Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

the World. Wherefore he produceth a name of bis, as yet unknown to the World, or rather not taken notice of, though in frequent use among the Jews, which belonged unto him who was made man, but before he was so. Under that name he shews at first that he had a being in the beginning;* when all things were to be created, and consequently were not yet, then in the beginning was the Word, and so not created. This is the first step, the Word was not created when the World was made. The next is, that the same Word which then was, and was not made, at the same time, “was with God,”+ when he made all things; and therefore well may we conceive it is he to whom “God said, let us make man in our image, after our likeness ;" (Gen. i. 26.) and of whom those words may be understood, * Behold, the man is become as one of us.” (Gen. iii. 22.) After this, lest any should conceive the creation of the World too great and divine a work to be attributed to the Word; lest any should object, that none can produce any thing out of nothing but God himself; he addeth, That “the Word,” as he “was with God," so "was he also God." Again, lest any should divide the Deity, or frame a false conception of different gods, he returns unto the second assertion, and joins it with the first, “The same was in the beginning with God:" and then delivers that which at the first seemed strange, but now after those three propositions, may easily be accepted; “All things were made by him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.” For now this is no new doctrine, but only an interpretation of those Scriptures which told us, God made all things by his Word before. For “God said, Let there be light; and there was light.” (Gen. i. 3.) And so “by the Word of the Lord were the heavens made, and all the hosts of them by the breath of his mouth.” (Psal. xxxiii. 6.) From whence

we understand that the worlds were framed by the Word of God.” (Heb. xi. 3. 2 Pet. iii. 5.) Neither was it a new interpretation, but that which was most familiar to the Jews, who in their synagogues, by the reading of the paraphrase for the in

'Ev åpxõ, the first word of Moses; oủxi ħãoal apos yuãs eloi; Matt. xiii. whence theSyriac translation, num. 56. Kal' quépav ñuny apos ópās. Mark So Solomon yo ap WXT2 'Ev xiv. 49. apos üpās tuxov napajevu. αρχή προ του την γήν ποιήσαι. Proν. 1 Cor. xvi. 6. Πεπιστευμένη διακονίαν viii. 23. In principio erat Sermo; in Ιησού Χριστού, δς πρό αιώνων παρά quo principio scilicet Deus fecit coe- llarpi hv, kai év télet épávn. Ignat. ad lum et terram. Tertull. adv. Hermog. Magnes. c. 6. c. 20.

II conceive this Chaldee paraphrase + Προς τον θεόν, that is, παρά τω to represent the sense of the Jews of Deq, that is, by God. As Nonnus: that age, as being their public interIlarpos čný åpépuotos, årépuovi ovv3po- pretation of the Scripture. Wherevos édpy.-C. i. 4.

fore what we find common and freAs Wisdom speakețh, Prov, viii. 30. quent in it, we cannot but think the then I was by him, 1588 179787 ñunv vulgar and general opinion of that rap' avrõ. Chald. 1973 1971 et eram nation. Now it is certain that this in latere ejus. Moschopulus, nepi paraphrast doth often use %7 890 oxedwv, p. 25. IIpòs Tòv Osòv, Touréori, the word of God, for 17. God himself, μετά του Θεού. As: Ai ádel pai avtoŨ and that especially with relation to the

terpretation of the Hebrew text in the Chaldee language, were constantly taught, that the Word of God was the same with God, and that by that Word all things were made. Which undoubtedly was the cause why St. John delivered so great a mystery in so few words, as speaking unto them who at the first apprehension understood him. Only that which as yet they knew not was, that this Word was made flesh, and that this Word made flesh was Jesus Christ. Wherefore this exposition being so literally clear in itself, so consonant to the notion of the creation of the world. As Isa. xlv. 12. fers his whole doctrine of this Móyos to

. I made the earth, and created man upon rest of the Jews before him, who had it, saith the Lord, the Holy One of Is- no such knowledge out of Plato's rael; which the Chaldee translateth school, used the same notion. For as XyX NTY 1720) XIX I by my Isa. xlviii. 13. the hand of God, is by word made the earth, and created man the Chaldee paraphrast translated the upon it. In the same manner, Jer. Word of God: so in the book of Wis. xxvii. 5. I made the earth, and men dom, » Tavrodúvauós cov xeip kai kriand beasts on the face of the earth ; the oaoa Tòv kóquov, Sap.xi. 17. is changed

zavrodúvauós år' XyXAnd Isa. xlviii.13.17 TD 9799A ovpavớv, xviii. 15. and Siracides xliii. 17X My hand also founded the earth: 26. 'Ev Abyu aŭtoŨ Qúykeltal Távra. the Chaldeo 3350 00 9X Nay, the Septuagint hath changed Xy7X Etiam in verbo meo fundavi Shaddai, the undoubted name of the terram. And most clearly Gen. i. 27. omnipotent God, into Aóyos, the Word, we read, Et creavit Deus hominem: Ezek. i. 24. '70-hp quasi vox subthe Jerusalem Targum, Verbum Do- limis Dei, quod Hebraice appellatur mini creavit hominem. And Gen. iij. 8. "TW, et juxta LXX. owvi) to lóyov, Audierunt vocem Domini Dei : the id est, vox Verbi, ut universa quæ præChaldee paraphrase 5pm your dicantur in mundo vocem Filii Dei esse yang xp Et audierunt vocem verbi dicamus.' S. Hieron. ad loc. col. 679. Domini Dei. Now this which the And therefore Celsus, writing in the Chaldee paraphrase called on the person of a Jew, acknowledgeth that Hellenists named Abyov• as appeareth the Word is the Son of God. Eî ye å by Philo the Jew, who wrote before Λόγος εστίν υμίν υιός του Θεού, και ημείς St. John, and reckons in his Divinity, & alvoõuev. Orig. adv. Celsum, I. ii. first Πατέρα των όλων, then δεύτερον 3. 31. And although Origen objects Ocòv, og čotiv čreivov Aóyos. Quæst. et that in this Celsus makes the Jew Solut. Frag. p. 625. vol. ji. ap. Euseb. speak improperly, because the Jews Præp. Evang. 1. vii. c. 13. Whom he which he had conversed with, did calls: ορθόν θεού Λόγον, πρωτόγονον never acknowledge that the Son of vióv. De Agricult. p. 308. vol. i. He God was the Word; yet Celsus's Jew attributes the creation of the World to did speak the language of Philo: but this Aóyos, whom he terms: õpyavov between the time of Celsus and that coñ, dio3 (ó kóguos)karegrevaorai. De of Origen (I guess about threescore Flammeo gladio, ad fin. p. 162. vol. i. years), the Jews had learnt to deny Σκιά δε θεού ο Λόγος αυτού εστίν, ώ κα- that notion of Λόγος, that they might Oátep ógyávy apooxenoáuevos écoquo- with more colour reject St. John. If Troisi. Idem, Alleg. lib.'ii. al. iii. p. then all the Jews, both they which 106. vol. i. Where we must observe, understood the Chaldee exposition, though Philo makes the Aóyos, of and those which only used the Greek whom he speaks, as instrumental in translation, had such a notion of the the creation of the World ; yet he Word of God; if all things, by their taketh it not for a bare expression of confession, were made by the Word ; the will of God, but for a God, though we have no reason to believe St. John in the second degree, and expressly should make use of any other notion for the Son of God. Nor ought we to than what they before had, and that look on Pbilo Judæus in this

as a Pla- by means whereof hic might be so tonist, but merely as a Jew, who re- easily understood.

Word, and the apprehension of the Jews; it is infinitely to be preferred before any such interpretation as shall restrain the most universals to a few particulars, change the plainest expressions into figurative phrases, and make of a sublime truth, a weak, useless, false discourse. For who will grant that “in the beginning" must be the same with that in St. John's first Epistle (i.i.) “from the beginning,” especially when the very interpretation involves in itself a contradiction? For “the beginning" in St. Jobn's Epistle, is that in which the apostles saw, and heard, and touched the Word:“the beginning”in his Gospel was that in which “the Word was with God," that is, not seen nor heard by the apostles, but known as yet to God alone, as the new exposition will have it. Who will conceive it worthy of the apostle's assertion, to teach that the Word had a being in the beginning of the Gospel, at what time John the Baptist began to preach; when we know the Baptist taught as much, who therefore "came baptizing with water, that he might be made manifest unto Israel ?(John i. 31.) when we are sure that St. Matthew and St. Luke, who wrote before him, taught us more than this, that he had a being thirty years before? when we are assured, it was as true of any other then living as of the Word, even of Judas who betrayed him, even of Pilate who condemned him? Again, who can imagine the apostle should assert that the Word was, that is, had an actual being, when as yet he was not actually the Word ? For if “the beginning” be, when John the Baptist began to preach, and the Word, as they say, be nothing else but he who speaketh, and so revealeth the will of God; Christ had not then revealed the will of God, and consequently was not then actually the Word, but only potentially or by designation, Secondly, It is a strange figurative speech, “the Word was with God,” that is, was known to God, especially in this apostle's method. “In the beginning was the Word;" there was must signify an actual existence; and if so, why in the next sentence (“ the Word was with God”) shall the same verb signify an objective being only? Certainly though to be in the beginning be one thing, and to be with God, another; yet to be in either of them is the same. But if we should imagine this being 'understood of the knowledge of God, why we should grant that thereby is signified, he was known to God alone, I cannot conceive. For the proposition of itself is plainly affirmative, and the exclusive particle only added to the exposition, maketh it clearly negative. Nay more, the affirmative sense is certainly true, the negative as certainly false. For except Gabriel be God who came to the Virgin ; except every one of the heavenly host which appeared to the shepherds, be God; except Zachary and Elizabeth, except Simeon and Anna, except Joseph and Mary, be God; it cannot be true that he was known to God only, for to all these he was certainly known. Thirdly, To pass by the third attribute,

« and the Word was God," as having occasion suddenly after to handle it; seeing the apostle hath again repeated the circumstance of time as most material, “ the same was in the beginning with God,” and immediately subjoined those words,

all things were made by him, and without him was not any thing made that was made;" how can we receive any exposition, which referreth not the making of all these things to him in the beginning? But if we understand the latter part of the apostles, who after the ascension of our Saviour, did nothing but what they were commanded and empowered to do by Christ, it will bear no relation to the beginning. If we interpret the former, of all which Jesus said and did in the promulgation of the Gospel, we cannot yet reach to the beginning assigned by the new expositors : for while John the Baptist only preached, while in their sense the Word was with God, they will not affirm that Jesus did any of these things that are here spoken of. And consequently, according to their grounds, it will be true to say, 'In the beginning was the Word, and that Word in the beginning was with God, insomuch as in the beginning nothing was done by him, but without him were all things done, which were done in the beginning.' Wherefore, in all reason we should stick to the known interpretation, in which every word receiveth its own proper signification, without any figurative distortion, and is preserved in its due latitude and extension, without any curtailing restriction. And therefore I conclude, from the undeniable testimony of St. John, that in the beginning, when the heavens and the earth and all the hosts of them were created, all things were made by the Word, who is Christ Jesus being made flesh; and consequently, by the method of argument, as the apostle antecedently by the method of nature, that in the beginning Christ was. He then who was in heaven, and descended from thence before that which was begotten of the Virgin ascended thither, he who was before John the Baptist and before Abraham, he who was at the end of the first World, and at the beginning of the same; he had a real being and existence, before Christ was conceived by the Virgin Mary. But all these we have already shewed belong unto the Son of God. Therefore we must acknowledge, that Jesus Christ had a real being and existence before he was begotten by the Holy Ghost : which is our first assertion, properly opposed to the Photinians.*

The Photinians were heretics, so tus. Nam et Diaconus sub eo alicalled from Photinus, bishop of Sir. quandiu fuit. Hilar. Frag. ii. §. 19. mium, but born in Gallogræcia, and Wherefore when Epiphanius speakscholar to Marcellus, bishop of An- eth thus of him, oŭtos wpuãto årò Elpcyra. “Photinus de Gallogræcia, Mar- plov, it hath no relation to the original celli discipulus, Sirmii Episcopus or- of his person, but his heresy; of which dinatus, Hebionis Hæresin instaurare St. Hilary: • Pestifere, natum Jesum conatus est. S. Hieron. Catal. Eccl. Christum ex Maria, Pannonia defenn. 117. col. 415. ^ Photinus, Sirmien- dit.' De Trin. I. vii. c. 3. He was a sis Episcopus, fuit a Marcello imbu- nian of singular parts and abilities:

S.I.

The second assertion, next to be made good, is, that the being which Christ had, before he was conceived by the Φύσεως έχων εύ λέγειν, και πείθειν ικα- Donat. lib. c. 16. Φωτεινός ψιλόν άννός, says Sozom. 1. iv. c. 6. Γέγονε δε θρωπον λέγει τον γεγεννημένον, θεού μη ούτος ο Φωτεινός λάλος τον τρόπον, και λέγων είναι τον τόκον, και τον εκ μήτρας ώξυμμένος την γλώτταν, πολλούς δε δυ- προελθόντα, άνθρωπον υποτίθεται διηPog ảmarạp Toũ NóYou soooooũ pu vo Peoũ. Theod. Homil, de Natio. xai éropoloyiq. S. Epiphan. Hær. 71. Ephes. Concil. p. iii. c. 10. ‘Anathe

• Erat et ingenii viribus valens, matizamus Photinum, qui Hebionis et doctrinæ opibus excellens, et elo- hæresim instauravs, Dominum Jesum quio præpotens, quippe qui utroque Christum tantum ex Maria Virgine sermone copiose et graviter disputaret confitetur.', Damasis Profess. Fidei, et scriberet. Vincent. Lirin. adv. Dáoket otros, år' åpxñs Xplotov un Heres. c. 16. He is said by some to είναι, από δε Μαρίας και δεύρο αυτόν follow the heresy of Ebion. Hebionis υπάρχειν, εξότε, φησί, το Πνεύμα το haeresin instaurare conatus est,” says άγιον επήλθεν επ' αυτόν και εγεννήθη εκ St. Jerome; and St. Hilary ordinarily livevmatog åylov. S. Epiphan. Hæres. understands him by the name of He- 71. §. 1. "Eleya dè ws Deos uév toti bion, and sometimes expounds him- παντοκράτωρ είς, και ιδίω λόγω τα πάντα self, · Hebion, qui est Photinus' But nulovpynoase any apò tūv aiúvwv there is no similitude in their doc- γένησίν τε και ύπαρξιν του υιού ου προσtrines, Hebion being more Jew than ίετο, αλλ' εκ Μαρίας γεγενήσθαι τον Christian, and teaching Christ as much Xplotov clonycīto. Sozomen. I. iv. c. 6. begotten by Joseph, as born of Mary. Photini ergo secta hæc est. Dicit Philaster will bave him agree wholly Deum singułum esse et solitarium, et with Paulus Samosatenus in omni- more Judaico confitendum. Trinitatis bus.' Epiphanius with an åtò pépous, plenitudinem negat, neque ullam Dei and {mékelva. Socrates and Sozomen, Verbi, aut ullam Spiritus Sancti putat with him, and with Sabellius: whereas esse personam. Christum vero homihe differed much from them both, es nem tantummodo solitarium asserit, pecially from Sabellius, as being far cui principium adscribit ex Maria ; et from a Patripassian. 'Marcellus Sa- hoc omnibus modis dogmatizat, solam bellianæ hæresis assertor exstiterat: nos personam Dei Patris, et solum Photinus vero novam hæresin jam ante Christum hominem colere debere.' protulerat, a Sabellio quidem in unione Vinc. Lirinensis adv. Hæres. c. 17. In dissentiens, sed initium Christi ex the disputation framed by Vigilius, Maria prædicabat.”. Severus Hist. out of the seventh book of St. Hilary, Sacr. l.ii.p. 104. ed. Elz.1656. Where- as I conceive, Photinus rejecting the fore it will not be unnecessary to col- opinion of Sabellius (wbom Socrates lect out of antiquity what did pro- and Sozomen said he followed) as imperly belong unto Photinus, because pious, tbus declares his own: • Unde I think it not yet done, and we find magis ego dico, Deum Patrem Filium bis beresy, in the propriety of it, to habere Dominum Jesum Christum, ex begin and spread again. Photinus, Maria Virgine initium sumentem, qui mentis cæcitate deceptus, in Christo per sanctæ conversationis excellentisverum et substantiæ nostræ confessus simum atque inimitabile beatitudinis est hominem, sed eundem Deum de meritum, a Deo Patre in Filium adoDeo ante omnia sæcula genitum esse ptatus et eximio Divinitatis honore non credidit.' Leo de Nativ. Christi donatus.' Dial. I. i. §. 4. And again: Serm. iv. 'Ecce Photinus hominem ' Ego Domino nostro Jesu Christo tantum profitetur Dei Filium ; dicit initium tribuo, purumque hominem illum non fuisse ante beatam Mariam.' fuisse affirmo, et per beatæ vitæ ex. Lucifer Caralit. de non parc. in Deum cellentissimum meritum Divinitatis deling. t. iv. p. 171. Biblioth. Patr. honorem fuisse adeptum. Ibid. §. 10. “Si quis in Christo sic veritatem præ- Vide eundem I. ii. adv. Eutych. Igdicat animæ et carnis, ut veritatem in norat etiam Photinus magnum pietatis, eo nolit accipere Deitatis, id est, qui quod Apostolus memorat, sacramensic dicit Christum hominem, ut Deum tum, qui Christi ex Virgine fatetur neget, non est Christianus Catholicus, exordium: Et propterea non credit sed Photinianus Hæreticus.' Fulg. ad sine initio substantialiter Deum natum

[ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]
« ZurückWeiter »