Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

the things; which to say is to make brutes of ourselves, and to frustrate the whole design of God in giving unto us the great privilege of his word."-5. In this way, the sentiments of one man in any point of religion cannot be distinguished from those of another, though diametrically opposite; so an Arian cannot be known from an Athanasian; both will say in the words of Scripture, that Christ is the great God, the true God, and over all God blessed for ever; but without expressing themselves in their own words, their different sentiments will not be discerned; the one holding that Christ is a created God, of a like but not of the same substance with his Father; the other that he is equal with him, of the same nature, substance, and glory: and he that believes the latter, surely it cannot be unlawful to express his belief of it in such words which declare the true sense of his mind. So a Sabellian or Unitarian and a Trinitarian, will neither of them scruple to say in Scripture-terms what Christ says of himself and his Father, I and my Father are one; and yet the former holds, they are one in person or but one person; whereas the latter affirms, that they are one in nature and essence, but twa distinct persons; and surely it must be lawful so to express himself, if this is the real sentiment of his mind. A Socinian and an Anti-socinian will join in saying Christ the Word is God, and that he is the only begotten of the Father, and the only begotten Son of God; and yet the one maintains that he is only God by office, not by nature, and that he is the only begotten son of God by office or by adoption; when the other believes that Christ is God by nature, and that he is the Son of the Father by natural and eternal generation, being begotten by him. It is necessary therefore they should make use of their own words to express their sentiments by, or how otherwise should it be known that they differ from one another? and indeed this seems to be the grand reason why it is urged with so much vehemence, by some, that only Scripture words and phrases should be made use of, that their erroneous tenets may not be detected and exposed; for as a learned man has observed, such as cavil at the formulas (of sound doctrine used by the orthodox) and plead they should be very short, and composed in the bare words of Scripture, cos aliquid monftri alere, these nourish and cherish some monstrous notion, as the experience of all ages testify. And sometimes such persons take detached passages of Scripture from different places, and join them together, though they have no connexion and agreement with each other; and such a method Irenæus observes the ancient heretics took, who made use of passages of Scripture, "that their figments might not seem to be without a testimony; but passed over the order and connection of the Scriptures, and loosened the parts of truth as much as in them lay ;" and who fitly compares such to one who should take the effigy of a king made of jewels and precious stones by a skilful artificer, and loosen and separate them, and of them make the form of a dog or a fox.-6. It does not appear that those men who are so strenuous for the use of Scripture-phrases only in articles of religion, have a greater value for the Scriptures than others; nay, not so much; for if we are to form a judgment of them by their sermons and writings, one would think they never read the Scriptures at all, or very little, since they make such an infre quent use of them: you shall scarcely hear a passage of Scripture quoted by them Adv. Hæres 1. 1. c. I. p. 33.

Witsius in Symbol. Exercitat. 2. s. 21, p. 21.

་་

in a sermon, or produced by them in their writings; more frequently Seneca, Cicero, and others; and it looks as if they thought it very unpolite, and what might serve to disgrace their more refined writings, to fill their performances with them: and after all, it is easy to observe that these men, as the Arians formerly, and the Socinians more lately, carry on their cause, and endeavour to support it by making use of unscriptural words and phrases; and therefore it is not with a very good grace that such men, or those of the same cast with them, object to the use of words and phrases not syllabically expressed in Scripture; and the rather, since the Arians were the first that began to make use of unscriptural phrases, as Athanasius affirms. The Athanasians had as good a right to use the word ouoos as the Arians

, and thereby explain their sense and defend their doctrine concerning the person of Christ, and his equality with God, against the latter, who introduced a phrase subversive of it; and the Calvinists have as good authority to make use of the word satisfaction in the doctrine of expiation of sin and atonement for it, as the Socinians and Remonstrants have for the use of the word acceptilation, whereby they seek to obscure and weaken it. Words and phrases, though not literally expressed in Scripture, yet if what is meant by them is to be found there, they may be lawfully made use of; as some respecting the doctrine of the Trinity; of these some are plainly expressed, which are used in treating of that doctrine, as nature, Gal. iv. 8. Godhead, Col. ii. 9. Perfon, the person of the Father, and the person of Christ, Heb. i. 3. 2 Cor. ii. 10. and iv. 6. and others clearly signified, as essence, by the name of God, I am what I am, Exod. iii. 14. the unity or divine persons in it, John x. 30. a Trinity of persons in the unity of essence, 1 John v. 7. the generation of the Son by and of the Father, Ps. ii. 7. John i. 14, 18. and others respecting some peculiar doctrines of revelation, concerning the state of men and the grace of Christ; as the imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity, Rom. v. 19. and the imputation of righteousness, i. e. of Christ's to them that believe, which is nearly syllabically expressed in Rom. iv. 6. and the imputation of sin to Christ, who was made sin, i. e. by imputation, 2 Cor. v. 21. And the satisfaction of Christ for sin, in all those places where it is signified that what Christ has done and suffered in the room and stead of his people is to the content of law and justice, and God is well pleased with it: and these are the principal words and phrases objected to, and which we shall not be prevailed upon to part with easily. And indeed, words and phrases, the use of which have long obtained in the churches of Christ, and the sense of them is well known, and serve aptly to convey the sense of those that use them; it is unreasonable to require them to part with them, unless others, and those better words and phrases, are substituted in their room; and such as are proposed should not be easily admitted without strict examination; for there is oftentimes a good deal of truth in that saying, qui fingit nova verba, nova gignit dogmata; he that coins new words, coins new doctrines; which is notorious in the case of Arius; for not only Alexander, his bishop, charged him with saying, with out Scripture, and what was never said before, that God was not always a father, but there was a time when he was not a father; and that the Word was not always,

[blocks in formation]

but was made out of things that were not; and that there was a time when he was not a son: but Eusebius1, a favourer of his, also owns that the inspired writings never used such phrases, το εξ εκ οντων, και τό, ην ποτε οτε εκ ην, that Christ was from non-entities, from things that are not, i. e. was made out of nothing; and that there was a time when he was not; phrases, he says, they had never been used to.

The subject of the following pages being theology, or what we call divinity, it may be proper to consider the signification and use of the word, and from whence it has its rise. I say, what we call divinity; for it seems to be a word, as to the use of it in this subject, peculiar to us; foreign writers never entitle their works of this kind, corpus vel fyftema vel medulla divinitatis, a body or system, or marrow of divinity, but corpus vel fyftema vel medulla theologia, a body or system or marrow of theology. The word divinitas, from whence our word divinity comes, is only used by Latin writers for deity or godhead; but since custom and use have long fixed the sense of the word among us, to signify, when used on this subject, a treatise on the science of divine things, sacred truths, and Christian doctrines, taken out of the Scriptures; we need not scruple the use of it. The Jews seem to come nearest to us in the phrase which they use concerning it, calling it, nban vel niban non a science of divinity, or a divine science; that is, a science or doctrine concerning divine things; concerning God; concerning his divinity and things belonging to him; and which, in the main, is the same as to sense with the word theology, as will be seen hereafter; and here, before we proceed any further, it may not be improper to observe, the distinction of the Jewish theology, or the two parts into which they divide it. The first they call 'wa mwon the work of Bereshith or the creation; for Bereshith being the first word of Gen. i. 1. In the beginning God created, they frequently use it to signify the whole work of the creation; so that this part of their theology respects the creatures God has made, and the nature of them; whereby the invisible things of God, as the apostle says, are discerned, even his eternal power and godhead; and this is their physics or natural Theology. The other branch is called n n the work of the chariot", which appellation is taken from the vision in Ezek. i. of the four living creatures in the form of a chariot, which is the more abstruse and mysterious part of their theology; and may be called their metaphysics or supernatural theology; and which treats of God, and of his divine attributes; of the Messiah; of angels, and the souls of men; as in the book of Zohar, and other cabalistic writings. But to go on.

Theology is a Greek word, and signifies a discourse concerning God and things belonging to him; it was first in use among the heathen poets and philosophers, and so the word theologue. Lactantius says, the most ancient writers of Greece were called Theologues; these were their poets who wrote of their deities, and of the genealogies of them; Pherecydes is said to be the first that wrote of divine things; so Thales says, in his letter to him, hence he had the name of Theologue; though some make Museus, the son of Eumolphus, the first of this sort; others give the title to Orpheus. Pythagoras, the disciple of Pherecydes, has also this character;

1 Apud Theodoret. Hist. l. 1. c. 12. Maimon. præfat. al More Nevochim, par. 1. vita ejus, Ib. in vita Pi elecydis.

Vid. Buxtorf. Talmud. Lex. Col. 752.

• De Ira c. 11.

Ib. Procem.

n Vid. Apud Laert L 1. in

and Porphyry', by way of eminence, calls him the Theologue; and who often in his writings speaks of the Theologues'; and this character was given to Plato; also Aristotle makes mention of the Theologues, as distinct from naturalists, or the natural philosophers; Cicero also speaks of them, and seems to design by them the poets, or the authors of mystic theology. The Egyptians had their theology", which they communicated to Darius, the father of Xerxes; and so had the magi and the Chaldeans; of whom Democritus is said to learn theology and astrology. The priests of Delphos, are called by Plutarch, the Theologues of Delphos. It is from hence now that these words Theology and Theologues have been borrowed, and made use of by Christian writers; and I see no impropriety in the use of them; nor should they be thought the worse for their original, no more than other words which come from the same source; for though these words are used of false deities, and of persons that treat of them; it follows not but that they may be used, with great propriety, of discourses concerning the true God, and things belonging to him, and of those that discourse of them. The first among Christians that has the title of Theologue, or Divine, is St. John, the writer of the book of the Revelation; for so the inscription of the book runs, "the Revelation of St. John the Divine." In the Complutensian edition, and so in the King of Spain's Bible, it is, "the Revelation of the holy Apostle and Evangelist, John the Divine." Whether this word Theologue, or Divine, was originally in the inscription of this book, I will not say; but this may be said, that Origen, a very early Christian writer, gives to John the title of the Divine, as it should seem from hence; and Athanasius*, in his account of the sacred writings, calls the book of the Revelation, "the Revelation of John the Divine;" and who also stiles him "John the Evangelist and Divine." These words Theologue and Theology are to be met with frequently in the ancient fathers, in following ages, and in all ages, and in all Christian writers to the present times. Upon the whole, it appears that Theology, or Divinity, as we call it, is no other than a science or doctrine concerning God, or a discoursing and treating of things relating to him; and that a Theologue, or a Divine, is one that understands, discourses, and treats of divine things; and perhaps the Evangelist John might have this title eminently given to him by the ancients, because of his writing concerning, and the record he bore to Christ, the Acyos, the essenti 1 Word of God, to his proper Deity, divine Sonship, and distinct personality. Suidas not only calls him the Divine and the Evangelist, but says, that he wrote theology; by which he seems to mean the book of the Revelation, which book some have observed contains a complete body of Divinity. Here we are taught the divine authority and excellency of the sacred Scriptures; that there is but one God, and that he only is to be worshipped, and not angels; that God is the Triune God; that there are three Persons in the Godhead, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; that God is eternal, the Creator, and Preserver of all things; that Christ is truly God and truly man; that he is prophet, priest, and king; that men are by nature wretched, blind,

[blocks in formation]

naked, poor, and miserable; that some of all nations are redeemed by the blood of the Lamb; and that they are justified and washed from their sins in his blood; the articles of the resurrection of the dead, the last judgment, the sad estate of the wicked, and the happiness of the saints, may be observed in it.

And as we are upon this subject, it may not be amiss if we take a brief compendious view of the sate of theology; or, if you please, divinity, from the beginning of it to the present time. Theology may be considered either as natural, which is from the light of nature, and is attained unto through the use and exercise of it, or supernatural, which is come at by divine revelation.

Natural theology may be considered either as it was in Adam before the fall, or as in him and his posterity since the fall. Adam, before the fall, had great knowledge of things, divine as well as natural, moral and civil; he was created in the image of God, which image lay in knowledge, as well as in righteousness and holiness; before he came short of this glory, and lost this image, or at least was greatly impaired and obliterated in him by sin, he knew much of God, of his nature and attributes, of his mind and will, and the worship of him; he had knowledge of the persons in God, of a Trinity of persons who were concerned in the creation of all things, and in his own; and without which he could have had no true knowledge of God, nor have yielded the worship due to each divine person: not that all the knowledge he had was inmate, or sprung from the light of nature within himself; but in it he was assisted, and it was capable of being increased by things without, as by symbols, the tree of life in the midst of the garden, &c. by positive precepts relating to the worship of God, and obedience to his will, as the prohibition to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, the institution of marriage, &c. and through a constant and diligent contemplation of the works of creation; nor can we suppose him to be altogether without the benefit and advantage of divine revelation; since he had such a near and immediate intercourse and converse with God himself; and some things he could not have known without it; as the creation of the world, the order and manner of it; his own formation out of the dust of the earth; and the formation of Eve from him, that she was flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bone, and was designed of God to be his wife, and an help-meet to him, and who should be the mother of all living; with other things respecting the worship of God, and the manner of it, and the covenant made with him as a federal head to all his posterity that should spring from him. These, with many other things, no doubt, Adam had immediate knowledge of from God himself. But this kind of theology appeared with a different aspect in Adam after his fall, and in his posterity; by sin his mind was greatly beclouded, and his understanding darkened; he lost much of his knowledge of God, and of his perfections, or he could never have imagined that going among the trees of the garden would hide him from the presence of God, and secure him from his justice. What a notion must he have of the omnipresence of God? and what also of his omniscience, when he attempted to palliate and cover his sin by the excuse he made? and he immediately lost his familiar intercourse with God, and communion with him, being drove out of the garden; and as for his posterity, descending from him by ordinary generation, they ap ear to be in the same case and circumstances, without God in the world, without any true knowledge of him, and fellowship with him; they

« AnteriorContinuar »