PAUL
829
PAUL
merits of Paul : God the Father, Son, and Spirit are one God. The Word and Spirit are ever in God, as reanon is in man ; the Son of God has no separate existence, but lie ex- ists in God. . . . vliii tv T(ji TTaTpi, tilt Ao709 61/ uiS'fiwiTui. The Son is in the Father, as reason (not speech, sermo, as Peta- viiis lendeix'd it ; but tmcnijfjiri, as the bishops term it) is rn man. Epiphauius, who as an author was uot distiiijiuisli- ed for his accuracy and research, has uot stated all that i'aul held, but what he has stated is very well. I omit similar citations from Athanasius aud others, that the discussion may not be too prolix.
" in. Dionysius, or whoever wrote the epistle bearing his name (in the Biblioth. Patr. xi, 273, '274), says that Paul
taught : bi'O (esse) VTrouiaa^t^ Kai duo •KpoaiaTia toXi i^vof; i,^wv \ptaTov, Kui hvo XptaToi'?, kul'i bvo ftoi'?, kva tpi'aet tov v'lov tou
OiOV •7TpOVircipXOi''r<^, Ka( 'iva KaT^ O/JiOlVfliaV XptCTOV Kai v'luv
TuP Au/iic). Whether Paul so expressed himself, or wheth- er Dionysius so inferred from the language of i'aul, there is nothing here disagreeing with the opinions of Paul. For since he declared Christ to be a meie man, born of Maiy; and denied that the Wisdom of God, combined with the man Clirist, constituted one jjerson ; and yet as- serted that the eternal Son of God, by whom the world was created, dwelt in the man Christ ; and as he also call- eti the man Christ the Sou of God, and applied the same appellation. Sou of God, to that power of the divine Wis- dom which projected the world— it must necessarily be that, in some sense, he recognised tico distinct and sepa- rate things in Cliiist, tico forms, two Sons, two Christs. Here it should be noticed that the word rWiWTaffi?,' in the language of Dionysius, is not to be nndeistood in otir sense of the term, but in a broader acceptation. From the rjuestious of Paul (Qvcest. vii, p. 280) it appears that he used the word uttocttuo-iv in a broad sense, as applicable to anything that is or exists, whether it subsists by itself or only in something else. Tlie eternal Son of God, which Paul acknowledged to exist in Christ, he could not have regaided as truly an ii7r.i<rTa<Ti9 or perscm. For, if he had so regarded it, he woulil have admitted the very thing which he denied, namely, that the Son of God is & person distinct from the person of the Father. In this same epistle (p. 27't) Dionysius blames Paul for saying, unv tJ,^ ^annTKts K-at tTTiTTovov diKui offiH' 1)9. Hb thetcfore admitted that God, in the sense befuie explained, i. e. as being the Wisdom 0/ GofZ, dwelt in Christ. lUit he added that God dwelt in Christ, sine laboriosd Jimtitiit' cxeri-itntioiie. This well explains the views of Paul, and in \ku-i cdulirms my fiirmer remarks. For Paul's meaning is that Christ, while (jbeying the commands of the law, cuul sufl'eriiig its pen- alties, acted and suflered alone; nor did God, as present with liim, either act or sufler along with the man Christ. Hence it appears that Paul rejected altogether the union of the divine and human natures in Christ. In this man- ner Dionysius correctly understood him, as appears from the confutation he subjoined, in which he endeavors to show, by many proofs, that God was born in Christ, and siiffei-ed the penalties, and died. IMore passages of a sim- ilar chaiacter might be drawn from this epistle; but they are not needed.
"IV. In the ten questions proposed by Paul to Dionysius, the sole aim of Paul is to prove that the man born of Mary had no commvnitij of nature or of action with God dwelling in him. Hence he brings forward the texts iu which tlie soul of Christ is said to be troubled and sorrmc- ful (John xii, 27; Matt, xxvi, 28). He then asks: Can the nature of God be sorrowful and troubled ? (p. 712). He also lays before his antagonist the words of'Christ to the Jews, Destroii this temple, etc. (John i, 19), and then demands, Can God be dissolved? This objection, so easy of solution, Dionysius answers miserably, by resort- ing to a mystical interpretation. For he would have Paul believe that by the tentple which Christ represents as to be dissolved must be understood the discij)les of Christ ; because these the Jews actually dissolved, that is, dispersed and scattered. Some of the othei- answers are lio better. In Question V (p. 286) Paul says : Luke tells us (ch. ii, 40) that Christ greio. But can God grow? If, therefore, Christ grew, he was nothing but a inan. With this argument the good Dionysius is greatly puzzled. But at length he finds his way out, aud says: 'The boij who, as Luke tells us, greic and waxed strong, is the Church, so that Ai'f i|ffi? TOU Oeor £.9 T}]v eKK\r]aiixv tff-i, the (jrowth of God, relates to tlie Church: for it is recorded in the Acts that the Church increased daily and was enlarged, and that the Word of God increased every day.' How in- genious aud beautiful! If all the bishops who opposed Paul were like this Dionysius for acnteness and genius, I do not wonder they could not refute him. And lest this tine response should lose its force and beauty, Dionysius closes it with exquisite taunts.