Bad Advertisement? Are you a Christian? Online Store: | PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP (Teaching of the Church, p. 240.) It is noteworthy how frequently our author employs this expression in this immediate connection. Concerning the punishment of the wicked he asserts a “clearly defined teaching.” He shows what the Church’s teaching “has laid down” touching demons and angels. Touching the origin of the world, he again asserts the Church’s teaching, and then concedes, that, over and above what he maintains, there is “no clear statement regarding it,”—i.e., the creation and its antecedents. Elsewhere he speaks of “the faith of the Church,” and all this as something accepted by all Christians recognised as orthodox or Catholics. Not to recur to the subject of the creeds3013
1. Was Origen here speaking of the catechetical school of Alexandria, and assuming its teaching to be that of the whole Church? 2. If so, was not this recognition of the Alexandrian leadership the precursor of that terrible shock which was given to Christendom by the rise of Arianism out of such a stronghold of orthodoxy? 3. Does not the power of Athanasius to stand “against the world” assure us that he was strong in the position that “the teaching of the Church,” in Alexandria and elsewhere, was against Arias, whom he was able to defeat by prescription as well as by Scripture? 4. Is it not clear that all this was asserted, held, and defined without help from the West, and that the West merely responded Amen to what Alexandria had taught from the beginning? 5. Is not the evidence overwhelming, that nothing but passive testimony was thus far heard of in connection with the see of Rome? 6. If the “teaching of the Church,” then, was so far independent of that see that Christendom neither waited for its voice, nor recognised it as of any exceptional importance in the definition of the faith and the elimination of heresy, is it not evident that the entire fabric of the Middle-Age polity in the West has its origin in times and manners widely differing from the Apostolic Age and that of the Ante-Nicene Fathers? The subordination of the Son, as held by all Nicene Christians, is defended by Bull3014
(Proceedeth from the Father, p. 344.) The double procession is no part of the Creed of Christendom; nor did it become fixed in the West, till, by the influence of Charlemagne, the important but not immaculate Council of Frankfort (a.d. 794) completed the work of Toledo, and committed the whole West to its support. The Anglican Church recites the Filioque liturgically, but explains its adhesion to this formula in a manner satisfactory to the Easterns. It has no rightful place in the Creed, however; and its retention in the Nicene Symbol is a just offence, not only to the Greeks, but against the great canon, Quod semper, etc. Compare Pearson on the Creed,3016
(The faith of the Church, p. 347.) Before the Nicene Council local creeds were in use, all agreeing substantially; all scriptural, but some more full than others. Of these the ancient Symbol of Jerusalem was chief, and this forms the base of the Nicene Creed. It is here noteworthy that Origen speaks of “the faith” as something settled and known: clearly, he did not intentionally transgress it. Bull says,3019
(Endowed with freedom of will, p. 347.) Elsewhere in this treatise our author defines the will as “able to resist external causes.” The profound work of Edwards needs no words of mine.3021
(Not esteemed authoritative by all, p. 379.) Not by Jerome, nor Rufinus, nor Chrysostom. Gregory the Great, Bishop of Rome, is also shown by Lardner (Credib., v. 127) to have quoted “the wisdom of Solomon” only as the sayings of a wise man; not at all as Scripture. The Easterns are equally represented by John Damascene (a.d. 730), who says of this book that it is one of those “excellent and useful” books which are not reckoned with the hagiographa. But Methodius is an exception; for he quotes this book twice (says Lardner) as if it were Scripture, and certainly cites it not infrequently. Yet his testimony does not amount, perhaps, to more than an acceptance of the same as only deutero-canonical; i.e., as one of the books read in the Church for instruction, but not appealed to as establishing any doctrine otherwise unknown to the Church. We may examine this subject when we come to Methodius, in vol. vi. of this series. This is a convenient place for the following tables, compiled from Eusebius as far as his history goes; i.e. a.d. 305. See also Dr. Robinson’s Researches. I. The See of Jerusalem. 2. Simeon. 3. Justus. 6. Benjamin. 9. Philip. 11. Justus. 12. Levi. 14. Joseph. 15. Judah. 35. Alexander.
|