2. The proper field of investigation, to determine the question, is the usage of the apostle John. Now, I take upon me to affirm that in all his writings, not a single passage can be found to countenance Mr. Cappe's doctrine; and that, on the contrary, every instance of did with a genitive is decisively against him.* 3. If the reader will, by the help of a Greek concordance, examine all the instances of the two constructions in the New Testament, he will find the distinction observed clearly, accurately, and, I think I may say, invariably.t iii. On the meaning of the verb, the Calm Inquirer expresses himself with peculiar positiveness and complacency, as if he had made a notable discovery; Γίνομαι never signifies to 66 66 'the form dia yλwoons, in the Supplices, v. 112 or 123, on which see Markland's Note.--In the same manner he takes from Glassius, Greg. Nazianz. δι' ἡμῶν τὴν ἀνθρωπότητα Θεὸς ὑπέστη on our account, in our favour, God took upon him humanity." Glassius probably copied the citation from Constantine, or from the Basil Lexicon of 1560, in both of which it appears with the same disappointing mode of reference. But I suspect that there is a wrong reading, or that the sentence was abridged (as was often done,) and the case of the pronoun inadvertently altered by the lexicographer who first extracted it; for I find in Gregory, Τίς δὲ τῆς ἀνθρωπότητος, ἣν δι ̓ ἡμᾶς ὑπέστη Θεὸς, αἰτία; Oratio 36, apud Opera, vol. i. p. 578. ed. Par. 1630. Thus three, at least, of Mr. Cappe's four instances fail him. *See chap. iii. 17. x. 9. xi. 4. xvii. 20. 1 ep. iv. 9. 2 ep. 12. 3 ep. 13. + See especially, Matt. xviii. 7. v. 6. Luke xxii. 22. Acts xv. 11. Heb. ii. 10. Rom. v. create."* Did this writer really intend to convey to his readers, that any critic, translator, or interpreter had taken this verb in the active signification, to create? Or was it his wish to insinuate, that the interpretation which he opposes is founded upon such an assumption? It is scarcely conceivable that he could believe either of these implications: yet, if not, I know not how we can acquit his argument of a gross violation of candour and integrity. It is not necessary to repeat what has been before advanced,† on the sense of the word. If, however, the Inquirer and Annotator mean to assert, that this word never signifies TO BE created, we are at issue with him. Its true and proper signification is, to be brought into existence, whether that be the first and original being of the subject, or any subsequent state or manner of existence. In all the variety of its applications, and by whatever different terms, according to its connexion, it may be translated in other languages, it always retains its essential idea, that of passiveness to a preceding cause. Thus we find it in numerous places, where the unquestionable intention of the writer is to mark a being produced, a being brought into existence for the first time. The im * Page 31, and in p. 27, and 37. In the Impr. Vers. also, the Annotator says, in reference to Newcome's and the common Version, "This is a sense which the word éyévero will not admit. Fívou occurs upwards of 700 times in the New Testament, but never in the sense of create.” + Of this Volume, page 361. portance of the subject, and the bold language of the opponent, will be my apology for citing some examples, though the case is among the plainest possible to every scholar of moderate pretensions. In the New Testament: "No more for ever let fruit be produced from thee! All [these] things must be brought to pass. Behold, a great earthquake was effected! The sabbath was made for the sake of man. His Son, who was made of the seed of David, according to the flesh. Made of woman, made under the law. Although the works, from the foundation of the world, were completed. The things which are seen were brought into existence from things which are not manifested. Men, made according to the likeness of God."* In the Septuagint, "God said, Produced be light! And light was produced. All the herbage of the field, before it was produced. Before the mountains were brought into being. The book of the production of heaven and earth, when they were produced. I will perform glorious things, which have not been brought forth, in all the earth. Now they are brought into being, and not of old. To Seth was born a son. Many strangertribed children were born to them. Was not I produced in the womb, in the same manner as they were produced? Certainly we were produced * Matt. xxi. 19. xxiv. 6. xxviii. 2. Mark ii. 27. Rom. i. 3. Gal. iv. 4. Heb. iv. 3. xi. 3. James iii. 9. in the same womb. God made these things, of those which were not; and thus was the race of men brought into existence."* Thus we have strong and abundant authority for our translation of this important sentence: "All things were made" (or produced, or brought into existence; and how does this differ from being created ?—) "by HIM; and without Him, not one thing was made, that has been made." A fragment has been preserved by Eusebius, from the lost writings of Amelius, a Platonist, of the third century, which shews, in a very satisfactory manner, how a classical philosopher understood the language of the evangelist. The passage begins abruptly, and we have no means of knowing its connexion: but this does not diminish the decisive character of its evidence. "And this indeed was the Word, by which, since it exists for ever, created things were produced; as Heraclitus himself would decide: and most certainly it is the same which that foreign writer lays down, as constituted in the order and dignity of the beginning, to be with God, and to be God; that by it absolutely all things were produced; `that in it, whatever was produced, living, and life, and existing, possesses its natural properties; that it descended into bodily forms, and * Gen. i. 3, 5. Ps. lxxxix. (xc) 2. Gen. ii. 4. Exod. xxxiv. 10. Isaiah xlviii. 7. In the last three instances, the Hebrew word is to be created, the niphal of No2. Gen. iv. 25. Is. ii, 6. Job xxxi. 15. 2 Macc. vii. 28. having put on a clothing of flesh, appeared as a human being, with which nevertheless it still shewed the majesty of its nature; and that at last, being dismissed [from the body], it again assumed its deity, and is God, the same as it was before it was brought down to the body and the flesh and the human being.' It cannot be questioned to what writer this heathen philosopher refers: and though he comments upon the passage in his own way, nothing can be clearer than that he understood the words of the evangelist, as predicating of the Logos a proper deity, a real agency in the physical creation, an assumption of human nature from a pre-existent state, and a resuming of the glory which had for a season been veiled. VI." In him was LIFE." The coherence of this with the preceding sentence, appears to be the position of a cause adequate to the effect. So that the argument is; the production of all things is fitly attributed to the Word, because he possesses conscious and active existence in such a manner that he is able to impart existence: he is the Former of all things, because he possesses * Καὶ οὗτος ἄρα ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καθ ̓ ἣν αἰεὶ ὄντα τὰ γινόμενα ἐγίνετο, ὡς ἂν καὶ ὁ Ἡράκλειτος ἀξιώσειε καὶ τὴ Δί', ὃν ὁ βάρβαρος ἀξιοῖ ἐν τῇ τῆς ἀρχῆς τάξει τε καὶ ἀξίᾳ, καθεστηκότα πρὸς Θεὸν εἶναι, καὶ Θεὸν εἶναι, δι' οὗ πάνθ ̓ ἁπλῶς γεγενῆσθαι· ἐν ᾧ τὸ γενόμενον ζῶν καὶ ζωὴν καὶ ὄν πεφυκέναι· καὶ εἰς τὰ σώματα πίπτειν, καὶ σάρκα ἐνδυσάμενον φαντάζεσθαι ἄνθρωπον, μετὰ καὶ τοῦ τηνικαῦτα δεικνύειν τῆς φύσεως τὸ μεγαλεῖον ἀμέλει καὶ ἀναλυθέντα πάλιν ἀποθεοῖσθαι, καὶ Θεὸν εἶναι οἷος ἦν πρὸ τοῦ εἰς τὸ σῶμα καὶ τὴν σάρκα καὶ τὸν ἄνθρωπον καταχθῆναι. Eusebii Prep. Evang. lib. xi, cap. 19. p. 540, ed. Colon. 1688. |