprian is apparently aware of
this Latin manuscript reading on the Trinity]"
"Does anyone believe that in the Church THIS
UNITY which proceeds from the DIVINE STABILITY
and which is welded together after the heavenly patterns, can be divided, and
can be separated by the parting asunder of opposing wills? Whoever holds not
fast to this UNITY holds not to the law of God; neither
does he keep faith WITH THE FATHER AND THE SON, nor
does he have life and salvation."
(Unity of the Catholic Church 6; Jurgens, p. 221)
"If Christ Jesus, OUR LORD AND GOD,
is Himself the High Priest of God the Father; and if He offered Himself as a
sacrifice to the Father; and if He commanded that this be done in commemoration
of Himself -- then certainly the priest, who imitates that which Christ did,
truly functions in place of Christ."
(Letters 63:14; Jurgens, p. 232-233)
"If someone could be baptized by heretics, he
could certainly receive also the remission of sins. If he were to receive the
remission of sins, he would be sanctified. If he were sanctified, he would be
made a temple of God. If he were made a temple of God -- now I ask you:
"Of what God? Of the Creator? But that is not
possible, because he does not believe in Him. Of Christ? One who denies that CHRIST
IS GOD cannot become His temple. Of the Holy Spirit? SINCE
THE THREE ARE ONE, how were it possible for the Holy Spirit to be
reconciled to him that is an enemy of either the Son or of the Father?"
"After the Resurrection, when the Lord sent the
Apostles to the nations, He commanded them to baptize the gentiles in the name
of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit [Matt 28:19]. How then do
some say that though a gentile be baptized beyond the pale and outside the
Church, yes, even against the Church, never mind how or of whom, so long as it
be done in the name of Jesus Christ, the remission of sins can follow -- when CHRIST
HIMSELF COMMANDS THE NATIONS TO BE BAPTIZED IN THE FULL AND UNITED TRINITY?"
(Letters 73:12; 73:18; Jurgens, p. 238)
==============================================
St.
Dionysius of Rome (c. 262 A.D.)
==============================================
[first he calls
Monarchianism a BLASPHEMY]
"Next, then, I may properly turn to those who
divide and cut apart and destroy the Monarchy [of God], the most sacred
proclamation of the Church of God, making of it, as it were, three powers,
distinct substances, and three godheads. I have heard that some of your
catechists and teachers of the divine word take the lead in this tenet. They
are, so to speak, diametrically opposed to the opinion of Sabellius. For he, in
his BLASPHEMY, says that the Son IS
the Father, and vice versa. But they proclaim that there are in some way THREE
GODS, when they divide the Sacred unity into three substances
foreign to each other and completely separate.
"It is necessary, however, that the Divine Word
[Jesus Christ] be UNITED WITH THE GOD OF THE UNIVERSE; AND THE HOLY
SPIRIT MUST ABIDE AND DWELL IN GOD. THEREFORE THE DIVINE TRINITY
must be gathered up and brought TOGETHER IN ONE, a
Summit, as it were -- I mean, the OMNIPOTENT GOD OF THE UNIVERSE....
[then he calls
Arianism a WORSE BLASPHEMY]
"Nor are they less to be blamed who hold that
the Son is a [created] work, and think that the Lord was MADE,
as if He were ONE OF THOSE THINGS WHICH WERE TRULY MADE.
The divine statements bear witness to a generation suitable and becoming to
Him, BUT NOT TO ANY FASHIONING OR MAKING.
"It is BLASPHEMY, then,
and not a common one BUT THE WORST, to say that THE
LORD IS IN ANY WAY A [created] HANDIWORK.
For if He came to be Son, then once He was not; but if, as He says Himself, He
be IN the Father, and if, which you know the Divine Scripture says, Christ be
Word and Wisdom and Power, and these attributes be powers of GOD,
THEN HE ALWAYS EXISTED. But if the Son CAME INTO BEING,
there was a time when these attributes DID NOT EXIST;
and, consequently, there was a time when GOD was
without them -- WHICH IS UTTERLY ABSURD...."
"Neither, then, may we divide into THREE
godheads the wonderful and divine Unity; nor may we disparage the dignity and
exceeding majesty of the Lord by calling Him a [created] work. Rather, we must
believe in GOD, the Father Almighty; and in Christ
Jesus, His Son; and in the Holy Spirit; and that the WORD IS UNITED
TO THE GOD OF THE UNIVERSE. 'For,' says He, 'THE FATHER
AND I ARE ONE' and 'I AM IN THE FATHER, AND THE FATHER
IN ME.' Thus both the Divine Trinity and the sacred proclamation
of the monarchy will be preserved."
(Dionysius of Rome to Dionysius of Alexandria 1-3;
Jurgens, p. 249)
Other Fathers that have quotes from many parts of the New Testament that we have today:
Church
Fathers and short biographies (taken from http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn/Fathers.html#Eus). Note: most dates show the time cerca death,
not birth. To see their writings in
English: (http://www.bible.ca/history/fathers/).
Clement
of Rome. c. 95. Greek. Merk: Clr
The name "Clement" is often associated with the oldest known
non-canonical Christian writing, which we call 1 Clement. This anonymous
letter was written from Rome to Corinth (then experiencing strong internal
dissent) around 95 C.E., and was for a time
held in such high esteem as to be considered canonical. As such it is found in
the Codex Alexandrinus.
1 Clement was held to be the work of Clement, the third bishop of Rome
(following Linus and Anencletus, and omitting Peter and Paul). This Clement was
held, in turn, to be the Clement of Phil. 4:3 (so Eusebius, H. E. iii.15,
following Origen. Others
suggested the Roman nobleman Titus Flavius Clemens, executed by the Emperor
Domitian in 95 on apparent suspicion of Christianity. All of this is, at best,
speculation. Eusebius tells us that Clement was Bishop of Rome from the twelfth
year of Domitian (about 93) to the third year of Trajan (100/101), crediting
him with nine years of service.
The importance of 1 Clement lies not so much in its quotations (few of which
are important for textual criticism; they are usually allusions at best) as for
what it tells us about the canon. It appears to refer to a collection of Paul's
letters, and it alludes to both Hebrews (which is in fact a major influence on
the letter) and 1 Peter, showing that both were in circulation by its
time. Interestingly, 1 Clement shows no particular knowledge of any of the
Gospels.
Such was the popularity of 1 Clement that a number of later documents,
including 2 Clement and the Clementine Homilies, were credited to him. But
there can be no doubt that they came from other hands. [AA, Eus, MS]
Epistula
Apostolorum.
c. 140? Greek. Merk: Ep Apost.
This curious work is the subject of much speculation, as the Greek original is
lost and the primary translations (Coptic and Latin) are fragmentary. The
fullest text is Ethiopic.
Even if we had a more reliable text of the work, it is clearly not the product
of a particularly knowledgeable author. Although he gives a summary of Jesus's
life and teachings, as well as a warning against gnosticism, the list of
apostles is truly curious. To achieve a total of eleven apostles, the author
includes not only Nathanael but also Cephas, who is distinguished from Peter.
Heracleon. fl. 160. Greek. Merk: Her
A Valentinian Gnostic, he wrote a commentary on John (said to have been used by
Origen despite its source).
He also seems to have been used by various fathers as a reference for the Preaching
of Peter.
Marcion. II. Greek. Nestle: Mcion.
Merk: Mn
In some ways the most important of the Fathers, since his editorial work on
Luke and the Pauline Epistles may have given an important impetus to the
formation of the New Testament canon.
Marcion was born in the late first century in Sinope (on the Black Sea in
Pontus). The son of a bishop, and himself apparently a successful businessman,
he went to Rome at around 138, but was expelled from the church there in 144.
He went on to form a rival church. His death date is unknown.
Without going into detail about Marcion's theology, we should note that he
separated the Gods of the Old and New Testaments. This may have led him to
downplay the Old Testament allusions from his New Testament (which consisted
only of Luke and the ten Pauline Epistles to churches); it is often claimed
that he removed these referemces. However, in 1 Corinthians we have
evidence that he retained at least nine of eleven Old Testament citations.
Marcion's writings and his Bible text have not survived; we know them only from
citations by authors such as Tertullian and Epiphanius.
This, combined with the fact that Marcion rewrote the documents he studied,
makes it difficult to recover his underlying text. (Nor are we helped by the
fact that our best evidence about him comes from Tertullian, who was quite
capable of rewriting his sources). But all evidence seems to indicate that his
text was highly interesting and very early (e.g. it clearly omitted the
reference to Ephesus in Eph. 1:1). Readings associated with him seem to have
been transmitted in the "Western," P46/B, and 1739 texts;
they are rarer in the Alexandrian text. (Compare Souter, who writes -- based on
what we should note is incomplete evidence -- that "We find him in company
with the Latin witnesses, especially the European Old-Latin MSS., but not
infrequently also with the Old Syriac. He is never on the side of the great
Greek uncials against both these versions.") Still, if Marcion can be
reliably determined to support a reading, and if it has good support from other,
less partisan witnesses, we may consider that reading to be very ancient and
significant. [US, RBW, AA, AS, GG, etc.]
Polycarp
of Smyrna.
d. 156 (167?). Greek. Nestle: Polyc. Merk: Pol
Bishop of Smyrna. Born in the third quarter of the first century, he learned
directly from apostles and others who knew Jesus. He in turn tutored Irenĉus. He was martyred in 155
or 156 (so many moderns) or 167 or 168
Ptolemy
the Gnostic.
before 180. (Greek). Nestle: Ptol. Merk: Ptol.
A Valentinian, known from the writings of Irenĉus (who cites his
commentary on the prologue to John) and Epiphanius (who preserves
his Letter to Flora). He taught that Christ had a soul and a
"psychic" body, and that God is one, not two. This made him sort of a
moderate by Gnostic standards.
Tatian. II. Greek/Syriac. Merk: Ta.
The problems of Tatian and his Diatessaron simply cannot be covered
here; they belong in their own article (some additional information can be
found in the article on the Versions under Diatessaron). In any case, Tatian
is not truly a Father; if he wrote works about orthodox Christianity, they have
not survived. Even his magnum opus has effectively disappeared in the
original language (we can say this confidently even though we do not know what
language it was!).
Tatian, a resident of Syria or Assyria, was born at an unknown date in the
first half of the second century. In the middle years of the century he moved
to Rome (where he knew, among others, Justin
Martyr) and became a member of the Christian community. Around 167,
however, he left the Roman church; most scholars think this was for doctrinal
reasons -- and probably not entirely voluntary. Tatian has been regarded as the
founder of the Encratites; in any event, he encouraged chastity and various
other forms of self-discipline not accepted by the Orthodox. Jerome,
for instance, describes him as "Tatian, who maintaining the imaginary
flesh of Christ, pronounces all sexual connection impure, [and] who was also
the very violent heresiarch of the Encratites" (Commentary on
Galatians; English translation from the Nicene Fathers series).
From Rome, Tatian returned to Syria, where he gathered followers, wrote, and at
some point assembled his great work, the Diatessaron.
Tatian seems to have been the first to attempt something which has since become
very popular: He created a harmony of the Gospels. (It is generally believed
that he used only the canonical four, but the lack of knowledge about his text
has led some to speculate that he used the Gospel of the Hebrews or some
other work in addition.) It is not certain whether the original language was
Greek or Syriac; whichever it was, the author soon turned it into the other.
That Tatian's work was very skilled can hardly be denied. But it was not the
gospel, and it came from an apparent heretic. Most parts of the church refused
to use it.
Not so the Syriac Christians. Perhaps lacking a Bible of their own, they
adopted the Diatessaron and clung to it for probably two centuries before the
organized church managed to substitute the regular gospels.
Despite this widespread popularity, the Diatessaron has been very poorly
preserved. No certain fragments of the Syriac version are known, and of the
Greek we have only the single uncial fragment 0212, from Dura. Our primary
knowledge comes from the Armenian version of Ephraem's
commentary. Many other sources are quoted as having "Diassetaric"
texts -- but the student should always be careful lest a gospel harmony
be mistaken for the gospel harmony. Some of these harmonies (particularly
the more recent versions from Western countries) are probably independent.
The influence Tatian had on the orthodox New Testament is uncertain. Von Soden
thought him responsible for many harmonistic readings (and this shows in the
form of a massive number of alleged readings of Tatian in his and Merk's
apparati) -- but the simple fact is that most scribes could make up
harmonizations on their own. Therefore attributing variants to Tatian is a
hazardous business. Even citing his support for a particular reading is rather
doubtful; the student should be very careful to check just which edition
contains a particular reading. One should also be very careful to make sure
that the reading belongs to the gospel under consideration....
Tatian wrote various other works; the most useful of these (at least in the
opinion of Eusebius) was The Greeks Answered, from which we have
assorted fragments. [Eus]
Abbreviations
used to indicate sources include:
