« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »
same name, it is there done where another besides him who is expressed, cannot be understood : as you have an example here of Deut. vi. 16. you shall not tempt the Lord your God as you tempted him in Massah. But in this speech of the apostle of which we treat, another besides Christ may be understood, as Moses or Aaron; of which see Numb. xxi. 5.'
1. Is there the same reason of these two expressions, 'do not tempt Christ as some of them tempted,' and 'be not refractory against the magistrates, as some of them were ?' Christ is the name of one singular individual person, wherein none shareth at any time, it being proper only to him. Magistrate is a term of office, as it was to him that went : before him, and will be to him that shall follow after him.!
2. They need not to have puzzled their catechumens with their long rule, which I shall as little need to examine: for none can be understood here but Christ. That the word, 'God,' should be here understood, they do not plead; : nor if they had a mind thereunto, is there any place for that plea. For if the apostle had intended God, in distinction from Christ, it was of absolute necessity that he should have expressed it. Nor if it had been expressed, would the apostle's argument been of any force, unless Christ had been God equal to him, who was so tempted.
3. It is false that the Israelites tempted Moses, or Aaron, or that it can be said they tempted them; it is God they are every where said to tempt; Psal. lxxvii. 18. 24. cvi. *14. Heb. jii. 9. It is said indeed that they murmured against Moses, that they provoked him, that they chode with him; but to-tempt him, wbich is to require a sign, and manifestation of his divine power, that they did not, nor could be said to do; Numb. xxi. 3.
Grotius tries his last shift in this place, and tells us from I know not what ancient manuscript, that it is not, let us not tempt Christ, but let us not tempt God.' Error commissus ex notis Ov et Xv.” That neither the Syriac, nor the Vulgar Latin translations, nor any copy, that either Stephanus, in his edition of the New Testament, or in his various lections, had seen, nor any of Beza's, nor Erasmus's who would have been ready enough to have laid hold of the advantage, should in the least give occasion of any
such conjecture of an alteration, doth wholly take off with me all the authority, either of the manuscript, or of him that affirms it from thence.
As they please to proceed, the next place to be considered is, John xii. 41. These things said Isaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him.'
The words in the foregoing verses, repeated by the apostle, manifest, that it is the vision mentioned Isa. vi. that the apostle relates unto. Whence we thus argue; “He whose glory Isaiah saw, chap. vi. was the Holy, Holy, Holy Lord of Hosts, ver. 3. the King, the Lord of Hosts, ver. 5. But this was Jesus Christ, whose glory Isaiah then saw, as the Holy Ghost witnesses in these words of John xii. 41. What say our catechists ?
First, it appears that these words are not necessarily referred to Christ, because they may be understood of God the Father. For the words a little before are spoken of him : ‘he hath blinded, hardened, healed.' Then the glory that Isaiah saw might be, nay was, not present, but future : for it is proper to prophets to see things future, whence they are called Seers; 1 Sam. ix. 9. Lastly, although these words should be understood of that glory which was then present and seen to Isaiah, yet to see the glory of one and to see himself are far different things. And in the glory of that one God, Isaiah saw also the glory of the Lord Christ. For the prophet says there, The whole earth is full of the glory of God; ver. 3. But then was this accomplished in reality, when Jesus appeared to that people, and was afterward preached to the whole world.'
It is most evident, that these men know not what to say, nor what to stick to, in their interpretation of this place. This makes them heap up so many several suggestions contradictory one to another, crying, that it may be thus,' or it may be thus.' But 1. That these words cannot be referred to God the Father, but must of necessity be referred to Christ is evident, because there is no occasion of mentioning him in this place, but an account is given of what was spoken 'ver. 37. ' but though he had done so many miracles before them yet they believed not on him;' to which answers this verse, when he saw his glory, and spake of him.' The other word of blinding, and ‘hardening,' are evidently alledged to give an account of the reason of the Jews'obstinacy in their unbelief, not relating immediately to the person spoken of. The subject matter treated of, is Christ. The occasion of mentioning this testimony, is Christ. Of him here are the words spoken. 2. The glory Isaiah saw was present; all the circumstances of the vision evince no less. He tells you the time, place, and circumstances of it, when he saw the Seraphims, when he heard their voice; when the door moved at the voice of him that cried, when the house was filled with glory, and when he himself was so terrified, that he cried out, Wo is me, for I am undone. If any thing in the world be certain, it is certain that he saw that glory present. 3. He did not only see his glory, but he saw him: or he so saw his glory, as that he saw him, so as he may be seen. So the prophet says expressly; 'I have seen seen the King, the Lord of Hosts.' And what the prophet says of seeing the Lord of Hosts, the apostle expresses by seeing his glory, because he saw him in that glorious vision, or saw that glorious representation of his presence. 4. He did indeed see the glory of the Lord Christ, in seeing the glory of the one God, he being the true God of Israel, and on no other account is his glory seen, than by seeing the glory of tlie one true God. 5. The prophet doth not say, that the earth was full of the glory of God, but it is the proclamation that the Seraphims made one to another concerning that God, whose presence was then there manifested. 6. When Christ first appeared to the people of the Jews, there was no great manifestation of glory. The earth was always full of the glory of God. And if those words have any peculiar relation to the glory of the gospel, yet withal they prove that he was then present, whose glory in the gospel was afterward to fill the earth.
c Primum, ea verba ad Christum non necessario referri hinc apparet, quod de Deo Patre accipi possint; etenim verba paulo superiora de eodeni dicuntur: ex: cæcavit, induravit, sanavit. Deinde, gloriam, quam Esaias vidit, poterat esse, imo erat, non præsens, sed futura. Etenim proprium est vatibus futura videre, unde etiam, videntes appellati fuere, 1 Sam. ix. 9. Denique, etiamsi de gloria ea, quæ tum præsens erat, Esaiæ visa, hæc verba accipias, longe tamen iud est, glorian, alicujus videre, et aliud ipsummet videre. Et in gloria illius unius Dei vidit etiam Esaias gloriam Christi Domini. Ait enim ibidem vates, plena est terra gloria Dei, Esa. vi. 3. Tum autem hoc reipsa factum est, cum Jesus Christus illi populo pri. mum apparuit, et post toti munde annunciatus est.
Grotius hath not aught to add to what was before insisted on by his friends. A représentation he would have this be of God's dealing in the gospel (when it is plainly his proceeding in the rejection of the Jews for their incredulity); and tells you,' dicitur Isaiah vidisse gloriam Christi, sicut Abrahamus Diem ejus :' Isaiah saw his glory, as Abraham saw his day.' Well aimed however; Abraham saw his day by faith, Isaiah saw his glory in a vision ; Abraham saw his day as future and rejoiced; Isaiah so saw his glory, as God present, that he trembled; Abraham saw the day of Christ all the days of his believing ; Isaiah saw his glory.only in the year that king Uzziah died. Abraham saw the day of Christ in the promise of his coming ; Isaiah saw his glory with the circumstances before-mentioned. Even such let all undertakings appear to be, that are against the eternal Deity of Jesus Christ.
In his annotations on the 6th of Isaiah, where the vision insisted on is expressed, he takes no notice at all of Jesus Christ, or the second person of the Trinity. Nor (which is very strange) doth he so much as once intimate, that what is here spoken, is applied by the Holy Ghost unto Christ in the gospel; nor once names the chapter where it is done. With what' mind and intention the business is thus carried, God knows, I know not.
Of the Incarnation of Christ, and his pre-existence thereunto. The testimonies of Scripture, which affirm Christ to have been incarnate, or to have taken flesh, which inevitably proves his pre-existence, in another nature, to his so doing, they labour in their next attempt to corrupt, and so to evade the force and efficacy, which from them appeareth so destructive to their cause; and herein they thus proceed.
*Q. Froma what testimonies of Scripture do they endeavour to demonstrate, that Christ was, as they speak, incarnate?
* A. From these, John i. 14. Phil. ii. 6, 7. 1 Tim. iii. 16. 1 John iv. 2, 3. Heb. ii. 16, x. 11.
. E quibus testimoniis Scripturæ demonstrare conantur, Christum (ut loquuntur) incarnatum esse ?-Ex iis, ubi secundum eorum versionem legitur, Verbum caro factum est. Joan. i. 14. Et qui (Christus) cum esset in forma Dei, &c. Phil. ii, 6, 7. 1 Tim, üi. 16. Heb. ii. 16. Johan, iv. 2, 3. Heb. X. 11.
Of the first of these we have dealt already, in the handling of the beginning of that chapter, and sufficiently vindicated it from all their exceptions ; so that we may proceed immediately to the second.
.Q. Whatb dost thou answer to the second ?
*A. Neither is that here contained, which the adverse party would prove; for it is one thing which the apostle saith, Being in the form of God he took the form of a servant; another, that the divine nature assumed the human." For the form of God cannot here denote the divine nature, seeing the apostle writes, that Christ exinanivit, made that form of no reputation. But God can no way make his nature of no reputation. Neither doth the form of a servant denote human nature, seeing to be a servant is referred to the fortune and condition of a man. Neither is that also to be forgotten, that the writings of the New Testament do once only, it may be, use that word form' elsewhere; viz. Mark xvi. 12. and that in that sense, wherein it signifies, not nature, but the outward appearance, saying, Jesus appeared in another form, unto two of his disciples.
Q. But from those words, which the apostle afterward adds, He was found in fashion as a man; doth it not appear, that he was, as they say, incarnate ?
A. By no means. For that expression contains nothing of Christ's nature: for of Sampson we read that he should be as a man ; Judges xvi. 7. 11. and Psal. 82. Asaph denounced to those whom he called sons of the most high, that they should die like men ; of whom it is certain, that it cannot be said of them, that they were (as they speak) incarnate.
• Ad secundum quid respondes?—Neque hic extare, quod adversa pars confectum velit. Aliud enim est, quod hic Apostolus ait, cum in forma Dei esset, formam servi assumpsit; aliud vero, natura divina assumpsit humanam. Etenim hic forma Dei designare non potest Dei naturam, cum Apostolus scribat eam formam Christum exinanivisse. Deus vero naturam suam nullo modo exinanire potest. Nec vero forma servi denotat naturam humanam, cum servum esse ad fortunam et conditionem hominis referatur. At ne id quoque dissimulandum est, scripta Novi Testamenuti lianc voceni, forma, semel fortassis tantum alibi usurpare, Mark xvi. 12. idque eo sensu, quo non naturam, sed exteriorem speciem significat, cuin ait, Jesum duobis discipulis suis apparuisse in alia forma.
Ex iis vero verbis, quæ Apostolus paulo post subjecit, habitu inventus est ut homo, nonne apparet eum (ut loquuntur) incarnatum esse?- Nullo modo. Etenim ea oratio nibil in se habet ejusmodi. De Sanipsone enim in literis sacris legimus, quod idem futurus erat, ut homo; Judic. xvi. 7. 11. et Psal. Ixxxii. Asaph iis hominibus, quos Deos et filios altissimi vocaveret, denunciat, quod essent norituri ut homines ; de quibus certum est, non posse dici, eos (ut adversarii dicunt), incarnatos fuisse.