« PreviousContinue »
iroinery • gids tot geavou say glü, undoubtedly belongs to the true and fupreme God : but it does not thence follow, that Trūka Ješ itemizelo traww tõ ödx70, should be understood of the Spirit of another or inferior God. Certainly S. John when he speaks of the Baptist, igfútro kv@gwr arisanpelíc ago Ofõ, meant, he had his Commission from Heaven ; and when it is spoken of Christ, d'WXBv autois išrolas Téxva Ofő Hubay, and again, in orð égfovéoncev, it must be underfood of the true God the Father. In the like manner, Oco sdeis iwegoxe wÚTole, if it were taken tuxév7ans of any ever called God; nay, even of Christ Jesus as man, it were certainly false. How can then any deny the word to be the fue preme God, because he is called simply Odds, when S. John in the four next places, in which he speaketh of the supreme God, mentioneth him without an Article? This Criticism of theirs was first the observation of Asterius the Arian, oix ίπεν ο μακάρμG- ΠώλG- Χρισόν κηρύσαν ' τ8 Θεξ διώαμιν, ή τ' τε Θε8 Cοφίαν, άλλα δίχα η προθήκης, διώαμιν Θεύ, και 0& capian : carlw i ovou om dicey autĞ Tð orð dudepesy that we uulov au TW sj Cuorúex8ruv ázfuntws, xnguoswr. These are the words of Afterius recorded by Athanasius, Orat. 2. contra Arianos. In which place, notwithstanding, none can deny but Oig is twice taken without an Article for the true and supreme God. Thus Didymus of Alexandria de Sp. S. would distinguish between the Person and the Gift of the Holy Ghost, by the addition or defect of the Article ; Apostoli quando intelligi volunt Personam Spiritus Sancti addunt Articulum, ti ayEūnce, fine quo Spiritus Sancti dona notantur.' And Athanasius objects against his adversaries denying the Holy Ghost to be God, that they produced places out of the Prophets to prove him a Creature, where wys ūdece had not so much as an Article prefixed, which might give some colour to intera pret it of the Holy Spirit. Oude 98 88 ev td á degy mi? to a tõ a eg@hts depórfor vu wyrūna, va xacy tego wow xn76. Epist. ad Serapionem. Whereas we find in the same place of S. John, the same spirit in the same sense mentioned with and without an Article. 'Εαν μή τις κινεθη εξ ύδας και πνεύμα , 3ohn. 3. 5. and ο γεννημένον αν το πνεύμα7G, Y.6. So i John 3.1. My way: Wrocuali w 1566676, cand doxinalele ta toydupalo And again, 'Ey TÓTW yováo xele tò aveõpe CA TŘ Osg aan mycūka, &c. And beside, according to that distinction, to wysŪu.ce certainly stands for the gift of the Spirit, i Theff. 5.19. The aveõue Meni obénule. In the like manner, it is so far from truth, that the Scriptures observe so much she Articles, as to use o cos, always for the true and supreme God. and Seos for the false or inferior ; that where the true is profeffedly opposed to the false, even there he is styled simply cos. As, 'Arice cóte x Gidótes Ozov, édo noúrule This ren burs Sri feois: New 3 yróvies Otor. pārdov öywatoles ia Ofð, Gal. 4. 8,9. . And where the supremo is diflinguished from him whom they make the inferior God, he is called likewise Osos without an Article : As, Agra 'incó Xeisă, pwerul a sis. algércoy Orõ, and tý serat év a jó Ofð ús o weues, Rom. I, 1, 4. 'Arósora 'Indő Xersõ 214 Finance Dri, i Cor. 1. 1. 2 Cor. 1. 1. Eph. 1. 1. Col. 1. I. And if this distinction were good, our Saviour's Argument to the Pharisees were not fo: Ei jina i grobóra 70 Oiš in kanw tú dos óriel, céngépdatev iøvrős v Paridesse Tš Olg, Matth. 12. 28. For it doth not follow, that if by the power of an inferior or false God he cast out Devils; that therefore the kingdom of the true and supreme God is come upon them.
Word, the only reason which we can conceive why the Apostle should thus, use this phrase: and then observing the manner of S. John's writing, who rises strangely by degrees, making the last word of the former sentence the first of that which followeth: As, In him was life, and the life was the John 1.4, 5. light of men; and the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not : fo, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word, which so was in the beginning, was with God, and the Word was God; thar is, the same God with whom any other way, than by having the same Divine Essence. Therefore the being which Christ had before he was conceived by the Virgin was the Divine Nature, by which he was properly and really
Secondly, He who was subsisting in the form of God, and thought himself to be equal with God, in which thought he could riot be deceived, nor be injurious to God) must of necessity be truly and essentially God; because there can be no equality between the Divine Essence, which is infinite, and any other whatsoever, which must be finite. But this is true of Christ, and that antecedently to his conception in the Virgin's womb, and existence in his humane nature. For, being (or rather * fubfifting) in the Phil. 2. 6, 7. form of God, he thought it not robbery to be equal with God: but emptied * In effigie himself, and took upon him the form of a fervant, and was made in the tus. Tertull. likeness of men. Out of which words naturally result three Propositions ful- In figura Dei ly demonstrating our Assertion. First, That Christ was in the form of a conftitutus.
Cypr. fervant as soon as he was made man. Secondly, That he was in the form of God before he was in the form of a fervant. Thirdly, Thàt he was in the form of God, that is, did as truly and really subsist in the Divine Nature, as in the form of a fervant, or in the nature of man. It is a vain imagination, that our Saviour then first appeared a servant when he was apprehended, bound, scourged, crucified. For they were not all Naves which ever suffered fuch indignities, or died that death ; and when they did, their dea not make, but find them, or fuppose them servants. 'Beside our Saviour in all the degrees of his humiliation never lived as a servant unto any Master
h. Dei conftitu
did, their death did
on earth. 'Tis true, at first he was subject, but as a son, to his reputed Father and undoubted Mother. When he appeared in publick he lived after the manner of a Prophet, and a Doctor sent from God, accompanied with a Family, as 'twere of his Apostles, whose Master he 'professed himself, subject to the commands of no man in that Office, and obedient only unto God. The form then of a servant which he took upon him, must consilt in something distinct from his sufferings, or submission unto men; as the
condition in which he was when he so submitted and so suffered. In that Rom. 8. 3. he was made flesh, sent in the likeness of sinful flesh, subject unto all infir
mities and miseries of this life, attending on the sons of men fallen by the Gal. 4. 4. fin of Adam : in that he was made of a woman, made under the law, and
so obliged to perform the same ; which Law did so handle the children of
God, as that they differed nothing from servants : in that he was born, Ifa. 53. 2, 3. bred, and lived in a mean, low, and abject condition ; as a root out of a
dry ground, he had no form nor comeliness, and when they saw him, there was no beauty that they should defire him; but was despised and rejected of men, a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief : In that he was thus made man, he took upon him• the form of a servant. Which is not mine, but the Apostle's explication ; as adding it not by way of conjunction, in which there might be fome diversity, but by way of apposition, which signifieth a clear identity. And therefore it is necessary to observe, that our translation of that verse is not only not exact, but very disadvantageous to that truth which is contained in it. For we read it thus ; He made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a fer
vant, and was made in the likeness of men. Where we have two copula* Anduro tive conjunctions, neither of which is in the * original text, and three dicairwos, rog- stinct propositions, without any dependence of one upon the other ; whereplus dorns dar as all the words together are but an expression of Christ's exinanition, pecah aylga't wv with an explication shewing in what it consisteth : which will clearly appear fub pepera, by this literal translation, But emptied himself, taking the form of a ferWnielle offer vant, being made in the likeness of men. Where if any man doubt how ved by the Christ emptied himself, the text will fatisfy him, by taking the form of a Vulgar Latin, fervant ; if any still question how he took the form of a servant, he hath fum exinani- the Apostle's resolution, by being made in the likeness of men. Indeed afvit, formam ter the expression of this exinanition, he goes on with a conjunction, to ens in fimili- add another act of Christ's humiliation; a And being found in fashion as a tudine homi- man, being already by his exinanition in the form of a fervant, or the likenum factus, ness of men, he humbled himself, and became (or rather + becoming) obewhere fuó was ad dient unto death, even the death of the cross. As therefore his humiliation ded by apposi- consisted in his obedience unto death, so his exinanition consisted in the aftion to nowv, and have both
melon fumption of the form of a servant, and that in the nature of man. All equal relation which is very fitly expressed by a strange interpretation on the Epistle to to uniwer the Hebrews. For whereas these words are clearly in the Pfalmist, 6 Sacrior, which is all one comes fice and offering thou didst not desire, mine ears hast thou opened: The port 146 av, Apostle appropriateth the fentence to Christ; When he cometh into the Saab 34ów world, he faith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body haft W . a Phil. 2.8. thou prepared me. Now being the boring of the ear under the Law, was a t 'Etateive note of perpetual servitude, being this was expressed in the words of the cey és Tèr gye- 1
the Psalmist, and changed by the Apostle into the preparing of a body; it folrom. For in loweth that when Christ's body first was framed, even then did he assume the both these form of a fervant. verses there is but one Conjunction, joining together two Acts of our Saviour, his first exinanition or intywne, and his farther humiliation, or ÉTAT HWTE' the rest are all participles added for explication to the verbs. b Psal. 40. 6. c Exod. 21. 6. Deut. 15.17. .
Again, it appeareth out of the fame Text, that Christ was in the form of God before he was in the form of a servant, and consequently before he was made man. For he which is presupposed to be, and to think of that being which he hath, and upon that thought to assume, must have that being before that assumption: but Christ is first expressly said to be in the form of God, and, being fo, to think it no robbery to be equal with God, and notwithstanding that equality, to take upon him the form of a Servant: therefore it cannot be denied but he was before in the form of God. Beside, he was not in the form of a servant, but by the emptying himself, and all exinanition necessarily presupposeth a precedent plenitude ; it being as impossible to empty any thing which hath no fulness, as to fill any thing which hath no empriness. But the fulness which Christ had, in respect whereof assuming the form of a servant, he is said to empty himself, could be in nothing else but in the form of God, in which he was before. Wherefore, if the assumption of the form of a servant be contemporary with his exinanition ; if that exinanition necessarily presupposeth a plenitude as indispensibly antecedent to it; if the form of God be also co-æval with that precedent plenitude; then must we confess, Christ was in the form of God before he was in the form of a Servant : which is the second Proposition.
Again, it is as evident from the fame Scripture, that Christ was as much in the form of God, as the form of a Servant, and did as really fubsist in the Divine Nature, as in the nature of man. For he was so in the form of God, as thereby to be * equal with God. But no other form *T.
* To civai ir a
mos. Pariari beside the essential, which is the Divine Nature it self, could infer an e-Deo. Tertull. quality with God. a To whom will ye liken me, and make me equal, Effe fe æqua
lem Deo. faith the Holy one? There can be but one infinité, eternal and indepen-Cote
pen- Cypr. Esse ædent Being ; and there can be no comparison between that and whatsoe-qualis Deo. ver is finite, temporal, and depending. He therefore who did truly think Leporius; .
Thus all exhimself equal with God, as being in the form of God, must be conceived press the noto subsist in that one infinite, eternal and independent nature of God. A- tion of Equagain, the phrase, in the form of God, not elsewhere mentioned, is used by
v lity, not of si
og militude :Nor the Apostle with a respect unto that other, of the form of a fervant, ex- can we un
derstand any less by cò elvanica, than loórne, irov and ion being indifferently used by the Greeks, as Pindarus Olymp. Ode 2. "Icov 3 róxleass sici, "loce ä с apézus átlov xovles d'aviseegv. 'Erroi vérov J Biolov. So whom the Greeks call irodov. Homer 16% Osw. Odyl.O.
Tom ruü Tree of me 10avýcloi Groegwol. where ica has not the nature of an Adverb, as belonging to cicoeywor, but of a Noun referred to the Antecedent tòv, or including an Adverb added to a Noun, i ruü ws icóbeor. The Collection of Grotius from this verse is very strange ; sivou iou Osm, eft spectari tanquam Deum. As if he should have said droegwoi fignifie's spectant, therefore tiyan signifies spectari. This he was forced to put off thus, because the strength of our interpretation, rendring an equality, lies in the Verb Substantive to civou. As Dionysius of Alexandria very anciently, reváros (at, rj Tat Hátus é wa Saveto, Javíts ösowgo, io u Osw videre. Epist. ad Pauluin Samosat. For we acknowledge that irc by it self oft-times fignifieth no more than inftar, and so inferreth nothing but a fimilitude : as we find it frequently in the Book of Job. Where it sometimes answereth to the inseparable particle »; as: 77957, quasi in nocte, ioa yuxti, 5. 14., 73223 ficut caseum, ita tuew, 10. 10. 22nd, quasi putredo, Sym. quoiwe Ontidov, LXX. loa doxă 13. 21. Do, ficut aquam, ioa woto, 15, 16.py, tanquam lignum,iica túaw, 24. 20. 100), ficut lutum, isa anda ryny 27. 16. ficut vestimento, ita difioidi, 29. 14. pas, quali bos, ioa Broin, 40. 15. Where we see the vulgar Latin useth for the Hebrew, , quasi, sicut, tanquam, the LXX.ira. Sometime it answerth to no word in the original, but supplieth a fimilitude understood, not expressed, in the Hebrew: as nyt tanquam pullum, ica or@, II. 12. INI & lapis, ioa aida 28. 2. hon), luto, ioa wadą, 30. 19. Once it rendreth an Hebrew word rather according to the intention, than the signification ; 79N bwn, comparabitur cineri, ad verbum proverbia cineris, ice ar odã, 13. 12. So that in all these places it is used adverbially for instar, and in none hash the addition of to divon to it. As for that answer of Socinus, that Christ cannot be God, because he is said to be equal with God, Tantum abeft ut ab eo quod Chriftus fit æqualis Deo sequatur ipsum effe æternum & suminum Deum, ut potius ex hoc ipso necessario consequatur non effe æternum & fummum Deum. Nemo enim fibi ipfi æqualis esse potest. Soc. ad 8.c. Wiek, as if there could be no predication of equality where we find a substantial identity : it is most certainly false, because the most exact speakers use such language as this is. There can be no expressions more exact and pertinent than those which are used by Geometricians, neither can there be any better judges of equality than they are; but they most frequently use that expression in this notion, proving an equality, and inferring it from identity. As in the fifth Proposition of the first Element of Euclid, two lines are said to contain an Angle equal to the Angle contained by two other lines, because they contained the same Angle, or yowrice xowlu. and the basis of one Triangle is supposed equal to the basis of another Triangle, because the same line was bafis to both, or Báois xorvá. In the same manner certainly may the Son be said to be equal to the Father in ellence or power, because they both have they same essence and power, that is ória xj drevaniy xowlw. Ocellus de Universo, céra de xe Tow To og aircuítas dialenci xj Toor sy nosov autó avtő. p. II. a Ifa.40.25. and 46. 5.
egetically continued in the likeness of man; and the respect of one unto the other is so necessary, that if the form of God be not as real and efsential as the form of a Servant, or the likeness of Man, there is no force in the Apostle's words, nor will his argument be fit to work any great degree of humiliation upon the consideration of Christ's exinanition. But by the form is certainly understood the true condition of a Servant, and by the likeness infallibly meant the real nature of Man: nor doth the fa lbion, in which he was found, destroy, but rather affert the truth of his Humanity. And therefore, as fure as Christ was really and essentially man, of the same nature with us, in whose fimilitude he was made : to certainly was he also really and essentially God, of the fame nature and being with him, in whose form he did fubsist. Seeing then we have clearly evinced from the express words of S. Paul, that Christ was in the form of á fervant as soon as he was made man, that he was in the form of God before he was in the form of a 'feryant, that the form of God in which he fubfifted doth as truly signifie the Divine, as the likeness of man the human nature ; it necessarily followeth, that Christ had a real existence before he was begotten of the Virgin, and that the being which he had was the Divine Esence, by which he was truly, really and properly God..
Thirdly, He which is expressly styled Alpha and Omega, the first and the laft, without any restriction or limitation, as he is after, fo was before any
time assignable, truly and essentially God. For by this title God defcribeth 1/.41.4. his own being, and distinguishech it from all other. I the Lord, the firit,
48. 12. and with the last, I am be. I am be, I am the first, I also am the laft.
44.6. I am the first, and I am the last, and beside me there is no God. Buc Rev. I. II. Christ is expressly called Alpha and Omega, the first and the last. He fo
proclaimed himfelf by a great voice, as of a Trumpet, saying, I am Alpha
and Omega, the first and the last. Which answereth to that folemn call and 1fa. 48. 12. proclamation in the Prophet, Hearken unto me, O Jacob, and Ifrael my Rev. 1. 17. called. He comforteth S. John with the Majesty of this title, Fear not, I 13.18. am the first and the last. Which words were fpoken by one like unto the
Son of man, by him that liveth, and was dead, and is alive for evermore;
that is undoubtedly, by Christ. He upholdeth the Church of Smyrna in her 2.8. tribulation by virtue of the fame description, These things faith the first and
the last, which was dead and is alive. He ascertaineth his coming unto Judg. Rev. 22. 13,
ment with the same assertion, I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. And in all these places, this title is attributed unto Christ absolutely and universally, without any kind of restriction or limitation,
without any afsignation of any particular in respect of which he is the firit *With the Ar- or last; in the fame latitude and * eminence of expression in which it is or ticle so much ellezbere can be attributed to the supreme God. There is yet another Scripture in ftood upon, to which the same description may seem of a more dubious interpretation: аI a su To wam Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is Pro, The and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. For being it is the Alpha and the Lord who fo calls himself, which title belongeth to the Father and the Son, Omnega, the to the the it may be doubted whether it be fpoken by the Father or the Son; but whelaft. For we ther it be understood of the one or of the other, it will fufficiently make good must not take wali
ake what we intend to prove. For if they be understood of Christ, as the preTo a as tbe Grammarians cedent and the following words imply, then is he certainly that Lord, which
is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty; that is, the futhey signiße 1 only be let- preme eternal God, of the fame Divine Eflence with the Father, who was ter written in that figure, and called by that name. As appeareth by Eratosthenes, who was called Böra, not tå Barcela, as Suidas corrupily. Hesychius Illustrius, from whom Suidas had that passage ; 'Eeg 70-1éuns als to $60788 HV Wavti édesandesas teis dex poig ényilav, Böta craon. And Martianus Heracleota in Periplo, x neem snesoy Eeg?ootevns, ôv Bštu cincarcar oi TŘ Morux wegsávles. a Rev. 1. 8.
before described by him which is, and which was, and which is to come, Rev. 1. 4. to whom the six-wing'd Beasts continually cry, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Rev. 4. 8.
Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come : as the familiar explication of that name which God revealed to Mofes. If they belong unto the fu- Exod. 3. 14. preme God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ; then did he so describe himself unto S. John, and express his lupreme Deity, that by those words, I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, he mig!
ight be known to be the one Almighty and Eternal God; and consequently, whofoever should assume that title, must attribute as much unto himself. Wherefore being Christ harh so immediately, and with so great folemnity and frequency, taken the fame style upon him by which the Father did express his Godhead; it followeth, that he hath declared himself to be the Supreme, Almighty, and Eternal God. And being thus the Alpha and the first, he was before any time assignable, and consequently before he was conceived of the Virgin ; and the being which then he had was the Divine Essence, by which he was truly and properly the Almighty and Eternal God."
Fourthly, He whofe Glory Isaiah faw in the year that King Vzziah died had a being before Christ was begotten of the Virgin, and that being was the Divine Effence, by which he was naturally and essentially God: For he is
the Lord, Holy, holy, holy, the Lord of hosts, whose Glo- Ifa. 6.1, 3. my fileth the whole earth; which titles can belong to none beside the one and only God. But Christ was he whose Glory Isaiah law, as S. John doth testify, saying, These things said Ifaias, when he saw his Glory, and John 12. 41. spake of him : and he whole Glory he saw, and of whom he spake, was certainly Christ: for of him the Apostle treateth in that place, and of none but him. These things fpake Jesus and departed. But though he (that is 36. Fefus) had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on 37. him, that is, Christ who wrought those Miracles. The reason why they believed not on him was, That the saying of Ifaias the Prophet might be 38. fulfilled, which he fpake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and as 39. they did not, so they could not believe in Christ, because that Ifaias said again, He hath blinded their eyes, and hardned their hearts; that they 40. Should not fee with their eyes, nor understand avith their hearts, and be converted, and I should heal them. For those who God foresaw, and the Propher foretold should not believe, could not do it without contradicting the prefcience of the one, and the predictions of the other. But the Jews refusing to assent unto the Doctrine of our Saviour were those of whom the Prophet fpake: For these things said Ifaias when he saw his Glory, and pake of him. 41 Now if the Glory which I faias saw were the Glory of Christ, and he of whom Ifaias in that Chapter fpake were Christ himself; then must those blinded eyes and hardned hearts belonged unto these Jews, and then their Infidelity was so long since foretold. Thus doth the fixing of that Prophecy upon that people, which faw our Saviour's miracles, depend upon Ifaias's Vision, and the appropriation of it unto Christ. Wherefore S. John hath infallibly taught us, that the Prophet saw the Glory of Christ, and the Prophet hath as undoubtedly assured us, that he whole Glory then he saw was the one
Omnipotent and Eternal God; and consequently both together baye sealed · this truth, that Christ did then subsist in that glorious Majesty of the Eternal Godhead.
Lastly, he who, being man, is frequently in the Scriptures called God, and that in such a manner, as by that name no other can be understood but the one only and eternal God, he had an existence before he was made man, and the being which then he had was no other than the Divine Essence ; because all novelty is repugnant to the Deity, nor can any be that one God,