The Christian Life Part 2 Volume 2, Notes
NOTES.
Page 35. Line 18.
a FOr thus Tertullian, hunc (i. e. foreign) Zeno determinat factitorem qui cuncta in dispositione formaverit eundemque & fatum vocari & Deum & animum Iovis, Apologet. 36 Pam. i. e. this Word, Zeno declares to be the Maker of the World, who formed all things in a due temper, and is called Fate, and God, and the Soul of Iupiter. And the Ancient Orpheus calls him the foreign, and the foreign, i. e. the divine Word and immortal King, C…em. Strom. l. 5. p. 60▪ So also Numenius the Pythagorean, as he is quoted by S. Cyril, cont. Iul. lib. 8. calls the Father the First, and the Word the Second God. So also Plotinus, Enn. 5. l. 5. c. 3. foreign, (speaking of this divine foreign or foreign) foreign, i. e. and this nature is God, a second God; and as for the Jews it is evident from the Septuagint, and Philo, and the Chaldee Paraphrase that by the Word they meant a divine Person, for Ezek. 1.24. the Septuagint hath changed shaddai, the undoubted name of the Omnipotent God, into foreign the Word, which to be sure they would not have done had they not thought this Word a divine Person; and then as for Philo the Jew, who lived in the Age when this Gospel was written, he expresly calls this Word foreign next to the foreign, i. e. a second God next to the Father of all things, Quaest. & Solut. And elsewhere he tells us. foreign The Word is superiour to the whole World, and more ancient and general than any thing that is made, Leg. Allegor. lib. 2. And again speaking of the Worlds being the Temple of God▪ foreign saith he, foreign, i. e. in which Temple the High Priest is the first-born divine Word of God, de Somn. And in his Book de Profug. he thus discourses of this Word, foreign foreign i. e. this divi…e Word is superiour to all things, it hath no visible species by which it may be likened to any sensible thing, but is it self the Image of God, the most ancient of all intelligibles, and next to the most High, between whom and him there is no medium. A great many other instances I could give out of this ancient Writer, but these are sufficient to prove what I intend, viz. that by the Word he meant a divine Person. And then for the Chaldee Paraphrase, which is one of the most ancient Monuments we have of Jewish Learning, there is nothing more frequent in it than to signifie by this Phrase the Word a divine Person; for instead of Iehovah, or God, in the Hebrew Text they commonly insert the word of Iehovah, to which word they attribute personal actions, by which it is evident that they looked upon it as a divine Person; thus for instance they attribute speech to him, Gen. 3.22. where instead of God said, they render it, the word of God said, Exod. 20.1. instead of the Lord said, they render it, the Word of the Lord said. Again, they attribute hearing to him, Deut. 33.7. where instead of the Lord heard, they insert the word of the Lord heard. And Gen. 3.22. instead of the Lord said, behold the man is become as one of us, the Ierusalem Targum runs thus, the word of the Lord said, behold Adam whom I created is the only begotten in the World, even as I am the only begotten in the highest heavens. And Exod. 19.3. instead of Moses went up unto God, in the Edit. Compluten. it is Moses went up into the presence of the Word of God. So also in Exod. 17.7. instead of I will establish my Covenant between me and thee, it is, I will establish my Covenant between my word and thee. Again, Gen. 19.24. the Paraphrase is, And the word of Jehovah sent benign showers upon Sodom and Gomorrha to try them if they would yet repent of their evil works, which when they saw they concluded, doubtless our evil works are not yet revealed before the Lord, wherefore there was sent down upon them a shower of fire and brimstone from the word of Iehovah in Heaven. So also on Gen. 28.20, 21. Onkelos thus Paraphraseth, If the word of the Lord will be my helper, and lead me in the way which I go, the word of the Lord shall be my God; And on Gen. 5.24. the Ierusalem Targum expresly asserts, that Enoch was drawn up to heaven by the word of the Lord. And also on Gen. 22.14. the same Paraphrase affirms thus, that Abraham worshiped and called upon the name of the word of Iehovah, and said thou art Iehovah, &c. And on Deut. 18.19. thus both Onkelos and Ionathan Paraphrase, He that refuses to hearken to my words, my Word shall take vengeance upon him. And to name no more, on those words of the Hebrew Text, Hos. 14.5. I will be as the dew of Israel, Ionathan thus descants, I by my word will receive their prayers, and have mercy on them. A great many other instances I could give, but these I think are sufficient to expose the great Immodesty of Crellius, who in a set Discourse will needs persuade the World that by the Word in the Chaldee Paraphrase is no where meant a Person, but meerly the speech or vocal Word of God: For how is it imaginable that by this Word they should mean no more than that, when they so commonly attribute to it personal actions, such as speaking, hearing, seeing, and desiring, drawing up men to Heaven, raining down fire and Brimstone from heaven, and taking vengeance upon men? With what tolerable propriety can these things be attributed to a vocal Word? How can a Covenant be made between men and the outward speech or declaration of God? What non-sense would it be to worship and invocate the name of Gods vocal Word, and to say of it, thou art Iehovah? With what tolerable sense can Gods declaration be called God or Gods only begotten in Heaven? Lastly, How can God be said to receive our Prayers, and to have mercy upon us by any such outward declaration? Since therefore it is evident that by this Word they meant a Person, and since to this Person they ascribe not only the Name, but the Worship of God, it is plain they believed him to be a divine Person, and that which is the sense of this ancient Paraphrase in this matter was without doubt the sense of the Jews in the Age wherein it was written. And accordingly Chalcidius ad Timaeum in that book where he professes to explain the Doctrines of the holy Sect. i. e. the Jews deliver this as their sense of this divine word, Et ratio Dei Deus est humanis rebus consulens quae causa est hominibus bene beateque vivendi, si non concessum sibi munus à summo Deo negligant, i. e. this Logos or Word of God is God taking care of human Affairs, and is the cause or principle by which men may live well and happily, if they do not neglect this gift which the supreme God hath granted to them. And to the same purpose Celsus, speaking the sense of the Jews, expresly tells us, foreign foreign· i. e. we agree with you that the Word is the Son of God.
Page 35. Line 20.
b Nay, and that by this Word the Jews mean not only a real and divine Person, but even that very Messias himself, of whom S. Iohn here speaks, is evident, considering that they not only give him the very same Characters that the New Testament gives to our Saviour, such as the foreign, the Character of God, Phil. de Agricul. lib. 2. and foreign, the Image of God, Leg All. lib 2. suitable to Heb. 1.3. such as the Manna, the foreign and foreign, the bread and food which God hath given to the Soul, agreeable to Iohn 6.33.35. such as the foreign, the House of the Father, in which he dwells, ib. de Migrat. Abraham. sutable to Iohn 14.10. but besides this I say, they also attribute to him the very same Offices that the New Testament attributes to our Saviour; for thus as the Scripture attributes unto Christ a Kingly Office under God the Father, so they make this foreign or divine Word, the foreign, i. e. the Governour of all things, and the foreign, the Viceroy of the great King, Ib. de som, & de Agricul. l. 2. where he also tells us, that God who is King and Pastor of the World hath appointed the Word his first begotten Son foreign, to undertake the care of his Sacred Flock as his own Viceroy and Substitute; and so also as the Scripture attributes to Christ the Office of an Intercessor between God and Man; so also the same Author tells us, which is highly worthy our observation, foreign foreign, i. e. but this excellent gift the Father of all things hath bestowed upon the Prince of Angels, the most ancient Word, that standing in the middle he might judge between the Creature and the Creator; and he always supplicates the immortal God for Mortals, and is the Embassador from the supreme King to his subjects, and in this Gift he rejoyces as highly valuing himself upon it, saying, I stood in the middle between you and the Lord, as being neither unbegotten as God, nor yet begotten as you, but am a middle between the extreams, and a pledge for both; for the Creature with the Creator, that he shall not wholly Apostatize from him, so as to prefer disorder before order, and beauty; for the Creator with the Creature, to give him an assured hope that the most merciful God will never abandon his own Workmanship; for I declare peace to the Creature from him who makes Wars to cease, even God who is the King of peace. In which words the same Mediatorial Office, which the New Testament attributes to our Saviour is expresly attributed to this divine Logos. And in the above-cited Book de Agricult. he expresly teaches that this Logos or divine Word was that Angel whom God had promised to send before the Camp of Israel, of which Angel Moses Gerund. as he is quoted by Masius upon Ioshua, Chap. 5. thus speaks, Iste Angelus si rem ipsam dicam, est Angelus redemptor, de quo scriptum est, Quoniam nomen meum in ipso est, ille inquam Angelus qui ad Iacob dicebat, Ego Deus Bethel, ille de quo dictum est, Et vocabat Mosem Deus de rubo. Vocatur autem Angelus quia mundum gubernat, scriptum est enim, Eduxit nos Iehovah (id est Dominus Deus) ex Aegypto: & alibi, Misit Angelum suum & eduxit nos ex Aegypto. Praeterea scriptum est, Et Angelus faciei ejus salvos fecit ipsos: De quo dictum est▪ Facies mea praeibit & efficiam ut quiescat; denique ille Angelus est de quo vates, Et subito veniet ad Templum suum Dominus quem vos quaeritis & Angelus foederis quem cupitis. That Angel, to speak the truth, is the Angel Redeemer of whom it is written, Because my Name is in him, this, I say, is that Angel who said to Iacob, I am the God of Bethel; he is also that Angel of whom it is said, And God called to Moses out of the Bush, for he is called the Angel, because he governs the World, wherefore it is written Iehovah, i. e. the Lord God brought us out of Egypt; and elsewhere, he sent his Angel, and brought us out of Egypt; besides it is written, And the Angel of his face saved them. Of this Angel it is also said, My Presence shall go before the Camp of Israel, and shall cause it to rest. Lastly, This is the Angel of whom the Prophet speaks, The Lord whom ye seek shall suddenly come to his Temple, the Angel of the Covenant whom ye desire. By which last passage it is evident that by this Angel he meant the Messias, to whom all the ancient Jews refer that Prophesie; so that the divine Word, according to Philo, is the Angel that went before the Camp of Israel, and that Angel, according to Moses Gerundensis, is no other than the Messias: and that Philo himself by this Word understood the Messias is evident by his applying those words, Ezek. 6.12. (which the ancient Jews unanimously understood of the Messias) to him in lib. quod deter. potiorib. insid. soleat. But to put all out of doubt the Targums use the Word of the Lord and the Messias promiscuously; for so on those words, Gen. 49.18. I have waited for thy salvation O Lord, the Chaldee Paraphrase thus descants, Our Father Iacob said, I expect not the Salvation of Gideon the Son of Ioas, which is a temporal Salvation, nor the Salvation, of Sampson the Son of Manoah, which is a transitory Salvation, but I expect the Redemption of Messias the Son of David, who shall come and gather together the Sons of Israel, his Redemption my Soul expects; with which the Ierusalem Targum concurs almost word for word, only with this difference, that instead of those words, But I expect the Redemption of Messias the Son of David, it hath these words, But expect the Redemption which thou hast promised to give us by thy Word, that he should come to thy people Israel, which is a plain evidence that by the Messias and this Word they meant the same thing; so also on those words, Even I am he, and there is no God besides me, I kill and I make alive, I wound and I heal. Ionathans Targum runs thus, When the Word of the Lord shall be manifested to redeem his People, he (i. e. the Word of the Lord) shall say to all the people, see now because I am he who was, and is to come, and there is no other God besides me, I kill in my revenge, and reviving do revive the People of the House of Israel, I will heal them in the last days; by which last days is evidently meant the days of the Messias, who therefore must be the same with this Word of the Lord here spoken of.
Page 35. Line ult.
c For as they affirm of their word that he is foreign, i. e. always without time, and alone eternal, vid. Porphyry quoted by S. Cyril, C. Iul. lib. 1. p. 32. that he is foreign, the most ancient Word of God, Phil. de somn. and foreign, the most ancient of all things that are, 16. Leg. Allegor. lib. 2. So S. Iohn affirms of his Word that he was in the beginning, that is, according to the pluinest and most obvious sense at least, that he actually existed in the very beginning of the World, and that consequently he was before all time, and the most ancient of all things. Again, as they affirm of their word, that it is not separated from the first Good or Father, foreign, i. e. but of necessity is together with him▪ being separatee from him only in personality, Plot. En. 5. l. 1. c. 6. So S. Iohn affirms of his Word, that it was with God from the beginning, ver. 2. that is, in an inseparable union and conjunction, for otherwise all other things were as much with God as he. Again, as they affirm of their Word, that he is foreign, the cause or artificer of the World, for so all the Platonick Schools frequently stile him, and so Plato himself, foreign, i. e. which World the Word, which of all things is the most divine, framed and set in order, Epinom. and Philo call him, foreign, the Instrument by whom God made the World, Phil. lib. Chereb. So S. Iohn affirms of his word▪ that all things were made by him, and without him was not any thing made that was made, ver. 3. Again as they affirm of their word that he is, foreign ▪ i. e. if I may coin a word, the Be-er, and that this Be-er, foreign, i. e. is not a dead Be-er, that is neither life nor mind, but that mind and life and Be-er, are the same thing, Plotin. Enn. 5. lib. 1. c. 2. So S. Iohn affirms of his word, that in him was life, ver. 4. As they affirm, that the life or being of their Word was knowledge or understanding, foreign foreign, i. e. neither is this Mind or Word in Potentia; neither is it self one thing, and its knowledge another, but its knowledge is it self, or its own being, ibid. lib. 3. c. 5. So S. Iohn affirms of his Word that his life was the light of men, i. e. that it consisted of knowledge, which is the light of human minds, ver. 4. as they affirm that the foreign, i. e. Intelligible light, proceeded foreign, from the word Phil. de Opif. mund. and that foreign, i. e. that all light is from this word or wisdom, Arist…b. apud Euseb. praepar. p. 324. So S. Iohn tells us of his Word, that he was the true light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world, ver. 9. In short, as they stile their word foreign ▪ i. e. the Son of God, Plot. Enn. 5. l. 8 c 5 And again, foreign, i. e. the Son or Child of God, the full beautiful mind, even the mind that is full of God, as also foreign, i. e. the most ancient Son of the Father of the Universe, Phil. lib. cui Tit. Deterius perf…ctiori semper infestum esse. And also foreign i. e. the first born Son of God, Ibid. lib. 1. de Agricu…t. So S. Iohn stiles his Word the only begotten Son of the Father, ver. 14.18. Thus from first to last, S. Iohn discourses of his Word, and in the same Phrase and Language gives the same account of him as the Jewish and Gentile Divines did of theirs, so that he must be supposed either to mean the same thing by him, viz. a divine eternal Person, or to design to make the World believe he meant so, for he who speaks or writes, must either equivocate and dissemble his meaning, or mean according to the vulgar acceptation of the words and phrases he speaks or writes; so that supposing S. Iohn doth here sincerely express his own meaning; no man that understands the common use and acceptation of his phrases can reasonably understand them any otherwise than of a divine Person, and whether this were not his meaning, at least in all appearance, I appeal to a very indifferent Judge, viz. Amelius, a Pagan Philosopher, who very well understood the Language and Doctrine of the Gentile Schools concerning the divine Legos or Word so often mentioned in their Writings, and who casting his eyes upon this discourse of S. Iohn, doth with all confidence pronounce this to be the sense of them, foreign foreign, i. e. this was that Word who, according to Heraclitus, existed from Eternity, and made all things, and whom, by Iupiter, the Barbarian places in the order and dignity of a Principal, declaring him to have been with God, and to be God, and that all things were made by him, and that in him all things that were had life and being. Vid. Euseb. Praep. Evan. 540.
Page 51. Line 3.
d For thus Porphyry, as S. Cyril quotes him, foreign, i. e. the divine essence extends it self to three persons, whereof the highest God is the Good; after him the second is the Maker of the World; and the third is the Soul of the World; for to this Soul the Divine Essence extends it self: And of these three divine persons Plotinus hath treated at large, whom he expresly calls, foreign, three persons that are principles, viz. the Good or the One, the Mind and the Soul, assuring us that these Doctrines concerning this divine Trinity, foreign· i. e. that they were no▪ new, or of ye…terday, but were anciently, though obscurely taught; and that what is now discoursed concerning them is only a farther explication of them, but we have faithful Witnesses that these Doctrines were taught of old, and particularly in the Writings of Plato himself, before whom also Parmenides delivered them. And indeed Plato very frequently mentions these three divine Persons; particularly, Phileb. p. 30. foreign, i. e. but Wisdom and Mind can never be or act without Soul, wherefore in the Nature of God there is a Kingly Soul, and a Kingly Mind. And indeed so ancient is this Doctrine of three divine Persons subsisting in the Godhead, that Proclus calls it, foreign, the Tradition of the three Gods in Timae. Plat. p. 93. for so they sometimes call these three Persons three Gods, though as themselves elsewhere explain it, they are only three subsistences in the same divine indivisible Essence. And the same Proclus calls this Doctrine of the Trinity foreign which saith he, foreign, i. e. the divinely inspired or delivered Theology which teaches that this World was compleated by these three. By these and sundry other testimonies that might be produced it is evident that the ancient Divines of the Gentiles acknowledged a Trinity of Persons in the Godhead, the last of which they called foreign or Soul, for so thee Chaldee Oracle, quoted by the above-named Proclus,
foreign
foreign
i. e. after the Paternal mind, which in our Language is God the Son, I Psyche or Soul dwell: and this Psyche, or as our Scriptures phrase it Holy Ghost, they stile foreign the most divine Psyche foreign ▪ i. e. whom we may truly say is God and not a Demon, Plotin. Enn. 3. l 5. c. 2. and the same Author tells us of this Psyche that it is foreign, i. e. that it is the word of the Mind or Son as proceeding from him, and the energy or active power by which he operates, all which exactly accords with the Catholick Doctrine concerning the Holy Ghost.
Page 51. Line 3.
e For so the above cited Philo, foreign, i. e. when God accompanied with his two highest powers, viz. Empire and Goodness, the middle being one, he impressed thre… …hantasms on the sensitive or visive Soul, viz. of Abraham. each … which exceed all measure, for these his Powers are all immense, but themselves measure all things. De Sacrif. Abel & Cain. Now that by these Powers he means the second and third Person in the Triune Godhead is apparent, because he afterwards calls God and these his Powers. foreign, the three measures, and tells us, foreign, i. e. that the supreme God is Superior to these Powers of his, and is to be seen without them, and appears in them, which plainly shews, that by these two Powers he means some things that were really distinct from that God whose Powers they were, and therefore since before he had told us that they were both immense, what else can he mean by them but those two divine Persons the Son and the Spirit of God? To the same purpose he discourses, lib. de Cherub. where after he had given some uncertain guesses at the mystical sense of those Cherubs that guarded Paradise, he thus concludes▪ foreign, i. e. but I remember I have heard something more learned from my own Soul, which being often seised with a divine Enthusiasm prophesies of things which it understands not, which so far as I can remember I will here deliver. By which solemn Preface he gives us notice that some very great mystery is to follow, and then he goes on▪ foreign, i. e. My soul said to me with that only true God there are two supreme and first powers, viz. Goodness and Power, and that by the first all things were made, and by the second all things that are made are governed. Since therefore, as I have shewn before, he frequently asserts that all things were made by the Son of God, it is evident that by Goodness here he means the same Son; and if so, what else can he mean by Power but Psyche, or the Holy Ghost. And these three divine Persons he elsewhere stiles, foreign, i. e. the Being, the Ruling, and the Benefick power. l. 2. de Agric. N…e. Thus far this learned Jew, whose Writings, being originally in the Greek Language, have been delivered down to us without any considerable alterations, but it is not to be expected that those Writings of the ancient Jews, which are written and preserved in their own Language should be so express in this Article of the Trinity as those of the Gentiles, because for several Ages they were solely in the possession of the Modern Jews, by whom this Article hath all along been obstinately rejected, and therefore may reasonably be supposed to be castrated by them in all those places where they more openly countenanced the Christian veri…y against them; but yet after all there are sundry passages remaining in them which do very much favour this Article: thus Voisin in Prooem. Pug. fig. quotes this passage from the Book Reschit. Chocmah, c. 3. Tres sunt Dii ut explicatur in Zohar his verbis. Quis est sensus inquit R Iose horum verborum, Deut. 4.7. Cui sunt Dii propinqui, dicendum erat cui est Deus propinquus. Sed est Deus superior: est Deus timoris Isaac, est Deus inferior & ita dicuntur esse Dii propinqui, i. e. there are three Gods as it is explained in the words of the Book Zohar, R. Iose said, what is the meaning of those words, Deut. 4.7. to whom the Gods are near, whereas it should have been said, to whom Gods are near; but there is the superiour God, there is the God of the Fear of Isaac, and there is the inferiour God, and so they are said to be Gods that are near. And Martin Raimund, Pug. fid. p. 396. quo…es a passage out of Misdrasch Tillim, in which there is mention made trium proprietatum quibus creatus est mundus, i. e. of three Proprieties or Persons by whom the World was made. And to the same purpose Rittangelius, in his Notes upon the Book Iezirah, quotes two passages out of Imre Binah, Tria sunt primaria & primordialia capita & coaeterna, idque testatur splendor eorum numerationesque intellectuales in aeternam testantur Trinitatem Regis: There are three prime and primordial Heads and Coeternal, and this their own light testifies, and the intellectual numerations do eternally testifie the Trinity of the King, p. 3. & 36. So also Ainsworth on the first of Genesis quotes another passage from R. Simeon Ben Iocai in Z…ar to the same purpose, which is this, Come and see the Mystery of the word Elohim, there are three degrees, and every degree by its self alone, and yet notwithstanding they all are one, and joyned together in one, and are not divided one from another. But to name no more, Grotius makes mention of some ancient C…b…lists, quoted in a Book called Additamenta ad Lexicon Hebraicum Schindleri, who distinguish God in Tria Lumina & quidem non…ulli iisdem quibus Christiani nominibus Patris, Filii sive Verbi, & Spiritus Sancti, i. e. into three Lights, which some of them call by the same names we Christians do, viz. Father, Son or Word, and Holy Ghost; and indeed, as their most ancient Writings do frequently make mention of the Word under the notion of a divine Person, as hath been shewed before; so they do also the Ruach Hakkodesh or Holy Spirit, to whom their most ancient Writers attribute all Prophesie or Revelation; for so, as I find them quoted by learned men in Pirche, R. Eliezer, c. 39. R. Phineas, inquit, requievit Spiritus Sanctus super Iosephum ab ipsius Iuventute usque ad diem obitus ejus. i. e. the holy Spirit rested upon Ioseph from his youth till the day of his death. And c. 33. R. Phineas ait, postquam omnes illi interfecti fuerant viginti annis in Babel requievit Spiritus Sanctus super Ezekielem, & eduxit eum in convalle Dora & ostendit ei multa ossa, &c. i. e. R. Phineas said, after they were all slain, the holy Spirit rested twenty years upon Ezekiel in Babylon, and led him forth into the Valley of Dora, and shewed him a great number of bones; and indeed it was a Proverbial speech of the Jewish Masters, as Maimonides tells us, More Nev. Part. 2. c. 45. Majestas divina habitat super eum & loquitur per Spiritum Sanctum, i. e. the divine Majesty dwells upon such a one, and he speaks by the Holy Ghost; and that by this holy Spirit they anciently meant a real Person is evident, for so Ionathans Paraphrase on Gen. 1.2. Spiritu misericordiarum qui est ab ante Dominum, stante super faciem aquarum, i. e. the Spirit of mercies who is from before the Lord standing upon the face of the Waters; and Bereschit Rabba speaking of the Spirit that moved upon the face of the Water, Gen. 1.2. expresly affirms, Hic est Spiritus Regis Messiae, this is the Spirit of Messias the King. So Ead. Hal. c. 12. Tempore Regis Messiae, quando constabilitum erit regnum ejus & omnis populus ad ipsum collectus, recensebuntur singuli ex ore Spiritus Sancti: In the time of Messias the King, when his Kingdom shall be established, every one shall be called over by the mouth of the Holy Ghost; in which places there are things and actions expresly attributed to the Holy Ghost which are proper only to a Person; and since by him they understood… a Person, they must necessarily suppose him a divine Person, since by what follows it evidently appears that in their own Scriptures divine perfections were ascribed to him; and by what hath been said, that they believed three divine Persons in the Godhead, and accordingly Eusebius tells us, foreign, i. e. all the Hebrew Divines do acknowledge after the most High God, and after his first-born Wisdom a third holy Power, whom they call the Holy Ghost, affirming him to be God, by whom the Prophets were inspired, Praep. Evang. p. 327.
FINIS.
End of the text · John Scott, The Christian Life Part 2 Volume 2 (1687)