Chapter I:6a: False Theologies: Pseudo-Christian

After Etymology and Synonymy follows Homonymy.  In which it is to be observed that the term Theology is used of Theology, either False, or True, which we take up to be explained in this order.

Theology is said to be called False, either equivocally or by catachresis,[1] as it errs to a greater or lesser extent; in almost the same manner the Devil also goes by the name of a God, 2 Corinthians 4:4.  This False Theology is best able to be described as fourfold, Pseudo-Christian, Mohammadan, contemporary Jewish, and Gentile.  Now, the limitations, with which we are circumscribed, will not bear for us to sketch out these False Theologies κατὰ μέρος, severally.

With respect to the Pseudo-Christianity of Heretics:  These heresies are either more ancient or recent.  Those More Ancient are set forth in Ecclesiastical History by their individual ages:  and, as far as the earlier ages are concerned, a Catalogue of Heresies among the Fathers was composed by TERTULLIAN,[2] EPIPHANIUS,[3] THEODORET,[4] PHILASTRIUS,[5] and also AUGUSTINE; whose Liber de Hæresibus, illustrated by the splendid Commentario of the most illustrious DANÆUS,[6] is read among the Opuscula of the latter.  Add from More Recent Authors STAPFER’S[7] Appendix concerning the Heresies of the first ages of the Christian Church, Theologicæ polemicæ, tome 5, pages 313-452, who also treats of Pelagianism,[8] but separately, Theologicæ polemicæ, tome 4, chapter XVI, pages 483-524; likewise Naamlyst der ketters volgens de order der Eeuwen in PICTET’S[9] Theologia Christiana, volume 3, pages 217-254.

The more recent Pseudo-Christianity is either of the Papists, or Socinians, or other Heretics, for example, the Enthusiasts, Arminians, etc., concerning whose Errors and opinions ought to be consulted the Controversiarum Elenchi, for example, of Frederick Spanheim the Younger, PICTET’S Syllabus Controversiarum, HOORNBEEK’S Summa Controversiarum; and also Theologiæ Elencticæ, among which that of the Most Illustrious FRANCIS TURRETIN especially deserves to be commended.

In particular, concerning Popery are able to be added CHAMIER’S[10] Panstratia Catholica, 5 tomes, 2 volumes in folio; or FRIEDRICH SPANHEMIUS’[11] Chamierus contractus, likewise in folio; RIVET’S[12] Collegium Controversiarum inter Orthodoxos
et Pontificios
, which is found in tome 2 of his Opera, and also his Catholicus Orthodoxus, which you have in tome 3 of his Opera; AMES’[13] Bellarminus enervates; CABELJAUW’S[14] Catholyk Memorie-voek; STAPFER’S Theologicæ polemicæ, tome 4, chapter XIV, pages 67-334; and many similar works.  HOORNBEEK discusses Popery in his Summa Controversiarum, book IV, pages 210-347, where he advises that there is to be careful observation of:  1.  Popery’s rise, first in corrupt rites, then in order, next in worship, Sacraments, government, and finally doctrines; 2.  its development from the time of Boniface III in the year 606[15] and thereafter; 3.  its ἀκμὴν/height in the time of Gregory VII, made Pope in the year 1073;[16] 4.  its decline, through much opposition, especially of the Waldenses,[17] whom many have followed in Reformation; 5.  the desperate state of Popery, in the Tridentine Council of the year 1545,[18] and thereafter.  That the doctrine of the Papal Church is a pallium stitched together from the tattered rags of Old heresies, our AUTHOR teaches in Oratione II, after Exercitationes Miscellaneæ.  Concerning Popery, or concerning the Principles of the Roman Church, see also the discussion of LEYDEKKER in his Veritas Euangelica triumphans, tome I, book I, chapter XI.

The heresy of the Socinians began in the middle of the Sixteenth Century.  It has its name from the two principal authors of the sect, 1.  Lælius Socinus of Siena, who died in Zurich in the year 1562 at the age of thirty-seven;[19] 2.  Faustus Socinus, who was born in the year 1539, in Siena of Italy; after he was made the heir of the Library and Manuscripts of his Uncle in 1562, he lived in Italy, passing his time in the hall of the Duke of Florence; thence he went to Basel in the year 1574, afterwards called out unto Transylvania in the year 1577; finally he withdrew into Poland in the year 1579, where he live both at Kraków, then at Luslawice, in which district he died in the year 1604 at the age of sixty-five.  This he did in all places:  the dictates and theology of his Uncle he imbibed and developed to the fullest extent.  Beginning from the year 1570 he wrote many books.  Socinus obtained many followers, who undertook to disseminate the new doctrines, especially in the regions of Transylvania and Poland, and gradually withdrew into separate assemblies, indeed in Poland beginning from the year 1562:  see HOORNBEEK’S Summa Controversiarum, book VII, pages 441-454; and his Apparatum ad Controversias et Disputationes Socinianas:  who also, as equal to all the rest together, is to be consulted on the Socinian Controversies in his Socinianismo confutato, which he wrote in 3 volumes quarto.  Add the Most Illustrious CLOPPENBURG’S[20] several tractates in tome 2 of his Opera; ARNOLDI’S Refutationem Catecheseos Racovianæ; MARESIUS’[21] Hydram Socinianismi expugnatam adversus Volkelium de vera Religione, 3 volumes in quarto; STAPFER’S Theologicæ polemicæ, tome 3, chapter XII, which treats of Socinianism and the Anti-trinitarians, pages 350-583; and, lest I should mention a great many, among the Lutherans ABRAHAM CALOVIUS’[22] Scripta Anti-Sociniana, 3 volumes in folio.  Concerning Socinianism see also LEYDEKKER’S Veritas Euangelica triumphans, tome I, book I, chapter IX; and WEISMANN’S[23] Historia Ecclesiastica Novi Testamenti, part 2, Section XVII, § XIX, pages 521-567.  Concerning the Agreement of the Errors of the Socinians with the more ancient heresies see MARCKIUS’ Orationem IV, after his Exercitationes Miscellaneæ.

Concerning the Enthusiasts see HOORNBEEK’S Summa Controversiarum, book VI, pages 401 and following; likewise his tractate de Paradoxis et heterodoxies Weigelianis.[24]  Against the men of this family see, among others, JOHANNES CROCIUS’[25] Anti-Weigelium; and, against the Enthusiasts together, STAPFER’S Theologicæ polemicæ, tome 4, chapter XV, pages 335-482, in which he treats generally of the Fanatics, specifically of the hypotheses of the Quakers, Antoinette Bourignon,[26] Pierre Poiret,[27] Valentin Weigel, Jacob Böhme,[28] the Pseudo-mystics, Dippelius;[29] see also GERARD CROESE’S[30] Historiam Quakerianam; WEISMANN’S Historia Ecclesiastica Novi Testamenti, part 2, Section XVII, in which he narrates a History of the Quakers, § XIX, pages 567-598.  Concerning the agreement between the ancient and modern Enthusiastical Errors see the discussion of our Most Illustrious AUTHOR in his Oratione III, after his Exercitationes Miscellaneæ.

Concerning Anabaptism HOORNBEEK treated in his Summa Controversiarum, book V, pages 347-400; WEISMANN, in his Historia Ecclesiastica Novi Testamenti, part 1, Section XVI, § LXI, pages 1694-1699, and part 2, Section XVII, § XX, pages 598-620.  Against their errors these are to be consulted before all others:  CLOPPENBURG’S Gangræna Theologiæ Anabaptisticæ, published in forty-eight disputations; FREDERICK SPANHEIM’S[31] Disputationum theologicarum, part 2, which in thirty-two disputations takes in a number of celebrated Anti-anabaptistical controversies, and in particular in the first Disputation traces the origin, progress, sects, names, and dogmas of the Anabaptists; and also the Reverend DORESLAER and AUSTRO-SYLVIUS tegen de Wederdooperen;[32] likewise STAPFER’S Theologicæ polemicæ, tome 5, chapter XVIII, pages 1-55.

Concerning the Arminians the Most Illustrious HOORNBEEK treats in his Summa Controversiarum, book VIII.  Against their errors see the Most Illustrious AMES’ Scripta Anti-Synodalia, and his rescriptionem ad Grevinchovium; the Censuram Confessionis Remonstrantium, written by the Professors of Leiden;[33] the Most Illustrious JACOBUS TRIGLAND the Elder’s[34] Antapologiam, which, as writing on these controversies, is to be preferred before all; the Most Illustrious PIERRE DU MOULIN’S[35] Anatomen Arminianismi; the Most Illustrious ANTONIUS WALÆUS’[36] Responsionem ad Corvini Censuram in Anatomen Arminianismi Petri Molinæi; the Most Illustrious JAN VAN DEN HONERT’S[37] de Gratia particulari; STAPFER’S Theologicæ polemicæ, tome 4, chapter XVII, pages 525-606; and many more.  Concerning Arminianism see also LEYDEKKER’S Veritas Euangelica triumphans, tome I, book I, chapter X.  The Arminians by another name are called Remonstrants from a certain writing, which they call Remonstrantie, delivered to the Princes of Holland in the month of July, 1610, concerning which TRIGLAND discusses at greater length in his Kerckelycke Geschiedenissen, volume 4, pages 521-552.  LAMPE judges too benignly of the Arminians in his Introductione ad Catechesin Heidelbergensem, question 7, number I, compared with question 14, where he writes that the Reformed, the Lutherans, and before others ἐπιεικεῖς, men suitable, among the Arminians and Anabaptists:  all whom he asserts to be united in the foundation of the faith, and hence that all γνήσια/legitimate members of this Church of Protestants are, not only to tolerate each other, but also to extend the right hand of brotherhood to each other after the likeness of the true Philadelphia.



[1] That is, an improper use of terms.

[2] Tertullian wrote several works against heresy, including Adversus Gnosticos Scorpiace, Adversus Praxeam, Adversus Marcionem.  The Adversus Omnes Hæreses, traditionally ascribed to him, is thought by many to be spurious.

[3] Panarion (Medicine-Chest against Heresies).

[4] Hæreticarum fabularum compendium.

[5] Diversarum Hereseon Liber.

[6] Lambert Danæus (c. 1530-1596) was a French minister and theologian.  He labored as a pastor and Professor of Divinity at Geneva, and then at Leiden.

[7] John Frederick Stapfer (1708-1775) was a Swiss Reformed divine of the first order.  He served as a Pastor in the canton in Berne.  His Institutiones theologicæ, polemicæ, universæ, ordine scientifico dispositæ ranks among the best elenctic theologies.

[8] Pelagius (c. 354-c. 420/440) was an opponent of Augustine; he denied Augustine’s doctrine of total depravity and the freeness and sovereignty of God’s grace.

[9] Benedict Pictet (1655-1724) was a Swiss Reformed theologian, and cousin of the great Francis Turretin.  He served as a pastor in Geneva, and was appointed Professor of Theology in 1686.  He is a transitional figure, having been influenced both by Genevan theological orthodoxy and some measure of Enlightenment philosophy.  Among other works, he wrote Theologia Christiana and Morale chrétienne.

[10] Daniel Chamier (1565-1621) was a Huguenot theologian.  He studied at the University of Orange and at Geneva under Theodore Beza.  After his ordination, he was installed as pastor at Montélimar.  In 1607, he established an academy at Montpellier, and served there for a time as professor, concluding his career as Professor of Theology at Montauban (1612).

[11] Friedrich Spanheim the Elder (1600-1649) studied at Heidelberg and Geneva.  He served the academy at Geneva, first as Professor of Philosophy, then as a member of the theological faculty, and finally as rector.  In 1642, he was appointed as Professor of Theology at Leiden, and became a prominent defender of Calvinistic orthodoxy against Amyraldianism.

[12] Andrew Rivet (1573-1651) was a Huguenot minister and divine.  He ministered at Sedan and at Thouara; he went on to teach at the University of Leiden (1619-1632) and at the college at Breda.  His influence among Protestants extended well beyond France.

[13] William Ames (1576-1633) was taught by William Perkins and Paul Bayne.  Because of his strict Puritan views, he departed from England for Holland.  At the Synod of Dort, Ames served as adviser to Johannes Bogerman, the synod’s president.  He was appointed as a professor at Franeker (1622).  His Medulla Theologiæ was heavily influential throughout the Reformed world.

[14] Pieter Cabeljauw (c. 1608-1668) was a Reformed theologian.

[15] Boniface III was elected in 606, but did not take up the office until 607 (and served less than a year).  He is significant in the annals of the Papacy in that, due to his relationship with the Byzantine Emperor Phocas, he was able to secure for the Bishop of Rome the title of Universal Bishop.

[16] Hildebrand of Sovana (c. 1020-1085) was elected Pope in 1073, taking the name Gregory VII.  Gregory VII was a reforming pope, condemning simony and confirming celibacy among the clergy.  He is most remembered for his conflict with Emperor Henry IV, in which he asserted the prerogatives of the papacy, requiring Henry to recognize his bans and excommunications, and reserving the appointment of bishops for himself.  Gregory VII did much to advance the power and pretensions of his office.

[17] The Waldenses were a medieval, proto-Reformation group, scattered throughout south-eastern France and northern Italy; they were committed to the study of the Scriptures (for the correction of doctrinal error in the Church), and the preaching of God’s Word.

[18] The Council of Trent was an Ecumenical Council of the Roman Catholic Church.  It met from 1545-1563.  It was decidedly a Counter-Reformation council, defining Roman Catholic doctrine as over against that of the Reformation.

[19] Lelio Sozzini (1525-1562) was an Italian humanist and anti-Trinitarian reformer.  His principal significance is in the influence that he had over his nephew, Fausto Sozzini.

[20] Johann Cloppenburg (1592-1652) was a Dutch Reformed theologian and controversialist.  He studied at the University of Leiden, and held various ministerial posts until his appointment as professor at the University of Harderwijk (1641), and then at Franeker.  He was a lifelong friend of Voetius, and colleague of Cocceius at Franeker.

[21] Maresius, or Samuel Desmarets (1599-1673), was a French Huguenot minister and polemist.  He held various ministerial posts, and served as Professor of Theology at Sedan (1625-1636), and at Groningen (1643-1673).

[22] Abraham Calovius (1612-1686) was a champion of Lutheran orthodoxy.  He served the University of Wittenberg as Professor of Theology, and later as general superintendent.  He opposed Socinians, Roman Catholics, and Calvinists, denying the possibility of the salvation of any of these.  His Systema locorum theologicorum stands at the apex of Lutheran scholastic orthodoxy.

[23] Christian Eberhard Weismann (1677-1747) was Professor of Theology at the University of Tubingen.

[24] Valentin Weigel (1533-1588) was a German theologian and mystic.  He served as a Lutheran pastor at Zschopau, and wrote voluminously.  He kept his more radical ideas to himself, and lived peacefully.  Contrary to the dogmatic tendency of the age, Weigel believed that internal illumination is superior to all external means of spiritual knowledge.

[25] Johannes Crocius (1590-1659) was a Reformed theologian.  He was appointed as Professor of Theology at Marburg (1618), at Kassel (1629), and then again at Marburg (1653).

[26] Antoinette Bourignon (1616-1680) was born in French Flanders.  She was mystic, believing that she had been specially chose by God to restore true Christianity.  Her influence extended through the Dutch Republic unto Holstein and Scotland.

[27] Pierre Poiret (1646-1719) was a French mystic, and disciple of Antoinette Bourignon, publishing her works (as well as those of other mystics, ancient and modern).

[28] Jacob Böhme (1575-1624) was a German theologian and mystic.  In his formative years, he was influenced by the writings of Weigel and Schwenckfeld.  Although Böhme had no formal education, he wrote prolifically, and had an enthusiastic following.

[29] John Conrad Dippel (1673-1734) was a Hessian eccentric pietistic divine and alchemist.

[30] Gerard Croese (1642-1710) was a Dutch pastor and theologian.

[31] That is, the Elder.

[32] Petrus Jakobus Austro-Sylvius (died 1647) was a Reformed Pastor in North Holland.  He was commission by the synod of North Holland to prepare a refutation of the errors of the Mennonites.  Progress on the work was slow until Abraham à Doreslaer (died 1655), a learned Dutch Reformed pastor and theologian, was appointed to help (1627).  The result is massive 856 pages of careful comparison between the doctrines of the Reformed and of the Mennonites.

[33] Namely, Johannes Polyander, Andre Rivet, and Antonius Walæus.

[34] Jacobus Trigland the Elder (1583-1654) was a Dutch Reformed pastor and theologian.  He was deputed by the Synod of North Holland to the Synod of Dort; he was a member of the committee appointed to draw up the Canons of Dort.  In 1633, he became Professor of Theology at Leiden.

[35] Pierre du Moulin (1568-1658) was a Huguenot pastor and theologian.  He served as Professor of Theology at Sedan (1621-1658).

[36] Antonius Walæus (1573-1639) was a Dutch Reformed minister and theologian.  He studied at Leiden under Franciscus Junius, Lucas Trelcatius, and Franciscus Gomarus.  He was appointed as a professor at Middelburg (1609), and in this capacity he attended the Synod of Dort.  In 1619, Walæus became a member of the theological faculty at Leiden.  He joined Johannes Polyander, Andre Rivet, and Anthony Thysius in the composition of the Synopsis purioris theologicæ.

[37] Jan van den Honert (1693-1758) was a Dutch Reformed theologian.  He served as Professor of Theology at Utrecht (1727-1734), and later at Leiden (1734-1758).

Chapter I:5: The Synonyms of “Theology”

Among other Synonyms of the term Theology found in Scripture, our AUTHOR observes what is called the Form/Type of doctrine, Romans 6:17, ὑπηκούσατε δὲ ἐκ καρδίας εἰς ὃν παρεδόθητε τύπον διδαχῆς, by ye have obeyed from the heart that form/type of doctrine unto which ye were delivered for instruction, τύπον/type[1] in the place of τύπῳ/type,[2] because the relative ὃν/ which precedes; what it has subjoined to itself here, it attracts to its own case; compare Acts 21:16, ἄγοντες παρ᾽ ᾧ ξενισθῶμεν, Μνάσωνί τινι Κυπρίῳ, bringing one, with whom we should lodge, Mnason of Cyprus, etc.:[3]  see GLASSIUS’ Grammaticorum Sacrorum tractatu II, canon 20, page 209.

Just as our Most Illustrious AUTHOR also adds μόρφωσιν τῆς γνώσεως καὶ τῆς ἀληθείας, the form of knowledge and of the truth, out of Romans 2:20, διδάσκαλον— ἔχοντα τὴν μόρφωσιν τῆς γνώσεως καὶ τῆς ἀληθείας ἐν τῷ νόμῳ, a teacher…having the form of knowledge and of the truth in the law.  It is evident that, while μορφὴ is the form of a thing, both external, by which it is discerned, and internal, by which it is constituted; μόρφωσις (a verbal noun from μορφόω, to form, to shape, to delineate, to give form) is nothing other than delineation, formation.  Therefore, when Paul says that the Jew “is confident that he is a guide of the blind, a light to those that are in darkness, an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, ἔχοντα τὴν μόρφωσιν τῆς γνώσεως καὶ τῆς ἀληθείας ἐν τῷ νόμῳ, having the form of knowledge of the truth in the law;” this μόρφωσις/form/ formation shall denote, not a vain and empty sort of knowledge, nor the informing of others, but the form, or delineation, of saving wisdom and truth, exhibited in the Scriptures and also its Legal part:  or you might read, having a deformation of knowledge, etc., with the sense continued, so that these things might perhaps have regard unto the persuasion of the Jew:  or with BEZA you might translate it, because thou hast, so that these things might declare the foundation of the prior confidence:  see our AUTHOR’S ExercitationesMiscellaneæ, Disputatio VII, textualis XVII, page 349.

But also unto the same purpose our AUTHOR relates the other passage in which the term μόρφωσις/form/formation is found, namely, 2 Timothy 3:5, where occurs μόρφωσις εὐσεβείας, a form of godliness.  This phrase many refer to an external and hypocritical show and mask of Piety; which Paul would oppose by its true exercise and power, through which alone he prevails before God, and which is of the integrity of the heart.  Our AUTHOR rather translates it, the deformation of piety, yet not in an active sense with Erasmus, Vatablus,[4] Estius,[5] as if they be ἔχοντες μόρφωσιν εὐσεβείας, having a form of godliness, who shape others in piety and prescribe what is needful to be done, although they themselves do not at all apply those things; to such an extent that μόρφωσις/form would be education:  but in a passive sense, in such a way that μόρφωσις εὐσεβείας, a form of godliness, would be ὑποτύπωσις, a delineation, pattern, doctrine, form, norm of Piety, which they, concerning whom the Apostle speaks, were holding as made known to themselves, and were professing externally.  For the confirmation of which exegesis he observes, 1.  that this signification of the term μορφώσεως is especially natural in context, and singular in the Scripture of the New Testament, by a comparison with that passage, Romans 2:20, which has just now been explained.  2.  That the Apostle continues this in verse 5, a description of the men, concerning whom he had also treated in verses 2-4; but those are openly impious, and impudently attached to disgraceful acts of every sort, to such an extent that to them no appearance, either common, or extraordinary, of piety is able to be attributed in any way; it is indeed rendered correctly, to have a ὑποτύπωσιν/sketch of piety, while many impious men of this sort are among them, who hear, read, and profess themselves to accept the doctrine of Piety, while they take the name of true Christians, in comparison with Titus 1:16.  3.  That in this way plain and without any difficulty is the opposition between μόρφωσιν εὐσεβείας, a form of godliness, and δύναμιν αὐτῆς, the power of it, whether of Godliness, or of the same μορφώσεως/form.  Since this is the power, which saving doctrine, commending and declaring piety through the work of the Spirit, has in the faithful, that it converts the soul, and draws it from vices unto virtues.  Now, this power they deny in their persons and by their example, who, although hearing and professing this doctrine, yet are unwilling to yield to it.  4.  He observes that this is supported by the admonition which is subjoined to these words, καὶ τούτους ἀποτρέπου, and from these turn away.  For this, α.  supposes that these men are able to be identified, which concerning hypocrites is often quite difficult; β.  appears to involve a certain opposition to those that were described in 2 Timothy 2:16-18, 23, 25, namely, heretics and those opposing sound doctrine, who consequently were not receiving the doctrine and true form of Piety.  But in addition to these the Apostle wishes those to be avoided that were retaining pure doctrine, but were dishonoring it by wicked behavior:  see again our AUTHOR’S Exercitationes Miscellaneæ, Disputatio VII, textualis XVII, page 345-354.



[1] In the Accusative case.

[2] In the Dative case.  The verb ὑπακούω, to obey, normally takes the Dative case.

[3] As in the preceding example, the verb ἄγω, to lead, normally takes an accusative object, but, because the preceding relative ᾧ/whom is Dative, Μνάσωνί/Mnason has also been set down in the Dative.

[4] Francis Vatablus (c. 1485-1547) was a prominent Hebrew scholar, doing much to stimulate Hebraic studies in France.  He was appointed to the chair of Hebrew in Paris, 1531.  Although a Roman Catholic, his annotations (Annotationes in Vetus et Novum Testamentum) found employment among Protestants and Catholics alike.

[5] William Estius (1542-1613) was a Flemish Catholic scholar; he labored first as a lecturer on Divinity, then as the Chancellor at Douai.  In his commentary writing, as exemplified in his Commentarii in Sacram Scripturam and Commentarii in Epistolas Apostolicas, he focuses on the literal meaning of the text; he was highly regarded for his abilities as an exegete.

Chapter I:4: The Spoken Word of God, and Conclusions about the Term “Theology”

But here by the λόγον προφορικόν, Word uttered, we understand the Word brought forth from God Himself to men, in which sense ὁ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ, the word of God, occurs in the places cited by the AUTHOR, and in a great many others.  In 1 Peter 1:23, in the words διὰ λόγου ζῶντος Θεοῦ καὶ μένοντος εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth forever, ζῶντος καὶ μένοντος εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, living and abiding forever, is to be referred to λόγον/word, rather than to Θεὸν/God:  1.  because Peter here is more concerned with the commendation of τοῦ λόγου Θεοῦ, the word of God, than of God Himself; and, 2.  This description of the word of God is opposed to the σπορᾷ φθαρτῇ, perishable seed, previously mentioned; and, 3.  he illustrates at the same time the comparison with the σπορᾶς ἀφθάρτου, imperishable seed, under which the Word/Speech of God comes in this same verse, and so I would not render the text with BEZA,[1] by the word/speech of God, who liveth and abideth forever; but by the word of God, which word liveth and abideth forever.

And so the term Theology ought not to be rejected as altogether ἄγραφος/unwritten.  Doubtlessly, 1.  composites follow the nature of their simple components:  but the simple components, or first-formed words, of which the term Theology is composed, are not only ἔγγραφοι/written, but are also used in Sacred Scripture to signify speech concerning the true God:  and therefore the compound word is also rightly used in the same sense.  2.  This term has long been used in this sense by the Christian Church; while in Section II we now find that JUSTIN Martyr made use of the term θεολογεῖν, to theologize, in the place of to speak of divine things, in Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, page 340, Ἀλλὰ διὰ τὶ μὲν ἓν ἄλφα πρώτῳ προσετέθη τῷ Ἀβραὰμ ὀνόματι θεολογεῖς, but thou dost theologize as to why one alpha is added to Abraham’s first name.  Then ORIGEN, in his Against Celsus, book II, page 104, says of Christ:  Αὐτὸς θεολογῶν ἀπήγγειλε τὰ περὶ Θεοῦ τοῖς γνησίοις αὐτοῦ μαθηταῖς·  ὧν ἴχνη ἐν τοῖς γεγραμμένοις εὑρίσκοντες, ἀφορμὰς ἔχομεν θεολογεῖν, that is, “He discussed the divine words/speeches concerning God before His genuine disciples:  of whose instruction finding the footsteps in the Scriptures, we thence have occasion of discoursing concerning God;” and thus onward.  3.  Moreover, it is most apt to denote this discipline; but the τεχνικὰ/technical terms, which properly and emphatically declare their subject, are not rashly to be rejected.

If someone should then say:  A word ἔγγραφος/written ought to be preferable to one ἀγράφῳ/unwritten:  but Theology is a word ἄγραφος/unwritten; on the other hand, certain Synonyms of it are ἔγγραφα/writtenResponses:  1.  It is demonstrated from what has already been said that the minor is not simply true:  it is ἄγραφος/unwritten with respect to sound, but not with respect to sense; with respect to syllables and formally, but not materially.  2.  We limit the major; unless an ἄγραφος/unwritten word is to be to be employed for the sake of exposition, to explain divine things, or to guard against errors, unto which end we make use of the words Trinity, ὁμοουσίου/homoousios/same-substance, Original Sin, etc.  It is one thing to make use of a word that is ἄγραφος/ unwritten αὐτολεξεὶ, in express terms; it is quite another to devise dogmas beyond Scripture:  the latter is altogether sinful, but not the former.

The pagans misused this term, but we claim a genuine use for it:  as is equally lawful that, and in the very Scripture, the terms Θεοῦ/God, ἐκκλησίας/church, ἐπισκόπου/bishop, etc., are used in a sounder, holier, and sublime sense than was done formerly among the Gentiles.



[1] Theodore Beza (1519-1605) served as Rector of the Academy and Professor of Theology in Geneva.  He was the colleague, then successor, of Calvin.  He issued a Greek New Testament, and later published his Annotationes in Novum Testamentum.  He authored notable theological works, such as Tractationes Theologicæ and Summa Totius Christianismi, as well as poems and contributions to the Huguenot metrical psalter of Clement Marot.

Chapter I:3b: The Personal Word of God

Ὁ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ, the word of God, is more frequently found in the Sacred Writings, but with a twofold signification.  For sometimes ὁ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ, the word of God, is the personal name of the Son of God; which signification of this expression is especially observed in the writings of the Apostle John, John 1:1, 14; 1 John 5:7; Revelation 19:13.  Indeed, undoubted John, in the Gospel of John 1, speaks of the personal and substantial Λόγῳ/ Logos/Word, asserting that He was in the beginning, with God, and God Himself, that through Him all things were made, that in Him was life and the light of men, that for a testimony to Him John came, that He came unto His own, by His own He was not received, but to those receiving Him He gave the power τέκνα Θεοῦ γενέσθαι, to become the sons of God, that finally He was made flesh, and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth, seen in the glory of the Only-Begotten of the Father, of whose fullness we all receive grace for grace.  Add 1 John 1:1-3, where He is called ὁ λόγος τῆς ζωῆς, the Word of Life.

Concerning the reason for the denomination, when the Son of God is called ὁ Λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ, the Word of God, it is controverted with the Socinians, who deny the true Deity of the Son[1] (see Socinus’ Explicatio initii capitis 1 Johannis, opera, tome I, page 78; Slichtingium[2] in Johannem 1:1, opera, tome I, pages 3, 4; Wolzogenium[3] in Johannem 1:1, opera, pages 714, 715, compared with the Prolegomena, chapter VI, pages 706, 707; Catechesin Racoviensis “de Cognitione Personæ Christi”, chapter I, questions 80, 81, page 109, where you may read:  From this, that Christ is the Word of God, the divine nature in Christ is not able to be shown, indeed the opposite is gathered.  For, since He is the Word of that one God, it appears that He is not that one God….  But Jesus is called the Word or speech of God, because He has related the entire will of God to us, as in the same place John to a lesser degree related it, No one has seen God at any time, etc., John 1:18, just as also in the same sense He is called both the life and the truth:  but compare the Most Illustrious ARNOLDI’S[4] refutationem Catechesis Racovianæ, on the place cited, § 1-4, pages 315, 316; SPANHEIM’S Elenchus Controversiarum, Opera, tome 3, column 813; HEINRICH ALTING’S[5] Theologia elenctica nova, locus 3, pages 109-112; our AUTHOR’S Exercitationes XXXVI, Part VI, Exercitatio textualis § 12), with whom in this cause Hobbes is to be reckoned, who in Leviathan and its Appendix wrote:  “Word in the holy tongue is often taken for the very thing that was decreed or promised, and is thus to be understood in John 1, and he desires to seek nothing further concerning the mystery of the Incarnation.  Christ is called the Word of God, because He was promised from the beginning:  in the beginning He was with God, because God had decreed from eternity that He was going to come and assume human flesh.  In the same sense, in 1 John 1, He is called the Word of life and eternal life, which was with the Father; and in Revelation 19:13 His name is the Word of God, as if John would say, This is He, whom God had decreed from eternity was going to come and had promised in the beginning of the world.”  See COCQUIS’ Hobbesianismi Anatomen, locus 14, chapter 27, § 3, pages 525, 526.

It here appears that in the language of λόγου attention is to be given to the meaning of speech or word, more than of reason; since, α.  it, to the wordדָּבָר /word among the Hebrews, to which λόγος here corresponds, far more agrees; β.  this, for the language of λόγου, from the verb λέγω, I say, is the primary signification; and γ.  in the New Testament it is by far the most frequent and almost alone.  At the same time, the Son of God is able to be called the λόγος/word, rather than the ῥῆμα/word, with a certain strong regard for the other meaning of reason, as if the Son of God should be called the Rational and Most Wise Word of God.

More correctly, the Son is able to be called the Word of God metonymically:  whether by metonymy of the adjunct in place of the subject, because He is the principal argument/subject of the divine Word, both the prophetic Word formerly, and also the evangelical Word afterward under the New Testament; or by metonymy of the effect in the place of the cause, because God sets forth unto men His entire Word through the Son as the supreme and divine Prophet, not only under the New Testament, Hebrews 1:1, but also under the Old, 1 Peter 1:11.

Yet far more preferably by the name of the Λόγου/Logos/ Word the person of the Son and His eternal subsistence is declared to us metaphorically, as we hold against the Socinians who deny it:  for, α.  this name is attributed to the Son, when mention is made, on the one side of Jehovah or the Father, on the other side of the Spirit, as of divine persons distinguished among themselves by these names; whence the middle name of the Word shall be of the same, rather than of a different, order.  β.  This name is also substituted for the name of the Son, which is in Matthew 28:19, just as also John attributed to the incarnate Word the glory as of the Only Begotten of the Father, John 1:14, and he adds that God set forth to us, not the Word, but the Only Begotten Son of God, τὸν ὄντα εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρός , which is in the bosom of the Father, John 1:18.  γ.  This name is attributed to Christ, when there is regard, not to the Gospel, which was proclaimed after the Fall, but to the first Creation:  whence also then it is evident that it is actually applicable to Him with respect to His eternal subsistence.  Just as by this name, δ.  He is set forth to us as with God from of old and God Himself, and the cause of all things, and finally assuming flesh as another nature.  And so the Son is first and primarily called the Λόγος/Logos/Word metaphorically, because, 1.  just as a word is distinguished and goes forth from the person speaking, so also the Son by eternal Generation is distinguished and goes forth from the Father, by a comparison with Micah 5:1; 2.  just as a word expresses the interior thoughts of the mind, so also the Son perfectly relates the Father as His Image and Representation, having the same essence in a distinct subsistence, Hebrews 1:3; John 14:9.  Thus BASIL the GREAT explains the name Λόγου/ Logos/Word in the case of the Son of God, Homilia in initio Euangelii Johannis, Opera, tome I, page 435, Διατί λόγος; ἵνα δειχθῇ ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ νοῦ προῆλθε·  διατί λόγος; ὅτι ἀπαθῶς ἐγεννήθη·  διατί λόγος; ὅτι εἰκῶν τοῦ γεννήσαντος, ὅλον ἐν ἑαυτῷ δεικνὺς τὸν γεννήσαντα, οὐδὲν ἐκεῖθεν ἀπομερίσας·  καὶ τέλειος ὑπάρχων καθ᾽ ἑαυτόν·  ὡς καὶ ὁ ἡμέτερος λόγος ὅλαν ἡμῶν ἀπεικονίζει τὰν ἔννοιαν, Why the Word? so that it might be shown that He went forth from the mind.  Why the Word? so that it might be shown that He was begotten without suffering.  Why the Word? so that it might be shown that He is the image of the one having begotten, showing forth in Himself the whole of the one begetting, taking nothing away from Him; and existing of Himself complete; as also our word expresses our whole thought.  Compare the reason for the denomination Λόγου/ Logos/Word given by the Most Illustrious TURRETIN[6] in his Decade Disputationum, Disputatione V,[7] § 8-11; MARCKIUS’ Exercitationes textuales XXXVI, Part VI, Exercitatio § 2, and Judicium Ecclesiasticum laudatum, chapter III, § 6, page 79, § 11, pages 101, 102, in which he also denies against Roëll[8] that the name of the Word or Speech, given to the Son, has regard uniquely or primarily unto the Mediatory Utterance; but, with the relation of this name to the Office of the Mediator admitted, nevertheless it is primarily referred to the Going Out of the Son from the Father, whom He expresses in His own Person not otherwise than the speech of the mouth expresses our internal Thoughts.  Compare also the Great SPANHEIM’S Decad. theol. quinta, § 8, Opera, tome 3, columns 1222, 1223.

It is asked then, whence did John draw this use of the term λόγος/Logos/Word, whether from the monuments of the Platonic Philosophy, or from the writings of Philo the Jew,[9] to which Le Clerc inclines;[10] see MARCKIUS’ Exercitationes, cited immediately after § 14.  I respond rather that the Holy Spirit dictated this term to him, consistently with the style of the Old Testament, in which, for example, in Psalm 33:6, the discussion concern the substantial, creating Word, in contradistinction to the word of commandment, concerning which verse 9.  Haggai 2:5 is able to be added, which entire passage is explained of the Son of God most truly, and far ἐμφατικοτέρως, more emphatically, than of a word προφορικῷ/uttered; see our AUTHOR’S Commentary on this passage.  To which, moreover, our AUTHOR, in his Exercitationes textuales XXXVI, § 13, Part III, joins Isaiah 9:8, since this verse is to be referred, not as a beginning to what follows, but as a conclusion to those things which had preceded in verses 6 and 7; and is to be explained of the sending of the Son of God into the world, and His manifestation among the Jews.  The Dutch Annotators give it as a thing to be considered also, whether the discussion in 2 Samuel 7:21 concerns the substantial Word of God,בּעֲב֤וּר דְּבָֽרְךָ֙ וּֽכְלִבְּךָ֔ עָשִׂ֕יתָ אֵ֥ת כָּל־הַגְּדוּלָּ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את , for thy word’s sake, and according to thine own heart, hast thou done all this greatness, which Word of God in 1 Chronicles 17:19 shall then be called the Servant of God,בַּעֲבוּר עַבְדְּךָ, for thy servant’s sake, with the title given κατ᾽ ἐξοχὴν, preeminently, to Messiah in the oracles of the Prophets.[11]  BULL,[12] in his primitive et Apostolica Traditione de Jesu Christi Divinitate, chapter V, pages 24-29, undertakes to prove that JUSTIN Martyr did not learn in the School of Plato those things that he discusses περὶ τοῦ Λόγου, concerning the Word.  But also THEODORET, in his de curatione Græcarum Affectionum, Sermon IV, opera, tome 4, page 534, shows that Plato himself learned from the Scripture of the Hebrews those things which he delivers concerning the Λόγῳ/Word as the maker of the world:  Δείκνυσι δὲ ἡμῖν καὶ τὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγον τὰ πάντα δημιουργοῦντα·  ἐκ γὰρ τῆς Ἑβραίων καὶ ταῦτα ἐδιδάχθη γραφῆς, he shows to you the Logos/Word of God fabricating all things; for out of the Scripture of the Hebrews he was taught these things.

It is asked, moreover, whether in the New Testament John alone by this name speaks of the Son of God?  Our AUTHOR thinks that this is to be denied, and rather he joins with John the Gospel of Luke 1:2, in which the greatest emphasis and propriety of the words is preserved, if the words be taken of the αὐτόπταις/eye-witnesses and ministers of the substantial Λόγου/ Word, comparing 1 John 1:3; 1 Corinthians 4:1:  see our AUTHOR’S Exercitationes textuales XXXVII, Part III, § 14.  One and another text from the Acts of the Apostles comes near, in which either Peter or Paul speaks.  To this purpose our AUTHOR, in his Exercitationes textuales XXXVI, Part III, following Athanasius, relates the words of Peter in Acts 10:36, τὸν λόγον ὃν ἀπέστειλε, etc., the Word which God sent, etc.  By an Atticism the accusative here is in the place of a nominative, see PASOR’S Grammatica Græca sacra Novi Testamenti, page 667, λόγον in the place of λόγος ὃν ἀπέστειλε, clearly in a manner similar to Matthew 21:42, Λίθον[13] ὃν ἀπεδοκίμασαν οἱ οἰκοδομοῦντες, οὗτος ἐγενήθη εἰς κεφαλὴν γωνίας, the stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner; 1 Corinthians 10:16, τὸν ἄρτον[14] ὃν κλῶμεν, οὐχὶ κοινωνία τοῦ σώματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐστιν, the bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?; so that thus the force of the active verb following influences not only the relative pronoun, but also the preceding substantive noun.  GLASSIUS, in his Grammaticorum Sacrorum tractatu II, canon 20, page 209, says, the relative pronoun sometimes draw its antecedent unto its own case.  Now, our AUTHOR thinks that the λόγον/word here declared is best held to be the substantial Word; if you consider, 1.  that the sending of this λόγου/word to the children best agrees with Christ, ὃν ἀπέστειλε τοῖς υἱοῖς Ἰσραήλ, whom He sent to the children of Israel; 2.  that the words immediately following, εὐαγγελιζόμενος εἰρήνην διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, preaching peace by Jesus Christ, thus cohere with the former word smoothly and more aptly:  For thus we shall have declared here the work of God in the sent Christ, which is the preaching of peace among the children of Israel; but also through the names, proper and known, of Jesus Christ the more sublime name of the sent Preacher is explained, which was the Word; as if it were said that He then sent the Word to the Israelites, when through Jesus Christ He preached peace to this people:  3.  that the pronoun οὗτός/He at the end of the verse[15] is not able more suitably and aptly to be referred to another noun than to that of λόγου/word, which was set down at the beginning of the verse:  for the rest are read between commas; but the principal noun λόγος/word at the beginning of the verse, disconnected from the rest with respect to the construction, has nothing thus far answering to it to perfect the sense; whence, when in the manner of resumptive speech it is said, οὗτός ἐστιν πάντων Κύριος, He is Lord of all, this in the manner of a predicate is to be referred to the principal subject, ὁ λόγος, the Word:  and if it pertain unto those words most nearly preceding, Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, Jesus Christ, ὃς/who[16] would be read rather than οὗτός/ He:[17]  but this is true of the Word preaching, not of the word preached; for He is Lord of all, not only by providence, but also by grace:  4.  that thus admirably are opposed to each other the preceding Sending of τοῦ λόγου, of the Word, to the Children of Israel, and the consequent universal Dominion:  5.  that thus the words of this clause best cohere both with what immediately precedes, and with those things which follow.

In the same manner our AUTHOR, in his Exercitationes textuales XXXVII, Part III, § 1-3, judges of the words of Paul in Acts 13:26, ὑμῖν ὁ λόγος τῆς σωτηρίας ταύτης ἀπεστάλη, to you the Word of this salvation is sent, in which place he urges, α.  this emphatic description, ὁ λόγος τῆς σωτηρίας ταύτης, the Word of this salvation, as John makes mention of τὸν λόγον τῆς ζωῆς, the Word of life;[18] and perhaps in a sense ὁ λόγος τῆς σωτηρίας ταύτης, the Word of this salvation, will be ὁ λόγος τῆς σωτηρίας οὗτος, this Word of salvation; which sort of description certainly agrees most precisely with the Son of God, σωτηρίῳ τοῦ Θεοῦ, to the salvation of God, to the God of our Salvation:  β.  the sending of this λόγου/Word to the Israelites, comparing this with Acts 10:36:  γ.  the context, antecedent and consequent, in which there is not express mention of the Gospel of Christ, but rather a repeated mention of Christ Jesus Himself, as raised up by God, indeed as raised up a Savior for Israel;[19] nay more, after verse 26 Paul repeatedly speaks of the person of Christ only by the pronouns οὗτος, this man, and αὐτὸς/he, which is hardly able to be referred to any other noun in our text than ὁ λόγος, the Word.  Now, in both places, Acts 10 and 13, perhaps the Apostles had regard unto the passage cited in Isaiah 9:8.

Thus our AUTHOR on the place cited, Exercitationes XXXVII, Part III, § 4, thinks that the words of Paul in Acts 20:32 are referred, not indeed necessarily, but nevertheless more plainly and fully, to the divine person of the Son, than to the word of the Gospel.  But he also inclines to this, that Paul to the Hebrews, aware of this appellation out of the Old Testament, is best thought to have composed the words of Hebrews 4:12 concerning the substantial Λόγῳ/Word, unto which end he wishes to be attended to, Exercitationes textuales XXXVII, Part III, § 5-13, 1.  both all and the individual things predicated of τοῦ Λόγου τοῦ Θεοῦ, the Word of God, that are here read; and which certainly agree with the word of the Gospel in a sense far weaker, but agree with God and the Son of God with the greatest emphasis:  2.  and the context immediately following, in which by the pronoun αὐτὸς/He[20] we are directed to return to the subject of the discussion most recently named, which is not Θεὸς/God, but ὁ Λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ, the Word of God; just as the things predicated in verse 13 agree with those things that are said of Λόγῳ τοῦ Θεοῦ, the Word of God, in verse 12, and make for the confirmation of them.  In verse 14, the Apostle proceeds to speak of the Son of God, to a certain extent drawing the language from what precedes.  And, that the entire preceding context favors, more than opposes, this exegesis, our AUTHOR most clearly demonstrates.  See GOMAR,[21] in Johannes 1, opera, part I, pages 267, 268a, who went before our AUTHOR in this observation concerning the Son of God, impressed with the name Λόγος/Word in the New Testament, not only by John, but also by Luke and Paul.

However, it is not possible for us to boast against the Jews excessively concerning this phrase, מֵימְרָא דַיוי, the Word of Jehovah,[22] or מֵימְרִי, my Word,[23] found so many times also in the Chaldean Paraphrases when God Himself speaks, as if that denomination of the Word therein also is to be referred to the second hypostasis of the Trinity.  There are certainly a fair number of places, in which this expression is able best to be explained of the Son of God.  Nevertheless, this signification of this expression is not uniform or even necessary.  On the contrary, as HACKSPAN[24] and others observe, it is a certain Chaldean form of speech, in which מימר/ Word is the same as נֶפֶשׁ/breath/soul to the Hebrews, and עֶצֶם/ substance/essence/self to the Rabbis, in a reciprocal sense, which the divine language is able to exhibit by no pronoun.  Thus concerning Solomon you read in Ecclesiastes 1:2, אֲמַר בְּמֵימְרֵיהּ, he said by his word, he said by himself, or under his own power, Vanity of Vanities, etc.:[25]  Genesis 17:2, I shall give my covenant, בֵּין מֵימְרִי וּבֵינָךְ, between my Word and thee,[26] that is, בֵּינִי וּבֵינֶךָ, between me and thee:[27]  Isaiah 42:1, Behold my servant, Messiah, unto whom I shall approach; mine elect, in whom מֵימְרִי, my Word, has delighted:  I shall put my Holy Spirit upon Him.[28]  In which place מֵימְרִי, my Word, most certain corresponds to the Hebrew נַפְשִׁי, my soul:  neither is it able to be understood in any way of Messiah; since the word of the Lord is expressly said to have delighted in its servant, Messiah, and to that extent that word is distinguished from Messiah.  But also at the time of the embellished Paraphrases the doctrine of the Trinity and of the Deity of the Son was already greatly corrupted among the Jews; so that it is hardly likely that this was the mind of the Targumists, to speak of the Son of God under the name of the word of the Lord, and thus to express the divine mode of His subsisting.

See concerning this name Λόγου/Logos/ Word, attributed to the Son of God, and all, which I have recalled on this occasion, besides our Most Illustrious AUTHOR’S Exercitationes textuale, Part III, Exercitationes XXXVI, XXXVII, and Part VI, Exercitatio XXXVI; DEYLING’S[29] Observationes Sacræ, Part I, Observatio XLIX; CARPZOVIUS’[30] Critica Sacra Veteris Testamenti, part II, chapter I, § 6, pages 479-481; SUICERUS’ Thesaurus Ecclesiasticus, tome II, columns, on the word Λόγος/Logos; RITTANGELIUS’[31] Libram Veritatis, and especially that set before this treatise, namely, JOHANNES VAN DER WAEYEN’S[32] Dissertationem de Λόγῳ adversus Johannes Clericus.

“Some Theologians say,” says our AUTHOR, “that this is Λόγον ἐνυπόστατον, that is, the substantial Word, even ἐνδιάθετον, the imminent[33] Word; although the Greeks understand this latter word differently.”  That is, before the times of Arius,[34] the Fathers, who had passed from the Platonic to the Christian school, having been soaked in their own philosophical opinions, often spoke very unsuitably and imprudently concerning diving things and the subsistence of the persons in the Trinity, although it is evident that they perceived better of another subject.  And among these harsh conceptions concerning divine things ought also to be numbered that they sometimes attribute to the Son a twofold, divine Generation, one from all eternity, by which the Λόγος ἀΐδιος, eternal Word, was internally in God, just like an infant carried in the maternal womb after conception; the other, just a little before the creation of the world, in the beginning of things, through whom God produced and, as it were, revealed that which had lain hidden in His bowels.  And in the prior Generation Theophilus[35] says that the Λόγον/Word was ἐνδιάθετον/imminent; but in the second Generation, προφορικόν/uttered:  see Doctor WILHELMIUS’ Prefatio before the Most Illustrious PAULUS HULSIUS’[36] Miscellanea Sacra ̽ ͓ ̽ ͓ ̽ ͓ ̽ ͓ I.  Now, BASIL the GREAT, in his Homilia in initio Euangelii Johannis, Opera, tome I, page 435, explains the Λόγον προφορικόν and ἐνδιάθετον, Word uttered and imminent, of human speech and cogitation:  Ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῦ Λόγου διπλῆ τίς ἐστιν ἔννοια.  ὁ μὲν γὰρ τίς ἐστιν ὁ διὰ τῆς φωνῆς προφερόμενος·  οὗτος ὁ μετὰ τὸ προενεχθῆναι τῷ ἀέρι ἀπολλύμενος.  ὁ δὲ τίς ἐστιν ὁ ἐνδιάθετος ἐνυπάρχων ἡμῶν ταῖς καρδίαις, ὁ ἐννοηματικός, but also there is a certain twofold notion of the Word:  For the one is brought forth by the voice; this is released into the air after being uttered:  The other is imminent, existing in our hearts, notional.  And in both senses ATHANASIUS, in his Exposition Fidei, tome I, page 240, denies that the Son of God is called the λόγον/Word, λόγον δὲ οὐ προφορικόν, οὐκ ἐνδιάθετον—ἀλλὰ υἱὸν αὐτοτελῆ, nor yet the Word pronounced by elocution, or conceived in the soul by cogitation…but the Son perfect in Himself.



[1] Fausto Paolo Sozzini, or Faustus Socinus (1539-1604), was the father of Socinianism, a rationalistic heresy (denying the Deity of Christ, the satisfaction theory of the atonement, etc.), an aberration of the Reformation.

[2] Jonas Schlichting (1592-1661) was a theologian of the Socinian Polish Brethren.  He wrote commentaries on most of the books of the New Testament, including the Gospel of John.

[3] Johann Ludwig von Wolzogen (1599-1661) was an Austrian noble (Baron of Tarenfeldt and Freiherr of Neuhäusel), and Socinian theologian.  He also distinguished himself as an exegete by his commentaries on the Gospels, Acts, James, and Jude.

[4] Nicolaus Arnoldi (1618-1680) was Professor of Theology at Franeker (1651-1680).

[5] Heinrich Alting (1583-1644) was a German Reformed divined, specializing in Ecclesiastical History and Historical Theology.  He served as Professor of Theology at Heidelberg (1613-1622), and then Professor of Historical Theology at Groningen (1627-1644).

[6] Francis Turretin (1623-1687) was a Genevan Reformed theologian of Italian descent.  After studying at Geneva, Leiden, Utrecht, Paris, Saumur, and Montauban, he was appointed as the pastor of the Italian refugee congregation in Geneva (1648), and later Professor of Theology at academy (1653).  His Institutio Theologiæ Electicæ has been heavily influential in Reformed circles, shaping Charles Hodge’s Systematic Theology and Herman Bavinck’s Gereformeerde dogmatiek.

[7] That is, “De tribus testibus cœlestibus, ex 1 Joanne 5:7”.

[8] Hermann Alexander Roëll (1653-1718) was a Dutch Reformed theologian and philosopher, serving as Professor of Philosophy and Theology at Franeker (1685-1704) and Professor of Natural Theology at Utrecht (1704-1718).

[9] Philo was a first century Jewish scholar of Alexandria, Egypt.  In him, one finds a synthesis of Platonic philosophy and Hebrew exegesis and theology.

[10] Jean Le Clerc (1657-1736) was educated in Geneva, under the tutelage of Philippe Mestrezat and Francis Turretin, and ordained in circa 1680.  His sympathy for the theology of the Remonstrants made it impossible for him to continue in Geneva.  He settled as Professor of Philosophy at Amsterdam (1684-1731).

[11] See, for example, Isaiah 49:6; Ezekiel 34:23, 24; Haggai 2:23; Zechariah 3:8.

[12] George Bull (1634-1710) was an Anglican theologian and Bishop of St. David’s.  He was fully orthodox with respect to his Trinitarian theology, but heterodox with respect to his assertion of the necessity of good works for justification, and therefore sometimes accused of Socinianism.

[13] The expected form is the nominative, λίθος.

[14] The expected form is the nominative, ἄρτος.

[15] Acts 10:36:  “The word which He sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ:  (he [οὗτός] is Lord of all:)…”

[16] The relative pronoun.

[17] The demonstrative pronoun.

[18] 1 John 1:1.

[19] Verse 23.

[20] Hebrews 4:13:  “Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his (αὐτοῦ) sight:  but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him (αὐτοῦ) with whom we have to do.”

[21] Francis Gomar (1569-1641), as Professor of Divinity at Leiden (1594), was a colleague and opponent of Jacob Arminius.  After the Arminian conflict, he held a variety of academic posts.

[22] See, for example, Genesis 9:16:  “And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God (מֵימְרָא דַיוי, the Word of Jehovah, in Targum Onkelos) and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth.”

[23] See, for example, Genesis 9:12:  “And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me (מֵימְרִי, my Word, in Targum Onkelos) and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations…”

[24] Theodoricus Hackspan (1607-1659) was a Lutheran divine and eminent Oriental scholar.  He served at Altdorf as Professor of Hebrew (1636-1654), and Professor of Theology (1654-1659).

[25] Thus the Targum.

[26] In the Targum.

[27] Thus the Hebrew.

[28] Thus the Targum.

[29] Salomon Deyling (1677-1755) was a Lutheran divine and Orientalist; he served as Professor of Theology at Leipzig (1721-1755).

[30] Johann Gottlob Carpzov (1679-1767) was a Lutheran divine and Old Testament scholar.  He served at Leipzig as Professor Theology (1713-1719), and Professor of Hebrew (1719-1730).

[31] Johann Stephan Rittangel (1602-1652) was Professor of Oriental Languages at Königsberg, a great authority on Karaite Judaism, and ever a proponent of Jewish-Christian reconciliation.

[32] Johannes van der Waeyen (1639-1701) was a Reformed divine; he served as Professor of Hebrew and Theology at Franeker (1677-101).

[33] That is, residing in the mind.

[34] Arius (c. 250-336) was a presbyter of the church in Alexandria, Egypt.  He denied the Son to be of one substance, and co-equal Deity, with the Father.  His views precipitated the Arian controversy, and led to the calling of the First Ecumenical Council at Nicea (325).

[35] Theophilus (died c. 183) was Bishop of Antioch.  His only remaining writing is his Ad Autolycum, in which he presents an apology for the Christian religion and a polemic against paganism.  Ad Autolycum is the earliest extant Christian writing to use the word Trinity.

[36] Paulus Hulsius (1653-1712) was a Reformed theologian; he served as Professor of Theology at Groningen (1708-1712).

Chapter I:3a: Cognates of “Theology” Found in the Scriptures

The words composing the name of Theology are extant in Holy Scripture:  for example, τὰ λόγια τοῦ Θεου, the oracles/ sayings of God, Romans 3:2; Hebrews 5:12.  As is apparent, τό λόγιον, the saying, and τὰ λόγια, the sayings, with this word used substantively, is able to be reckoned as more emphatic than τό ῥῆμα, the word/utterance, or even ὁ λόγος, the word/saying:  for this term among the Greeks denotes, not just any word, but more specifically an oracle, a divine response.  The Grammarians add that they use λόγια of divine responses given in prose, but χρησμοὺς/oracles of divine responses pronounced in verse; nevertheless, this distinction is not abiding, and indeed now it does not particularly apply to our matter:  see Henri Estienne’s Thesaurus Linguæ Graecæ,[1] the Scholiast of Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War on book II, chapter VIII, pages 102, 103, and the notes on these Scholia, page 624, number II.  And so the sacred Writers by this name most fittingly indicate Oracles set forth by the true God.  In passing the Attic elegance of the expression in the construction of the words in Romans 3:2, ὅτι ἐπιστεύθησαν τὰ λόγια τοῦ Θεου, that entrusted were the oracles of God, is able to be observed:  for the expression, ἐπιστεύθησαν τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις τὰ λόγια, were entrusted to the Jews the oracles, is not to be supplied here, that λόγια/oracles might be the nominative and subject of the clause; thus the word would rather have been ἐπιστεύθη, was entrusted, since among the Greeks a neuter plural rejoices in a singular verb:  but οἱ Ἰουδαίοι ἐπιστεύθησαν τὰ λόγια, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles, so that λόγια/oracles might be in the regular accusative, and constitute the predicate of the clause.  Indeed, among the Greeks, especially the Athenians, passive verbs elegantly imitate the signification and case of their words:  thus 1 Corinthians 9:17, οἰκονομίαν πεπίστευμαι, a dispensation is committed to me; Galatians 2:7, πεπίστευμαι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τῆς ἀκροβυστίας, καθὼς Πέτρος τῆς περιτομῆς, to me was committed the gospel of the uncircumcision, as to Peter of the the circumcision; Philippians 3:8, δι᾽ ὃν τὰ πάντα ἐζημιώθην, because of whom I have suffered the loss of all those:  see the Most Illustrious PASOR’S Grammatica Græca sacra Novi Testamenti, page 373-375, 678, and also his Lexicon Græco-Latinum in Novum Testamentum on the word πιστεύω, to trust.

Ὁ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ, the word of God, is more frequently found in the Sacred Writings, but with a twofold signification….



[1] Henri Estienne, or Henricus Stephanus (c. 1530-1598), was the eldest son of Robert Estienne, who had printed several famous editions of the Greek New Testament.  Henri continued in the family printing business, editing, collating, and preparing many classical works for the press.  His most famous work is his Thesaurus Linguæ Graecæ, which was a standard work in Greek lexicography until the nineteenth century.

Chapter I:2: History of the Use of the Term Theology and Its Cognates

According to the AUTHOR, the use of the word proceeded from the Gentiles.  Among whom he who is related as the first to have described the origins of things, the religion of the Egyptians and Phœnicians, namely, Sanchuniathon the Phœnician,[1] goes by the name of θεολόγου/theologian in EUSEBIUS’ Præparatio Euangelica, book I, chapter IX, page 31, just as those things which he left behind, written under the title, ἡ φοινίκων θεολογία, The Theology of the Phœnicians, are praised by THEODORET, in his de curandis Græcorum adfectionibus, sermon II, opera, tome 4, page 501.  For the same reason, the most ancient Poets, who wrote θεογονίας/theogonies,[2] are called Theologians:  AUGUSTINE, in his de Civitate Dei, book XVIII, chapter XIV, “Through the same interval of time were the Poets, who may also be called Theologians, since they were composing songs about the gods, but about such gods that were, although great men, yet mere men, etc.”  But skill in sacred rites and in divine things was going by the name of θεολογίας/theology, and was conferring the title of θεολόγου/ theologian to such an one:  Orpheus is said to have attained great glory among the Greeks ἐπὶ μελῳδίᾳ καὶ τελεταῖς καὶ θεολογίαις , by the singing of songs, by the institution of sacred rites, and by the interpretation of divine things,[3] in DIODORUS SICULUS’ Bibliotheca Historia, book I, chapter XXIII, page 27.  CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA, in his Protrepticus, page 16, has:  Ἔκτος ἐστὶ τρόπος, καθ᾿ ὃν ἀριθμοῦσι Θεοὺς τοὺς δώδεκα·  ὧν καὶ Θεογονίαν Ἡσίοδος ᾄδει τὴν αὐτοῦ·  καὶ ὄσα θεολογεῖ Ὄμηρος, it is the sixth way, according to which they number the twelve gods:  of which Hesiod[4] sings in his Theogony, and of which Homer theologizes.  Indeed, also the Philosophers, where were considered skilled in divine things, were called Theologians:  as for instance, Pherecydes,[5] the teacher of Pythagoras,[6] thus obtained the title θεολόγου/theologian; see OWEN’S[7] Theologoumena, book I, chapter I, pages 3, 4, HOORNBEEK’S[8] Theologia Practica, tome I, preface, pages 2, 3, and BUDDEUS’ Theologia Dogmatica, tome I, book I, chapter I, § 37, pages 66, 67.

[For among these multiplex Theology was celebrated from the beginning.]  Compare also § 6 of this Chapter.

[The appellation of Theology, by which thus the Apostle John himself, etc.]  As is apparent, those things are uncertain and of dubious credit, which concerning the other John, the Ephesian Elder, whom Dionysius Alexandrinus[9] proposed was to be held as the author of the Apocalypse, are mentioned in EUSEBIUS’ Historia Ecclesiastica, book III, chapter XXVIII, and book VII, chapter XXV.  On the contrary, of the Fathers the most excellent, and who approach most nearly to the age of the Apostles, Irenæus, Justin Martyr, Origen, Tertullian, and Eusebius, acknowledge that the Apostle John is the writer of the Apocalypse; to whom those things which are written in Revelation 1:1, 2, 9, also best agree; and he himself was also able to called himself πρεσβύτερον, an elder, in his Epistles,[10] no less than Peter calls himself συμπρεσβύτερον, a fellow elder, 1 Peter 5:1;  see the most Illustrious LAMPE[11] in his “Prolegomena” in Joannis Evangelii, book I, chapter VII, § 8, 25, etc.  The same John, Apostle and Presbyter, will be distinguished also by the name of Theologian in the Inscription of the Apocalypse.  That solid reasons were certainly not lacking to CHRISTOPH AUGUST HEUMANN,[12] on account of which he undertook to contend that John the Theologian was different from John the Apostle, in a certain Dissertatio[13] inserted in Actis Lipsiensibus, supplementum, tome 6, section 4, pages 170, etc; LAMPE shows in the place just cited, § 20.  Nevertheless, this title in the Inscription of the Apocalypse appears to have originated from the Fathers in the ancient Church, rather than from the Holy Spirit Himself:  1.  because neither the Syriac, nor the Vulgate, nor the Arabic Translation has this title:  2.  another Inscription in verses 1 and 2 follows in the text itself; whence this external Inscription, which precedes, appears to be of human origin, and also the Subscriptions of the Epistles,[14] in which too much confidence ought not to be placed:  3.  Also the words θεολόγου/theologian and θεολογίας/theology began to be used more frequently in the following age, and to be attributed to John especially after the fourth Century.  According to the most Illustrious LAMPE, in the place cited, § 19, “It is certain that not one of the Fathers of the first three centuries called John θεολόγον, a theologian, even when they made mention of the Apocalypse….  The first, as far as it can be established, EUSEBIUS, in his Præparatio Euangelica, book XI, chapter XVIII, called him ἑβραίων θεολόγον, a theologian of the Hebrews.  Yet OWEN in his Theologoumena I:I, pages 5, and LEYDEKKER[15] in his Veritas Euangelica triumphans, book I, chapter I, § 50, pages 12, 13, say repeatedly that it is certain that Origen, who was of the third century, was the first to adorn John with the Title θεολόγου/theologian:  but neither stated in writing the place.  But they likely have regard to those things which occur in “Homily 2” in Diversos ad initium Euangelii Johannis, opera ORIGENIS ex editione Frobenii, 1545,[16] tome 2, page 292, “And so bless John the Theologian soars over, not only those things which are able to be understood and spoken, but also those things which surpass all understanding, and sail above expression, etc.”  Indeed, diverse Fathers, who called John the Theologian, are mentioned by SUICERUS in his Thesaurus Ecclesiasticus,[17] tome I, columns 1359, 1360; to which LAMPE adds more in the place cited, Joannis Evangelii, book I, chapter VII, § 19, in the notes.

Now, that John is thus called because of the Divine Sublimity of his doctrine, judge those who think that the reason for this denomination is to be sought in the very book of the Apocalypse, to which this title is prefixed.  But the opinion is more received, which asserts that the title of Theologian was bestowed upon John κατ᾽ ἐξοχὴν, preeminently, on account of that divine doctrine concerning the Trinity, and especially concerning the Deity of the Son, which no one delivered more luminously and overtly than our Evangelist in his writings and especially in his Gospel.  Now without reason do the learned men thus decide:  for the signification of the solemn language of θεολογίας/theology (which ὁ θεολόγος, the theologian, best understands and delivers to other) in the writings of the Fathers is, that it denotes either the doctrine of God and the Holy Trinity, or the divine nature of Christ and the doctrine concerning it:  in both senses θεολογία/theology and οἰκονομία/economy are opposed to each other, and by οἰκονομίαν/economy is understood dispensation of the Incarnation, the human nature of Christ and the doctrine concerning it:  EUSEBIUS in his Demonstratio Euangelica, book III, proœmio, Τίνα δὲ ἦν ταῦτα, ἀλλ᾽ ἢ τὰ περὶ τῆς κατὰ τὸν ἄνθρωπον οἰκονομίας Ἰησοῦ τοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ, αἵτε τῶν παρ᾽ Εβραίοις Προφητῶν περὶ τῆς κατ᾽ αὐτὸν θεολογίας διδασκαλίαι, καὶ αἱ περὶ τῆς εἰς ἀνθρώπους ἐπιφανείας αὐτοῦ προῤῥήσεις, How these were actually concerned with the human dispensation of Jesus the Christ of God, and the teaching of the Hebrew prophets on the theology based on His Person, and predictions of His appearance among men; see LAMPE in the place cited § 21, and SUICERUS on the words θεολογέω, to speak of divine things, and θεολογία/theology, columns 1355-1358, where you may see that by Gregory Nyssen, Eusebius, Basil the Great, and Theophylact,[18] it is ascribed to God that he delivers θεολογίαν/ theology especially in his Gospel; while CHRYSOSTOM, or Severianus Bishop of Gabala,[19] in the sermone de Sigillis, chapter V, in Opera Chrysostomi de Montfaucon, tome 12, page 412, elegantly speaks concerning the remaining Evangelists in contradistinction to John:  οἱ μὲν ἄστραψαν τὴν οἰκονομίαν, ὁ δὲ βροντᾷ τὴν θεολογίαν, in the works of the others the lightning of the economy or incarnation, but in his work thunder concerning the Deity of the Son, are found.  This also is the reason why Gregory Nazianzen, who vigorously defends the divinity of the Savior against the Arians, began to come into the title of Theologian also; which Gregorius Presbyter, in his life of Gregory,[20] teaches to have been for the greatest honor, Opera Nazianzeni, tome I, in the beginning, asserting that Nazianzen was so eminent for sublimity of doctrine καὶ θεολογίᾳ, and theology, that, although many men θεολογήσαντες, having spoken of divine things, in various ages, were celebrated with the praise of doctrine, μόνον τοῦτον μετὰ τὸν εὐαγγελιστὴν Ἰωάννην θεολόγον ἀναφανῆναι, he alone was after John the Evangelist was exhibited as the Theologian, καὶ οἷον ἐξαίρετον αὐτῷ, ταύτην ἀποκληρωθῆναι προσηγορίαν, and this surname fell to him as a peculiar and distinguished privilege, and his sermons, in which he praised the Deity of the Son, were also inscribed περὶ τῆς θεολογίς, Concerning Theology.

But, that the Scope of the Apostle John was in his Gospel to assert the truth Deity of Christ against the Ebionites[21] and the Cerinthians,[22] Reverend Hartman, in his in Johannis Euangelium “Prolegomena” § 4, 5, pages 171-189, upholds against the Illustrious Lampe, who denies the same.

It made the same argument of the Gospel of John, that he was represented by the Ancients by an Eagle ascending on high.  That is, from the Four Apocalyptic Living Creatures seen by John, Revelation 4:7, after the similar vision of the Cherubs formerly represented to Ezekiel, Ezekiel 1:10; 10:14, the Ancients seized the opportunity of representing to themselves the four Evangelists.  “A great many, that drew before us the mysteries of the Sacred Scriptures, in these living creatures understood the four Evangelists,” says AUGUSTINE, tractatus 36, in Johannem.”  How far this might agree with the mind of the Holy Spirit in this vision exhibited to John, or might deviate from the same, this is not the place to consider.  After the Dutch Translators in the marginal notes[23] and others, MARCKIUS and VITRINGA in Apocalypsin are able to be consulted on this matter, of whom the former interprets the four Living Creatures as Principal Angels, portrayed in the quaternary number with respect to just so many compass points of the world, so that thus the Prefects of the Church, under the name of Elders, might be joined with the primary Angels.  The latter understands, not Angels, but in general all the most excellent Doctors and Ministers of Christ among men under the New Testament throughout all times, especially the Apostles and Apostolical Men.  Which of the two more dexterously hits upon the scope, I prefer that the Reader examine by a comparison of the arguments on both sides.  I now particularly observe that not all of the Ancients applied the Eagle to John; but some applied the Eagle to Mark, who assign the Lion to John, as it is to be read in Epigrammate of AQUILINUS JUVENCUS, a Christian Poet, who flourished in the fourth century:

 

Mark loves to soar between the earth and heaven,

            Even as a vigorous Eagle precisely cleaves all things while gliding.

            John roars with the mouth of a Lion, like a roaring Lion

            He thunders, revealing the mysteries of eternal life.[24]

 

With which agree those things which THEOPHYLACT has in his “Præfatione” in Marcum.  Others, although joining the Living Creatures to the Evangelists in diverse ways, nevertheless have the Eagle as the proper emblem of John.  Thus ATHANASIUS in his Synopsi Scripturæ, Opera, tome 2, page 155, assigns the man to Matthew, the calf to Mark, the Lion to Luke, the Eagle to John.  AUGUSTINE, both elsewhere, and in book I, de Consensu Euangelistarum, chapter VI, thinks to be the most probable the opinion of those who, with the rationale of the entire argument of the individual Gospels considered, not only of the beginning of the books, assigned the Lion to Matthew, the man to Mark, the calf to Luke, the Eagle to John; concerning John he adds this reason:  “But John, like an Eagle, flies above the clouds of human infirmity, and regards the Light of immutable truth with the keenest and most constant eyes of the heart.”  Finally, SEDULIUS, a Christina Poet, Section V, book I, page 51,[25] thus arranges the entire matter:

 

Matthew, treating man in general, fulfills this.

            Mark roars, like the deep voice a Lion through wildness places.

            The laws of the Priest Luke upholds with the more of a Young Ox.

            Flying after the manner of an Eagle, John in word rises to the stars.

 

As is apparent, Matthew begins from the human genealogy of Christ and the nativity of the Word; Mark starts from the roar of John the Baptist in the desert, where were dens of Lions; Luke derives his preface from the Priesthood of Zechariah, unto which the slaughtering of sacrifices has regard, among which sacrifices Calves were not the least in place, and he makes mention thereafter of the nativity of the Lord in the stable, where oxen and calves are wont to be kept; but John, far more sublime, takes his beginning from the eternal Deity of the Word, aiming high after the likeness of an Eagle:  see SUICERUS in his Thesaurus Ecclesiasticus, tome I, columns 1234, 1235, on the word Εὐαγγελιστής/Evangelist, and LAMPE in his “Prolegomena” in Joannis Evangelii, book II, chapter V, § 21-23.  Now, OUDINETUS,[26] in Historia Academicarum Inscriptionum, tome I, page 338, observes that from a seal, which exhibits the consecration of Germanicus, and an eagle carrying him to heaven, some draw out and venerate John the Evangelist.



[1] Sanchuniathon is a Phœnician author, almost as old as Moses.  His works, including material on creation and the history of the gods, survive only in fragments.

[2] That is, the genealogies of the gods.

[3] Although there is now some doubt about his historical existence, Orpheus was esteemed among the Greeks of the classical ages as the greatest of the poets and musicians.  It was said that he was able to charm all living things, indeed, even stones, with his music.

[4] Hesiod lived around the turn of the seventh century BC.  In his poetry (particularly, Theogony), he preserves a most ancient form of Greek mythology.

[5] Pherecydes of Syros (flourished sixth century BC) was a philosopher.  In his Pentemychos, he presents a mythological cosmogony, and hence Plutarch, in his Parallel Lives, calls him a theologian.

[6] Pythagoras (582-507 BC) was a Greek philosopher and mathematician.

[7] John Owen (1616-1683) sided with the Parliament during the Civil War.  However, he did not embrace the Presbyterianism of the Westminster Assembly, preferring Independency.  He won the esteem of Oliver Cromwell, and Cromwell made him Dean of Christ Church, Oxford (1651) and then Vice-chancellor (1652).  He lost the deanery at the Restoration.  After the Restoration, Owen would suffer the vicissitudes that accompanied his convictions, but his was the most persuasive and respected voice for Independency and toleration.

[8] Johannes Hoornbeek (1617-1666) earned the degree of doctor of theology under Voetius at Utrecht (1643), where he was also appointed professor.  In 1653, he went to teach at Leiden, where he died.  He excelled in the fields of philology, Old Testament exegesis, church history, and polemical theology.

[9] Dionysius of Alexandria (c. 200-265) converted to Christianity at a mature age, and became of student of Origen at the Catechetical School of Alexandria.  He became the leader of the school in 231, and the Bishop of Alexandria in 248.

[10] 2 John 1:1; 3 John 1:1.

[11] Frederic Adolphus Lampe (1683-1729) studied under Campegius Vitringa, and held various ministerial posts.  At Utrecht he was appointed Professor of Theology (1720), then of Church History 1726.  He departed to teach at Bremen in 1727, and died there in 1729.  He was especially learned in ecclesiastical history and antiquities.

[12] Christoph August Heumann (1681-1764) was a Lutheran divine, and Professor of Theology at the University of Gottingen.

[13] Dissertatio de titulo Theologi Joanni Prophetæ in inscriptione Apocalypseos tributo.

[14] See the subjoined subscriptions at the end of the Pauline Epistles in the Authorized Version.  For example, Philemon 1:25:  “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.  Amen.  [Written from Rome to Philemon, by Onesimus a servant.]”

[15] Melchior Leydekker (1642-1721) studied under Voetius at Utrecht, and Hoornbeeck and Cocceius at Leiden.  He was appointed Professor of Theology at Utrecht (1676).

[16] Hieronymous Frobenius (1501- 1565) followed his father, Johann Froben (c. 1460-1527), in the business of printing and publishing.  Their printing house had an international reputation for accuracy and quality.  Hieronymous printed an edition of the Greek Fathers.

[17] John Caspar Suicer (1620-1684) was a Swiss theologian and philologist.  He studied at Saumur and Montauban, and served as Professor of Hebrew and Greek at the University of Zurich (1660).  His Thesaurus ecclesiasticus was invaluable in the study of the Greek Fathers, shedding light upon words and expression untreated by lexicographers.

[18] Theophylact was an eleventh century Archbishop of Achria of Bulgaria.  He composed commentaries on most of the New Testament and portions of the Old.

[19] Severian was Bishop of Gabala in Syria.  He came to Constantinople circa 398, and developed a reputation as a preacher.  Although initially a friend of Chrysostom, he turned hostile after being insulted by some of Chrysostom’s men, and helped secure his condemnation at the Synod of the Oak.  Some of Severian’s sermons were preserved in Greek among Chrysostom’s own.

[20] Gregorius Presbyter, perhaps of Cappadocia, wrote a tenth century biography of Gregory Nazianzen.

[21] The Ebionites were a second century Judaizing sect, who insisted upon the keeping of Jewish religious rites and laws.  They denied the Deity of Jesus Christ.  The existence of a second century heresiarch by the name of Ebion is a matter of some dispute.

[22] Cerinthus (c. 100) was a heretic:  Like the Ebionites, he taught his followers to keep the Jewish law for salvation, and denied the divinity of Jesus (believing that the Christ came to Him at His baptism); like some Gnostics, he denied that the Supreme God made the world, and believed that the bodyless, spiritual Christ inhabited the man Jesus.  He also anticipated a millennium of earthly pleasures after the Second Coming but before the general resurrection.

[23] This is a reference to the Dutch translation and annotations, order by the Synod of Dort in 1618, published 1637.

[24] Gaius Vettius Aquilinus Juvencus was a fourth century Christian poet of Spain.  He composed a four part poem, entitled Evangeliorum libri, in which he sets forth Christ’s history in verse.  It is debated whether these verses are part of his original authorship.

[25] Cœlius Sedulius was a fifth century Christian poet, and a presbyter, perhaps residing in Italy.  He is most famous for his long poem, Carmen Paschale, based on the Gospels.

[26] Remi-Casimir Oudin (1638-1719) was a Premonstratensian monk and scholar, specializing in ecclesiastical history.  He converted to Protestantism, and was appointed as an assistant librarian at the University of Leyden.

Chapter I:1: The Etymology and Significance of the Word “Theology”

Just as in the treatment of any Theological argument in what follows, so, when the AUTHOR of this locus undertakes to delineate this entire discipline, he makes a beginning from the explication of the Name; properly mindful of that saying of PLATO in Cratylus:  Πρὸς τὸ ὀρθῶς διδάσκειν, δεῖ πρῶτον ἐξετάζειν τὰ ὀνόματα, in order to teach rightly, it is first necessary to examine the names:  in which manner Plato spoke not without reason; while according to Diodotus in THUCYDIDES’ History of the Peloponnesian War,[1] Book III, Οἱ λόγοι διδάσκαλοι τῶν πραγμάτων γίγνονται, words become the teachers of the matters at hand.  Which opinion JULIUS SCALIGER, among the more recent men, supports in his De Subtilitate Exercitationes I, section I,[2] “In the first place, it is proper to inquire into the use of the word itself:  by which we have on numerous occasions been carried into the perception of the thing.”  Now, as far as it concerns the Etymology of the word THEOLOGY, our discipline has this in common with diverse others, that it is wont to be distinguished by a Greek term:  For Theology according to our AUTHOR is Θεοῦ λόγος, a word of, or pertaining to, God, unless you should judge that it is of greater ἀκριβείας/precision to say that τὴν θεολογίαν, theology, is a Science, which ὁ θεολόγος, the theologian,[3] treats:  that he is θεολόγον, a theologian, indeed, who is διδακτὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ, taught of God,[4] discourses concerning God, sets forth Θεοῦ λόγον, a word of God, λόγον περὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ, a word concerning God:  which sort of ἀκρίβεια/precision, with greater circumlocution returning to the same thing, in other compound names of similar form shall be observed at the same time.  But in this the denomination of Theology differs in a certain measure from other disciplines, that the rest are generally wont to be denominated especially from their Object, like Jurisprudence, Pneumatics, Physics; even those which have a name of the same formation as has the name of Theology, with respect to the word, Astrology, Etymology, Meteorology, Ontology, Osteology:  Theology, on the other hand, deserves thus to be called, not by reason of its Object only, but also by reason of its Principium; to which twofold consideration other considerations are also able to be added secondarily, when the reckoning of the Etymology of this name comes to be given.  It is evident that the Doctrine and discourse, which is established concerning Astris/Stars, concerning Meteors, concerning Being, concerning Ossibus/Bones, is not able not able to be fetched from the word or speech of stars, meteors, being, or bones:  but, on the other hand, the Speech and doctrine concerning God is also able to be drawn from the speech of the very God revealing; to such an extent that we are not able to speak concerning God without God, who teaches man, both through the created world, and in an especially and far more sublime and complete manner in the θεοπνεύστῳ/ God-breathed/inspired Word, concerning Himself and matters regarding Himself.  Thus the Most Illustrious VITRINGA,[5] in his Sacrarum Observationum, book III, chapter I, § 2, 3, 8, shows, that τὸ μαρτύριον τοῦ Χριστου, the testimony of Christ, 1 Corinthians 1:6, is able to be taken in a twofold manner, either of the testimony which Christ Himself spoke, or concerning the testimony which others gave concerning Christ.       GLASSIUS,[6] in his Grammaticorum Sacrorum tractatu I, canon 30, page 102 and following, is able to be compared, and also GEORGIUS PASOR’S[7] Grammatica Græca sacra Novi Testamenti, page 281, in which, naturally, they relate the diverse uses of the Genitive, and they teach that the Genitive is quite often of Object, inasmuch as λόγος τῆς βασιλείας, the word of the kingdom, is the word concerning the kingdom, Matthew 13:19; but elsewhere it is also of the Efficient, as when, in Matthew 25:34, οἱ εὐλογημένοι τοῦ Πατρός, the blessed of the Father, of Christ are mentioned, and when John opposes τὴν μαρτυρίαν τῶν ἀνθρώπων, the witness of men, and τὴν μαρτυρίαν τοῦ Θεου, the witness of God, to each other, 1 John 5:9.  So also Θεοῦ λόγος, a word of God, and Theology are no less able to denote the speech of God, which has been delivered by God to us, than, θεοδίδακτοι, in 1 Thessalonians 4:9, signifies those taught by God, who in John 6:45 are called διδακτοὶ τοῦ Θεου, those taught of God, of which sort is πᾶς—ὁ ἀκούσας παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ μαθών, every one that hath heard and learned of the Father; and thus θεοπροπία and θεοπρόπιον in Homer[8] is an oracle, a prophecy.  This, which is to be observed latter in the first part, comes against Hobbes,[9] among others, who contends that Christian Theology signifies the Word of God, not that which God has spoken; but that what is concerning God and His kingdom, that is, is delivered in Christian doctrine:  see COCQUIS’[10] Hobbesianismi Anatomen, locus I, chapter I.  But also note that there is a Genitive of End; for example, the house of God is called οἶκος προσευχῆς, a house of prayer, Matthew 21:13; and in John 5:29 is mentioned ἀνάστασις ζωῆς, the resurrection of life, and ἀνάστασις κρίσεως, the resurrection of judgment, that is, the resurrection unto life and unto condemnation:  and in this sense Theology or the speech of God is able to be considered, for it tends to the glory of God, and leads to His communionTheology, says Thomas Aquinas,[11] is taught by God, teaches God, and leads to God.  With which things, if you should desire to consult further, you may, as far as I am concerned, consult what things the Most Illustrious COCCEIUS[12] has in his Summa Theologiæ, chapter I, § I, Opera, tome 7, page 133.  According to him, Theology is the knowledge or speech τοῦ θεολόγου, of the theologian.  Indeed, to him he is called θεολόγος, a theologian, ὁ τὸν Θεὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ ἐνώπιον τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐις δόξαν αὐτοῦ λέγων, who speaks of God, from God, in the presence of God, for His glory:  which he then explains in that very place by parts.



[1] Thucydides (c. 460-c. 400 BC) was a Greek historian.  His History of the Peloponnesian War recounts the fifth century BC war between Sparta and Athens.

[2] Julius Cæsar Scaliger (1484-1558) was an Italian scholar of the first order, and champion of Aristotelianism against the new Renaissance humanism.  His De Subtilitate Exercitationes demonstrates his mastery of Aristotle’s physics and metaphysics, and continued to be a popular textbook until Aristotelianism finally gave way before the new learning.

[3] That is, one who discourses concerning divine things.

[4] See John 6:45:  “It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God (διδακτοὶ τοῦ Θεου).  Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.”

[5] Campegius Vitringa Sr. (1659-1722) was a Dutch Reformed theologian and Hebraist.  He was a critical Cocceian, and heavily influenced by his pastor, Herman Witsius.  He served the university at Franeker, first as professor of Oriental languages (1681), then of Theology (1682) and of Church History (1697).  He is remembered for his commentaries on Isaiah and Revelation.

[6] Solomon Glassius (1593-1656) was a German Lutheran divine and critic.  He was Professor of Divinity at the University of Jena.  His Philologia Sacra was a groundbreaking work in Biblical Hebrew.

[7] Georgius Pasor (1570-1637) was a learned philologist, and he served as Professor of Theology at Herborn (1607-1626) and Professor of Greek at Franeker (1626-1637).

[8] Iliad 1:85, 87; 6:438; Odyssey 1:145.

[9] Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) was an English philosopher, remembered for his work in political philosophy and social contract theory.  He was also interested in theology, but heterodox in his beliefs, denying incorporeal substance (reducing all things to matter and motion), and the divine inspiration of the Biblical prophets.

[10] Gisbertus Cocquius (1630-1708) of Utrecht was a doctor of philosophy, and an opponent of Hobbes.

[11] Thomas Aquinas (c. 1224-1274) was perhaps the greatest of the mediæval scholastic theologians.  His Summa theologiæ and Summa Contra Gentiles are still standards in Roman Catholic theology, and have been heavily influential in almost all Christian thought in the West.

[12] Johannes Cocceius (1603-1689) was born in Bremen, Germany, and went on to become Professor of Philology at the Gymnasium in Bremen (1630), held the chair of Hebrew (1630) and theology (1643) at Franker, and was made Professor of Theology at Leiden (1650).  He was the founder of the Cocceian school of covenant theology, bitter rival to the Voetian school.

Summary





Untitled Document

In this Chapter occurs,

 

I.  A Nominal Treatment of THEOLOGY, § 1-6, in which things pertaining to the Name are to be considered:

A.  Its Etymology, inasmuch as it is composed ofΘεὸς/theos/God and λόγος/logos/word, with the result that it isΘεοῦ λόγος, a word of, or pertaining to, God, § 1, the former part; hence is exhibited

א The original signification of the Name Theology, § 1, part two .

ב Is delivered the first,ἄγραφος/unwritten, use of the word, even as far as the paronymic name of Theology, § 2;

γAre set forth the component wordsγγραφοι/written, Θεοῦ λόγια, the oracles of God, and Θεοῦ λόγος, the word of God, and this indeed

αἐνυπόστατος, or personal, § 3,

βπροφορικὸς, or uttered, § 4, the former part;

ד The conclusion is hence deduced, that the word Theology is not to be rejected as ἄγραφον, a thing unwritten, § 4, the latter part:

 

B.  Its Synonym, § 5,

C.  Its Homonym, as it is used of Theology

א .  False, which is said to be chiefly fourfold,

αPseudo-Christian,

βMohammadan,

γContemporary Jewish,

δGentile, and that again,

a.  Fabulous,

b.  Natural,

c.  Civil:

ב .  True, § 6.

II.  A Real Treatment; in which are to be observed

  1.  The Division of True Theology according to the rationale of the Subjects, according to which in the first place is Archetypal or Ectypal:
  2.  An Explication of this Division; even indeed
  3. א Of Theology Archetypal, § 7;

    ב .  Ectypal, which

αIs explained in general, § 8, in the beginning,

βIs subdivided into the Theology

a.  Of Union, concerning which § 8, in the latter part,

b.  Of Vision, concerning which § 9,

c.  Of the Race-course; of which

a.  The Nature is explained, § 10,

b.  The Existence is proven, § 11, and which

c.  Is divided again into Theology Natural and Revealed.

1.  Concerning Natural Theology the Author treats, § 12-22:

§.  The Existence of it

̸He asserts, and distinctly indeed

̅ .  Of Theology Innate, § 12,

̲̅ .  Of Theology Acquired, § 13:

As if in parentheses the AUTHOR inserts here two Observations:

    I. For the acquisition of Natural Theology Doubt Universal, concerning even the Existence of God Himself, is not to be urged, § 14;

II.  In what sense the Idea of God is to be admitted in man, and in what way the argument for the Existence of God thence fetched is valid and not valid, § 15;

̸ ̸He distinguishes in man Fallen from the Natural Theology of Adam, § 16;

̸ ̸ ̸He vindicates from the Objections of those denying it, especially of the Socinians, § 17;

§§.  The Object of it he delineates, relating just how far

̸Positively it reaches truly,

̸ ̸Negatively it does not reach, § 18;

§§§.  An Adjunct hence flowing, namely, the Insufficiency of Natural Theology for salvation;

̸It is constructed with arguments, § 19;

̸ ̸. It is freed from the Objections of the Pelagians and Socinians, § 20:

§§§§The Agreement and Difference of Natural and Revealed Theology is indicated, § 21;

§§§§§The Limit of Natural Theology is observed, § 22:

2.  Concerning Revealed Theology the AUTHOR speaks, § 23-36,

§The Necessity of which he demonstrate, § 23;

§§The various Divisions of which he treats, according to which there is

̸.  Practical or Habitual, with a supernatural Character, composed of Knowledge, Wisdom, Prudence, § 24;

̸ ̸.  Teaching or Systematic, which

̅Again is divided

With respect to its Parts, especially into Didactic and Elenctic, § 25, the first part,

††With respect to the Manner of treatment, into

AA.  Positive, and

BB.  Scholastic; which latter again

אא Either is so called in a good sense, which is set forth, § 25, the latter part,

בב Or in an inferior sense, for the Scholastic Theology of the Papists, concerning which what is to be insisted on is shown, § 26;

̲̅ .  Is defined, § 27, which Definition is explained

With respect to Genus, § 28-31, which

AA.  In general is called Doctrine, § 28, in the beginning,

BB.  In species

אא .  Practical no less, indeed more, than Theoretical; which

ααIs proven,

ββIs defended against Objections, § 28, in the second part;

בב Doctrine, not only Noëtic, but also Dianoëtic, in which the use of Consequences

ααIs asserted, § 29, the first part,

ββIs defended against Anabaptists, Lutherans, and Papists, § 29, the second part, § 30;

γγThe Papistical Division of Consequences into Conclusions Theological and of Faith is rejected, § 31;

††With respect to the Difference of Species, sought from

AA.  Its Principium, whence Revealed Theology is drawn; which

אא With respect to its own nature,

ααIs explained,

aa.  Positively, inasmuch as it is the sole Word of God:

bb.  Negatively; in which are rejected,

aaThe Degrees of Synods,

bbThe authority of the Fathers or of the Philosophers,

ccThe Testimony of the Senses,

dd.  Human reason, the manifold Use of which in Revealed Theology is nevertheless indicated,

.  Ministerial, and that various;

‡‡The more Principal, § 32;

ββIs confirmed, § 33, in the beginning;

בב With respect to the Mode of Revelation was various, as it is related, § 33, the last part;

BB.  Its Object, which is true Religion, § 34,

CC.  Its Subject, which is Fallen Man, § 35,

DD.  Its End, which is

אא Supreme, the Glory of God,

בב Subordinate, the Salvation of Men, § 36.