« ZurückWeiter »
of the Revelation, omitted in the same canon; and farther, he takes no particular notice of the two epistles of Clement, or of the Constitutions, which make a part of the catalogue in the last canon of the apostles. What shall we say to this? Can we think, after all, that Damascenus had any particular regard for the Apostolical Canons? or shall we suppose that the 85th canon was wanting in his edition of the Apostolical Canons? or shall we not be obliged to admit a suspicion, that the last clause in this catalogue of Damascenus, the Canons of the holy Apostles by Clement,' is an interpolation, or an addition made by some officious Greek to Damascenus's original work?
There is another doubt, that may arise in the mind, supposing the genuineness of this clause: Whether by the Canons of the apostles, Damascenus means Apostolical Constitutions, or Apostolical Canons: I perceive this doubt to have arisen in Cotelerius, as it had in me, before I had observed it in him.
IV. I shall observe but a few particulars more:
1. At the beginning of his work, De Orthodoxa Fide, which is a kind of system of divinity, and reckoned to be the first regular system among Christians, speaking of God, he says: All things which are delivered to us by the law and the prophets, the apostles and evangelists, we • receive, acknowledge, and venerate, seeking not any thing beyond what has been taught "by them.'
2. Again: We cannot think, or say any thing of God, beside what is divinely taught and • revealed to us by the divine oracles of the Old and New Testament.' Not that he denies the use of reason, or that heathen people, without revelation, might, by the light of nature, learn the existence of God from his works: however, in these passages we see the general divisions of the books of scripture, and the great respect which was shewn to them by Christian people. 3. Damascenus seems not to have had the heavenly witnesses in his copies of St. John's first epistle.
4. He seems to say, that there were then no extraordinary gifts in the Church; such as the gift of knowledge, or the gift of miracles; at least he acknowledges, that he had no such gifts.
PHOTIUS, PATRIARCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE.
1. PHOTIUS, as is generally reckoned, was constituted patriarch of Constantinople in 858: but Pagi placeth the commencement of his patriarchate in 857. It is generally supposed that he died in 891, or 892.
2. The history of his life, and his character, and good accounts of his works, may be seen in divers authors, to whom I refer. The account, which Fabricius has given of his Bibliotheque, and the several articles therein, deserves high commendations. I shall by and by take some farther notice of Photius's works, so far as they relate to the interpretation of scripture.
a Cæterum an Joannes Damascenus Orthodoxæ Fidei, lib. iv. c. 18. quando Canones Apostolorum per Clementem editos cum divinis voluminibus enumerat Constitutiones, vel dumtaxat Canones Constitutionibus subnexos intelligat, quæri potest. Malim accipere de solis canonibus, quo majori parte erroris vir sanctus et doctus levetur, et quia rarior prima acceptio, &c. Coteler, Judic. de Constit. Ap. ap. Patṛ. Ap. T. i.
• Πανία τοινυν τα παραδεδομενα ήμιν δια τε νομ8, και προς ψήλων, και αποσόλων, και ευαγγελίσων, δεχόμεθα, και γινωσ κομεν, και σεβομεν, εδεν περαιτέρω τείων επιζήλωνες. κ. λ. De Fid. Orth. 1. i. c. 1. T. i. p. 123. E.
- Οι δυναίον ουν τι παρα θειωδως ύπο των θείων λογίων της σε παλαιας και καινῆς διαθήκης ήμιν εκπεφασμενα. . . ειπείν τε περι Θε8, η όλως εννοησαι. Ib. cap. ii. p. 125. Β.
d Vid. Ib. 1. i. c. 1. et c. 3. et alibi.
• Και τρεις εισιν οἱ μαζίυρενίες, το ύδωρ, και το αίμα, και το Vεuua. De Hymn. Trisag. sect. iv. T. i. p. 484. C.
ε Ημεις δε οἱ μηδε το των θαυμαίων, μηδε το της διδασκαλίας detaμevo Xapoua. De Fid. Orth. 1. i. c. 2. p. 125. D. g Crit. in Baron. Ann. 886. n. v. 858. n. xiii. xiv. 859. n. xii. Vid. Martin. Hank de Rer. Byz. Script. P. i. cap. 18. Cav. Hist. Lit. T. ii. p. 47. Fabric. Bib. Gr. lib. v. cap. 38. T. ix. p. 369, &c. Du Pin. Bibl. T. vii. J. C. Wolff. Præf. ad Anecd. Gr. T. i. Ja. Basnag. Hist. de l'Eglise, L. vi. ch, vi. T. i. p. 323, &c.
Bib. Gr. T. ix. p. 381....508.
3. They who are pleased to look back to the ninth section of the 63d chapter of this book, may there see, that Photius received the scriptures of the Old and the New Testament, and particularly, in this last, four gospels, the Acts of the apostles, fourteen epistles of St. Paul, and seven catholic epistles: I suppose likewise, that he received the book of the Revelation; though I do not now recollect any particular proof of it.
4. Among the works of Photius are mentioned some commentaries upon scripture; as upon the Psalms, the Prophets, and St. Paul's epistles: which last is in manuscript in the public library at Cambridge, as we are assured by Cave. I place below Fabricius's account of it.
5. In the epistles of Photius, in number 248, published at London in 1651, by R. Montague, bishop of Norwich, many texts of scripture are explained.
6. There is extant in manuscript, in several libraries, a work entitled Amphilochia, consisting of 308 questions, and answers to them, addressed by Photius to Amphilochius, bishop or metropolitan of Cyzicum, to whom several of Photius's letters, published by Montague, are directed. Both Cave and Fabricius have spoken somewhat largely of this work, and deserve to be consulted. The learned Montfaucon observes, that those questions relate chiefly to divers texts of scripture, with some other matters of literature: and in his Bibliotheca Coisliniana he has exhibited the title and first words of each chapter; or the question, and the first words of the answer. Many of those questions are treated in the epistles of Photius before mentioned, which, nevertheless, Montfaucon takes no notice of: whereas, it seems to me, it would have well become the diligence of an exact editor, as he put down the titles of the chapters of that work, to have added a reference to the epistles already published, in which the answer might be seen at length. Moreover, after having put down the 308 questions, in the manner above mentioned, he transcribes at length four of them, as specimens of the whole, and as of some special moment: two of which, nevertheless, had been before published in Montague's collection of our1 author's epistles. One of those two questions Montfaucon recommends to the observation of " the learned, as a curiosity. All this Montfaucon perceived, when he came to write his preface: nevertheless, he still calls this last-mentioned question, with the answer, an " anecdote; and the better to justify himself, he says, there are some faults in Montague's edition. Well, then, let it be republished from the Coislinian manuscript, as a better copy, though the errors in Montague are not numerous: but let it not appear as a new thing, or be recommended to the attention of the public as somewhat extraordinary.
The late learned J. C. Wolfius, of Hamburg, published a large part of the Amphilochian questions, and the answers at length, at the end of the fourth and last volume of his Curæ upon the New Testament.
7. This great critic was a great admirer of the apostle Paul, and celebrates his manly and unaffected eloquence: indeed, in one of his letters, Photius takes notice of a large number of hyperbata, or elliptical expressions in St. Paul's epistles, where some words are transposed, and
■ Vol. ii. p. 238, 239.
In Psalmos: Catena ex Athanasio, Basilio, Chrysostomo, et Theodoro Heracleotâ, Photio. MS. in Bib. Segueriana sive Coisliniana. Vide Catal. MS. ejusdem Bib. editum a Cl. Montfauconio. p. 58, 59. Fabr. Bib. Gr. T. ix. p. 566.
Prophetarum liber cum expositione.' Extat MS. in Bibliotheca Vaticanâ, uti Possevinus nos docet. Cav. H. L. P. 50.
In prophetas. MS. in Bib. Vaticanâ, ut ex Possevino Colomesius et Caveus. Fabric. ib. p. 566.
In epistolas Pauli.' MS. in Bib. Cantabrigiensi. Ex hoc commentario idem Caveus notat, plura desumsisse ŒEcumenium, (a quo etiam nomine tenus non raro Photius laudatur) codicem vero istum esse mutilum initio et fine, et totum in epistolam ad Romanos commentarium desiderari. Fabr. ibid. p. 566. e Vid. Fabr. ib. p. 519.
f Quæstiones ac Dubia ad Amphilochium Cyzici Metropolitam, de variis S. Scripturæ locis. Extant MSS. grandi volumine, sed absque Photii nomine, in Cl, Seguerii Galliæ Cancellarii Bibliothecâ : item in Bibliothecis Vaticana, Barberinâ, Bavaricâ, et forsan alibi. Cav. T. ii. p. 49. 8 T. ix. p. 561.
Sunt porro quæstiones et plurimum circa lota varia Scrip
turæ Sacræ tam Veteris quam Novi Testamenti. Intermixta quoque sunt aliæ philosophicæ, physicæ, grammaticæ, et aliæ id genus. Ipsæque omnes sunt numero 308. Montf. Bib. Coisl. p. 326.
i Mr. Wolfius computes that about a sixth part of the Amphilochian questions are in the epistles published by Bishop Montague. Quod ad Amphilochia ipsa spectat, sexta circiter illorum pars in epistolis Photii, quas eruditæ Montacutii industriæ debemus, extat. Vid. reliqua. Wolf. Præf. ad Curar. vol. iv.
* Ex hisce porro quæstionibus paucas, quæ majoris esse videntur momenti, hic edendas duximus. Bib. Coisl. p. 345. fin.
Ep. 144. p. 201. Ep. 209. p. 306.
Quæstio clxvi. Digna sane quæ historiæ ecclesiasticæ peritis offeratur. Cujus hæresis erat Eusebius Pamphili. Bib. Coislin. p. 348.
" Vigesimum nonum (anecdoton) ejusdem Photii quæstio, cujus hæresis esset Eusebius Pamphili.... In eâ vero, quæ de Eusebio agit, mendæ sunt quædam, interque alias, wλ pro woλà, quæ lectio sensum alio transfert. Id. in Præf. ad Bib. Coisl.
do not stand in their natural order; but then, near the conclusion of that letter, he says: There are many like elliptical expressions in Homer, Antimachus, Aristophanes, Thucydides, Plato, ⚫ and Demosthenes, and in almost all other poets and orators.' We may here recollect what Irenæus said long ago, that the apostle frequently useth hyperbata, because of the rapidity of his words and because of the mighty force of the Spirit in him.'
8. I shall select a few explications of texts of scripture. The first is in an epistle of Photius which is also an Amphilochian question. The text is Luke xxii. 44. He says, that to "sweat blood," was a proverbial expression, concerning such as were in a great agony of mind. So likewise it is said of such as are in a great grief, that they weep tears of blood: nor does St. Luke say that Christ did sweat drops of blood; but that "his sweat was as it were drops of blood;" to signify, that it was not a slight sweat, and that our Lord's whole body was covered over with large and thick drops of sweat, issuing from it, and falling down to the ground.' In this letter it is likewise, that he observes the omission of this paragraph of St. Luke's gospel in some copies, of which notice was taken by us' formerly.
9. In another epistle, considering Rom. ix. 3. " For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ," he observes, the apostle does not say, "I wish," but "I could wish," if it were possible:' and afterwards, I could wish, if it were fit, if it were lawful, and if my fall and misery might be beneficial to others.' This I take to be right; and, so far as I can see, this explication removes all the difficulties of that text.
10. There are many excellent counsels and observations to be found in Photius's epistles. (1.) In the first epistle, which is addressed to Michael, king of Bulgaria: It is one of the commands of Christ, our common Lord, that we should bring forth fruits of righteousness, and ⚫ not disgrace our faith by our works: so likewise directs Paul, the great master of the church; so Peter, the chief of the apostles, who was entrusted with the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and so the whole choir of the apostles taught the world.'
(2.) In the same epistle: Some say, it is the main office of a prince to make a small city, or commonwealth, great; but he says, he should esteem it a greater thing to make it good.' (3) To the same prince: If you receive a benefit, be sure to remember it; if
a benefit, you will do well soon to forget it. This is an indication of a great mind, and raiseth the value of the benefit conferred.'
(4.) I refer to two other places concerning friendship and " ingratitude.
1. CAVE speaks of Oecumenius as writing about the year 990, but without being certain of his time: and that he has not placed this author too soon, may be argued from Montfaucon's Bibliotheca Coisliniana, who there informs us of a manuscript chain or comment on St. Paul's epistles of the tenth century, in which the name of Oecumenius is mentioned, among other
writers out of whom that comment was collected: I therefore place him a little higher, but still in the same century.
2. Montfaucon assures us, from a passage found in a manuscript of the tenth or eleventh century, that Oecumenius was bishop of Tricca in Thessaly; which was not known before.
3. We have Commentaries of this writer upon the Acts, St. Paul's fourteen epistles, and the seven catholic epistles. The Commentaries upon the epistles, if not also upon the Acts, are a chain, consisting of notes and observations of several, beside his own; as John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Gregory Nazianzen, Isidore of Pelusium, Theodoret, Photius, and others. At the end of the second volume of Oecumenius is placed the Commentary of Arethas upon the Revelation.
4. In this work, in the edition at Paris, in 1631, which I make use of, the books of the New Testament are placed in the order now generally used; first the Acts of the apostles, next St. Paul's fourteen epistles, and then the catholic epistles: but there is prefixed to those Commentaries a short copy of verses, representing the contents of the whole work, in this manner: The book of the Acts, written by Luke; the epistle of James, written to believing Hebrews; the first epistle of Peter, written to believers; the second epistle of Peter, also written to Christians; three epistles of John, one of Jude, to all Christians in general; then St. Paul's fourteen epistles, ⚫ all enumerated in our present order; lastly, John's mysterious Revelation.' This, I suppose, was the order of the books, particularly of the Acts and the epistles, in the manuscript; it is also the order observed in the first printed edition of these Commentaries, in Greek only, at Verona in 1532, described by Fabricius, which I likewise have. As for the Commentary upon the Revelation by Arethas, in all probability it was added to make a full volume: moreover, Arethas might be reckoned to be very little distant in time from Oecumenius.
5. James Le Long says, that' Oecumenius wrote a Commentary also upon the four gospels; and that he himself says so; but I do not find it in the place to which Le Long refers.
6. Whether Oecumenius received or wrote Commentaries upon the Revelation, will be considered by and by.
7. Upon St. Luke's introduction to the Acts, "The former treatise have I made, O.Theophilus;" Oecumenius observes, He calls it a treatise, and not a gospel, avoiding ostentation; as indeed do the rest likewise. Matthew says, "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ;" ‹ Mark indeed says, "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ;" but he does not, by "gospel" 'intend his own writing, but Christ's preaching... The faithful afterwards called them gospels, as truly containing the gospel, that is, the doctrine of Christ.'
8. Upon Acts xiii. 13. he says, This" John, who is also called Mark, nephew to Barnabas, wrote the gospel entitled according to him, and was also disciple of Peter, of whom he says, in his epistle, "Mark, my son, saluteth you."
9. Upon Acts xv. 13. This James, appointed bishop of Jerusalem by the Lord, was son of Joseph the carpenter, and brother of our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh.'
10. I need not put down the prefaces to St. Paul's several epistles, in which are observed the places where they were written, sometimes right, sometimes wrong.
11. Upon those words of Col. iv. 16. " the epistle from Laodicea," is a note of Photius. Some* say, this was not an epistle of Paul to them, but from them to him; for he does not say, the epistle to the Laodiceans, but the epistle from Laodicea.'
12. In the argument or preface to the epistle of James, it' is said to be written to those of the twelve tribes scattered abroad, who had believed in our Lord Jesus Christ.
• Vid. Bib. Coisl. in Præf. et p. 277.
In Acta apostolorum catena vicem exhibet Ecumenii, incertæ ætatis scriptoris, sed judicio ac perspicuitate commendabilis, Commentarius, qui cum ejusdem Commentariis similibus in epistolas septem catholicas, epistolas sancti Pauli apostoli, et cum Aretha in Apocalypsin, prodiit Græce Veronæ typis luculents 1532. fol. Hæc editio mihi ad manus est. Fabr. Bib. Gr. T. vii. p. 788. Vid. eund. T. xiii. p. 845. • Των Πράξεων ή βίβλος, ας Λυκας γραφει Πισοις Εβραίων ἐξ Ιακωβε λογοι. Πισοις ὁ Πείρος πρωΐα συν ατίει ταδε. Χρισωνυμοισι δευτεροι πείρε λογοι.
Κλήλοις άπασι ταυία μυσης 18δας.
13. The argument to the first epistle of Peter says, it is written to the believing Jews ⚫ scattered abroad in several places.'
14. Upon 2 Pet. iii. 1, he observes, as I understand him, to this effect: Hence we perceive that Peter wrote only two epistles.'
15. In a note upon the beginning of St. John's second epistle he says, Some had thought 'that this and the following epistle were not written by John the apostle, but by another of the same name, who calls himself Elder.' Our author, however, receives both these, as well as the first.
17. In a note upon the first epistle to the Corinthians, the Revelation is quoted as written by John the evangelist.
18. As a farther proof, that Oecumenius received the book of the Revelation, I refer to an anecdote, published by Montfaucon, of which he speaks very magnificently in his preface to the Coislinian library; but when he sets about translating the passage, he says, it is written in so obscure a style as to be scarce intelligible.
It is said to be the Synopsis of the labours of the blessed Oecumenius, bishop of Tricca, upon the Revelation of John the divine;' and it begins in this manner: • That this writing is ⚫ the mystical instruction of the disciple who rested in the bosom of Jesus, and is divinely inspired, ' and useful, as has been indisputably proved; and that it is not spurious as some have profanely ⚫ said, but a genuine writing of the son of thunder:' and the author then proceeds to argue this from the testimonies of Athanasius, Basil, Gregory, Methodius, Cyril of Alexandria, Hippolytus, and from other considerations.
19. I shall now make a few remarks. First, from the passage above cited from the Commentary upon the epistle to the Corinthians, it appears to be probable, that Oecumenius received the book of the Revelation; and this passage may be allowed to afford some additional evidence. Nevertheless, secondly, this writer being unknown and anonymous, what he says cannot be admitted as full proof that Oecumenius ever wrote a commentary upon the Revelation. Thirdly, the argument for the genuineness of the Revelation, here ascribed to Oecumenius, is much the same with what is to be found in the prefaces of * Andrew, and' Arethas, to their commentaries upon that book.
1. THEOPHYLACT, archbishop of the chief city of Bulgaria, wrote Commentaries upon the four gospels, the Acts of the apostles, and St. Paul's fourteen epistles. He is spoken of by Cave" as flourishing about the year 1077, by Fabricius" about 1070. His Commentaries are collected out of Chrysostom and others, with observations likewise, undoubtedly, of his own.