« PreviousContinue »
sensu non malo, si creare sumas pro facere ut appareat. Viæ Dei gant operationes ipsius. Sensum hujus loci et sequentium non male exprimas cum Philone de Coloniis: ο λόγος ο πρεσβύτερος των γένεσιν ειληφότων, ού καθάπερ οίακος ενειλημένος και των όλων κυβερνήτης πηδαλιουχεί τα σύμπαντα, και ότε εκοσμοπλάστει χρησάμενος οργάνω τούτω προς την ανυmaitiov tā Åroteovéwy choragi." On verse 27 he adds, " Aderam, id est, tv apos Tòv tov, ut infra Johan. Evang. i. 1."
What clear and evident testimony, by this exposition, is left in this place to the deity of Christ, I profess myself as ignorant as I was before I received this direction by the apologist. He tells us that is rendered not amiss by the Chaldee x??, and the LXX. šxrice, though he knew that sense was pleaded by the Arians, and exploded by the ancient doctors of the church. To relieve this concession, he tells us that “creare" may be taken for “ facere ut appareat,” though there be no evidence of such a use of the word in Scripture, nor can he give any instance thereof. The whole interpretation runs on that wisdom that is a property of God, which he manifested in the works of creation. Of the Son of God, the essential Wisdom of God, subsisting with the Father, we have not one word. Nor doth that quotation out of Philo relieve us in this business at all; we know in what sense he used the word ó Tóyos. How far he and the Platonics, with whom in this expression he consented, were from understanding the only-begotten Son of God, is known. If this of Philo has any aspect towards the opinion of any professing themselves Christians, it is towards that of the Arians, which seems to be expressed therein. And this is the place chosen by the apologist to disprove the assertion of none being left, under the sense given them by the Annotations, bearing clear testimony to the deity of Christ! His comparing " DP,“ibi ego," which the Vulgar renders “aderam,” with wv apos adv @sóv, seems rather to cast a suspicion on his intention in the expression of that place of the evangelist than in the least to give testimony to the deity of Christ in this. If any one be farther desirous to be satisfied how many clear, unquestionable evidences of the deity of Christ are slighted by these annotations on this chapter, let him consult my vindication of the place in my late“ Vindiciæ Evangelicæ," where he will find something tendered to him to that purpose. What the apologist intended by adding these two places of Isaiah, chap. xlv. 12 and chap. xlviii. 13 (when in his annotations on these places Grotius not once mentions the deity of Christ, nor any thing of him, nor hath occasion so to do, nor doth produce them in this place to any such end or purpose, but only to show that the Chaldee paraphrase doth sundry times, when things are said to be done by God, render it that they were done by the word of God), as instances to the prejudice of my assertion, I cannot imagine.
On that of Peter, 2 Epist. iii. 5, TÕ Tol O: a6yw, he adds, indeed, “Vide quæ diximus ad initium Evangelii Johannis;" but neither doth that place intend the natural Son of God, nor is it so interpreted by Grotius.
To these he adds, in the close, Col. i. 16, in the exposition whereof in his Annotations he expressly prevaricates, and goes off to the interpretation insisted on by Socinus and his companions; which the apologist well knew. Without farther search upon what hath been spoken, the apologist
, gives in his verdict concerning the falseness of my assertion before mentioned, of the annotator's speaking clear and home to the deity of Christ but in one, if in one, place of his Annotations. But,
1. What one other place hath he produced whereby the contrary to what I assert is evinced? Any man may make apologies at this rate as fast as he pleases.
2. As to his not speaking clearly in that one, notwithstanding the improvement made of his expressions by the apologist, I am still of the same mind as formerly; for although he ascribes an eternity sú nóyw, and affirms all things to be made thereby, yet, considering how careful he is of ascribing an υπόστασις τώ λόγω, how many Platonic interpretations of that expression he interweaves in his expositions, how he hath darkened the whole counsel of God in that place about the subsistence of the Word, his omnipotency and incarnation, so clearly asserted by the Holy Ghost therein, I see no reason to retract the assertion opposed. But yet as to the thing itself, about this place I will not contend: only, it may not be amiss to observe, that not only the Arians, but even Photinus himself, acknowledged that the world was made tú soữ nóyw, [sO] that how little is obtained towards the confirmation of the deity of Christ by that concession may be discerned.
I shall offer also only at present, that ó hóyos roŨ soũ is threefold, -λόγος υποστατικός, ενδιάθετος, and προφορικός. The λόγος υποστατικός or ovorcons is Christ, mentioned John i. 1, his personal and eternal subsistence, with his omnipotency, being there asserted. Whether Christ be so called anywhere else in the New Testament may be disputed; Luke i. 2 compared with 1 John i. 1, 2 Pet. i. 19, Acts xx. 32, Heb. iv. 12, are the most likely to give us that use of the word. Why Christ is so termed I have showed elsewhere. That he is called 127, Ps. xxxiii. 6, is to me also evident. nap is better rendered pñua or mégis than 2óyos. Where that word is used, it denotes not Christ, though 2 Sam. xxiii. 2, where that word is, is urged by some to that purpose. He is also called 777, Hag. ii. 5; so perhaps in other places. Our present Quakers would have that expression of the “word of God,” used nowhere in any other sense; so that destroying that, as they do, in the issue they may freely despise the Scripture, as that
which they say is not the word of God, nor anywhere so called. Λόγος ενδιάθετος amongst men is that which Aristotle calls τον έσω λόγον. Λόγος εν να λαμβανόμενος, says Hesychius Λόγος ενδιάθετος is that which we speak in our hearts, says Damascen. De Orthod. Fid. lib. i. cap. xviii.: so Ps. xiv. 1, 1a5a Sa DN. This, as spoken in respect of God, is that egress of his power whereby, according to the eternal conception of his mind, he worketh any thing: so Gen. i. 2, "God said, Let there be light; and there was light.” Of this word of God the psalmist treats, Ps. cxlvii. 18, “He sendeth out 1777, and melteth the ice;" and Ps. cxlviii. 8 the same word is used;—in both which places the LXX. render it by ó 26yos. This is that which is called pñua rñs duvánews, Heb. i. 3, xi. 3, where the apostle says, “ The heavens were made pnuari osoữ:” which is directly parallel to that place of 2 Pet. iii. 5, where it is expressed tŲ TOŨ to abyw; for though ρήμα Omore properly denotes λόγον προφορικόν, yet in these places it signifies plainly that egress of God's power for the production and preservation of things, being a pursuit of the eternal conception of his mind, which is noyos évoidederos. Now, this infinitely wise and eternal conception of the mind of God exerting itself in power, wherein God is said to speak (“He said, Let there be light”), is that which the Platonics, and Philo with them, harped on, never once dreaming of a co-essential and hypostatical Word of God, though the word izboracis occurs amongst them. This they thought was unto God, as in us, wóyos žvdicéderos or o čow, após voūr: and, particularly, it is termed by Philo, our rñs davolas súpuvouévn, De Agric. That this was his ó róxos is most' evident. Hence he tells us, Ojôr äv črepor είπoι τον νοητόν είναι κόσμον ή Θεού λόγον ήδη κοσμοποιούντος, ουδε γαρ ή νοητή πόλις έτερόν τι εστίν, ή και του αρχιτέκτονος λογισμός, ήδη την νοητήν πόλιν κτίζειν διανουμένου. Μωσέως γαρ το δόγμα τούτο, ουκ εμόν, De Mund. Opifc. And a little after, Τον δε αόρατον και νοητόν θείον λόγον, εικόνα λέγει Θεού και ταύτης εικόνα τον νοητόν φώς εκείνο, ο θείου λόγου γέγονεν εικών του διερμηνεύσαντος την γένεσιν αυτού, και έστιν υπερουράνιος αστήρ. The whole tendency of his discourse is, that the word of God, in his mind, in the creation of the world, was the image of himself, and that the idea or image of the things to be made, but especially of light. And whereas (if I remember aright, for I cannot now find the place) I have said somewhere that Christ was λόγος ενδιάθετος, though therein I have the consent of very many learned divines, and used it merely in opposition rũ #popopixã, yet I desire to recall it; nor do I think there is any propriety in that expression of fuputos used of Christ, but only in those of iFootarinós and ovoscóns, which the Scripture (though not in the very terms) will make good. In this second acceptation, Toũ rózou, Photinus himself granted that the world was made by the word of God. Now, if it be thought necessary that I should give an account of my fear that nothing but o hóyos in this
sense, decked with many Platonical encomiums, was intended in the Annotations on John i. (though I confess much, from some quotations there used, may be said against it), I shall readily undertake the task; but at present, in this running course, I shall add no more.
But now, as if all the matter in hand were fully despatched, we have this triumphant close attending the former discourse and observations:
“If one text acknowledged to assert Christ's eternal divinity” (which one was granted to do it, though not clearly) “will not suffice to conclude him no Socinian” (which I said not he was, yea, expressly waived the management of any such charge); “if six verses in the Proverbs, two in Isaiah, one in St Peter, one in St Paul, added to many in the beginning of St John” in his annotations on all which he speaks not one word to the purpose), “will not yet amount to above one text; or, lastly, if that one may be doubted of also which is by him interpreted to afirm Christ's eternal subsistence with God before the creation of the world” (which he doth not so interpret as to a personal subsistence), “and that the whole world was created by him,-I shall despair of ever being a successful advocate for any man;" from which condition I hope some little time will recover the apologist.
This is the sum of what is pleaded in chief for the defence of the Annotations; wherein what small cause he hath to acquiesce who hath been put to the labour and trouble of vindicating near forty texts of Scripture, in the Old Testament and New, giving express testimony to the deity of Christ, from the annotator's perverse interpretations, let the reader judge. In the 13th section of the apologist's discourse, he adds some other considerations to confirm his former vindication of the Annotations.
He tells us that he “professeth not to divine what places of the Old Testament, wherein the deity of Christ is evidently testified unto, are corrupted by the learned man; nor will he, upon the discouragement already received, make any inquiry into my treatise.” But what need of divination? The apologist cannot but remember at all times some of the texts of the Old Testament that are pleaded to that purpose; and he hath at least as many encouragements to look into the Annotations as discouragements from casting an eye upon that volume, as he calls it, wherein they are called to an account. And if he suppose he can make a just defence for the several places so wrested and perverted without once consulting them, I know not how by me he might possibly be engaged into such an inquiry; and therefore I shall not name them again, having done somewhat more than name them already.
But he hath two suppletory considerations that will render any such inquiry or inspection needless. Of these the first is,
“ That the word of God being all and every part of it of equal truth, that doctrine which is founded on five places of divine writ must by all Christians be acknowledged to be as irrefragably confirmed as a hundred express places would be conceived to confirm it."
Ans. It is confessed that not only five, but any one express text of Scripture, is sufficient for the confirmation of any divine truth; but that five places have been produced out of the Annotations by the apologist, for the confirmation of the great truth pleaded about, is but pretended,-indeed there is no such thing. The charge on Grotius was, that he had depraved all but one. If that be no crime, the defence was at hand; if it be, though that one should be acknowledged to be clear to that purpose, here is no defence against that which was charged, but a strife about that which was not. Let the places be consulted: if the assertion prove true by an induction of instances, the crime is to be confessed, or else the charge denied to contain a crime. But, secondly, he says,
“ That this charge, upon inquiry, will be found in some degree, if not equally, chargeable on the learnedest and most valuable of the first reformers, particularly upon Mr Calvin himself, who hath been as bitterly and unjustly accused and reviled upon this account (witness the book intitled 'Calvino Turcismus') as ever Erasmus was by Bellarmine and Beza, or as probably Grotius may be."
Though this, at the best, be but a diversion of the charge, and no defence, yet, not containing that truth which is needful to countenance it for the end for which it is proposed, I could not pass it by. It is denied (which in this case, until farther proof, must suffice) that any of the learnedst of the first reformers, and particularly Mr Calvin, are equally chargeable, or in any degree of proportion, with Grotius, as to the crime insisted on. Calvin being the man instanced in, I desire the apologist to prove that he hath, in all his commentaries on the Scripture, corrupted the sense of any text of the Old Testament or New giving express testimony to the deity of Christ, and commonly pleaded to that end and purpose; although I deny not but that he differs from the common judgment of most in the interpretation of some few prophetical passages judged by them to relate to Christ I know what Genebrard and some others of that faction raved against him; but it was chiefly from some expressions in his Institutes about the Trinity (wherein yet he is acquitted by the most learned of themselves), and not from his expositions of Scripture, from which they raised their clamours. For the book called “ Calvino Turcismus," written by Reynolds and Giffard, the apologist has forgotten the design of it. Calvin is no more concerned in it than others of the first reformers; nor is it from any doctrine about the deity of Christ in particular, but from the whole of the reformed