Page images

who was not so from all eternity. But Jesus Christ, being in the nature of man, is frequently in the sacred Scriptures called God, and that name is attributed unto him in such a manner, as by it no other can be understood but the one A y and Eternal God.

Which may be thus demonstrated. It hath been already proved, and we all agree in this, That there can be but one Divine Essence, and so but one

ne God. Wherefore were it not said in the Scriptures, there are many Gods; did not he himself who is supreme, call others fo; we durft not give that name to any but to him alone, nor could we think any called God to be any other but that one. It had been then enough to have alledged that Christ is God, to prove his supreme and eternal Deity: whereas now we are answered, that there are Gods many, and therefore it followeth not

from that name that he is the one eternal God. Bur if Christ be none of · those many Gods, and yet be God; then can he be no other but that one.

And that he is not to be numbred with them, is certain, because he is clear

ly distinguished from them, and opposed to them. We read in the Pfalmift, Psal. 82. 6. I have said ye are Gods, and all of you are children of the most High.

But we must not reckon Christ among those Gods, we must not number the 5. only begotten Son among those Children. For they knew not, neither would

they understand, they walked on in darkness : and whosoever were Gods Col. 2. 9. only as they were, either did, or might do lo. Whereas Christ, in whom

alone dewelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily, is not only distinguish'd John 16. 30. from, but opposed to, such Gods as those, by his Disciples, saying, Now we John 8 Į2. are fure that thou knowest all things; by himself proclaiming, I am the light 1 Cor. 8. 5,6. of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness. S. Paul

hath told us, there be göds many, and lords many; but withal hath taught us,
that to us there is but one God, the Father, and one Lord Jesus Christ.
In which words as the Father is opposed as much unto the many Lords, as
many Gods, so is the Son as much unto the many Gods, as many Lords;
· Father being as much Lord as God, and the Son as much God as Lord. Where-

fore being we find in Scripture frequent mention of one God, and beside thar
one an intimation of many Gods, and whosoever is called God, muft either
be that one, or one of those many; being we find our blessed Saviour to be
wholly opposed to the many Gods, and consequently to be none of them,
and yet we read him often styled God, it followeth, that that naine is attri-
buted unto him in such a manner, as by, it no other can be understood but the
one Almighty and Eternal God.

Again, Those who deny our Saviour to be the fame God with the Father, have invented rules to be the touchstone of the eternal Power and Godhead. First, where the name of God is taken absolutely, as the subject of any proposition, it always signifies the supreme Power and Majesty, excluding all others from that Deity. Secondly, where the same name is any way used with an Article, by way of excellency, it likewise signifieth the fame supreme Godhead as admitting others to a communion of Deity, but excluding them from the supremacy.. Upon these two rules they have raised unto themselves this obfervation, That whenfoever the name of God absolutely taken is placed as the subject of any propofition, it is not to be understood of Chrift: and wheresoever the same name is spoken of our Saviour by way of predicate, it never hath an Article denoting excellency annexed to it; and consequently

n in the number of those Gods who are excluded from the Majesty of the eternal Deity... € Now though there can be no kind of certainty in any such observations of the Articles, because the Greeks promiscuously often use them or omit them, without any reason of their usurpation or omission, (whereof examples are innumerable :) though if those rules were granted, yet would not their Con


[ocr errors]


clusion follow, because the supreme God is often named (as they confess) without an Article, and therefore the same name may signify the same God when spoken of Christ, as well as when of the Father, so far as can concern the omission of the Article: yet to compleat my demonstration, I shall new, first, that the name of God taken subjectively is to be understood of Christ, secondly, that the same name with the Article affixed is attributed unto him; thirdly, that if it were not so, yet where the Article is wanting, there is that added to the predicate which hath as great a virtue to signify that excellency. as the Article could have.

S. Paul, unfolding the mystery of Godliness, hath delivered fix Propofitions together, and the subject of all and each of them is God. Without 1 Tim. 3. 16. controverfie great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of Angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. And this G is the subject of all these Propositions must be understood of Christ, because of him each one is true, and all are so of none but him; He was the Word which was God, and was made flesh, and consequently God manifested in the flesh. Upon him the Spirit defcended at his Baptisin, and after his Ascension was poured upon his Apostles, ratifying his Commission, and confirming the Doctrine which they received from him: wherefore he was God justified in the Spirit. His nativity the Angels ceiebrated, in the discharge of his Office they ministred unto him, at his Resurrection and Ascension they were present, always ready to confess and adcre him : he was there

fore God jèen of Angels. The Apostles preached unto all Nations, and he . whom they preached was a Jesus Christ. The Father b separated S. Pauli Acts 8.5,35. from his Mother's womb, and called him by his grace, to reveal his Son 9:20. 11. 20.

17. 3, 18. unto him, that he might preach him among the heathen; therefore he 19. 13. was God preached unto the Gentiles. John the Baptist pake c unto the peo- Rom. 16. 25

2 Cor. I. 19. ple, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that 11.4. is, on Christ Jefus. We have believed in Jesus Christ, faith S. Paul, Phil. 1. 18. who fo taught the Gaoler trembling at his feet, e Believe in the Lord Jesus Gal;

b Gal.1.15,16. Christ, and thou shalt be saved: he therefore was God believed on in the d Gal. 2.16. world. When he had been forty days on earth after his Resurrection, he Acts 16. 31. was taken visibly up into Heaven, and sat down at the right hand of the Father : wherefore he was God received up into glory.. And thus all these fix Propositions, according to the plain and familiar language of the Scri- . ptures, are infallibly true of Christ, and so of God, as he is taken by S. John, when he speaks those words, the Word was God. But all these cannot be

* Deus, i.e. understood of any other, which either is, or is called, God. For though voluntas ipfis we grant the Divine Perfections and Attributes to be the same with the Di- us de fervanvine Essence, yet are they never in the Scriptures called God; nor can any dis homini.

“Y.bus, per hoof them with the least Ihew of probability be pretended as the subject of mines infirthese Propositions, or afford any tolerable interpretation. When they tell mos & morus that God, that is the * Will of God, was manifested in the flesh, that is, patefacta eft.

tales perfecte was revealed by frail and mortal men, and received up in glory, that is, twas &c. Catech. received gloriously on earth, they teach a language which the Scriptures Bacom. ad

> Quæfi. 59. + Insignem in modum & summa cum gloria recepta fuit 16. For Olds is not geamu.ce Ofõ, much less is dicenzpen received or embraced. Elias speaketh not of his reception, but his ascension, when he saith to Elisha, Ti molhou cou wehr j cveampelñ su dró C8; 2 Kings 2. 9. and 'Edvidus ue crocher 6 avó por dro , xesas, Coi Štw. When he actually ascended, as the original pyn, it is no otherwise translated by the Septuagint, than evennoon 'Hag e Cuoshopão dis eis i Begror. Which language was preserved by the Hellenizing Fews: 'O draanpleis á dandi Wuggs, Sirac. 48. 9. and again, avanoon nws sis degvor, i Mac. 2. 58. Neither did they use it of Elias only, but of Enoch also. O úde eis cnlian oio. 'Exã %, v gos ou nos úvonpon 'ns. The same Language is continued in the New Testament of our Saviour's Ascension, evocnúpen eis ó r@gaver, Mar. 16. 19. • draan leis áp' ipão eis À segvov, Acts 1. 11. and singly, avannen, Acts 1. 2. and αναλήφθη αφ' ημών, Acts I. 22. As therefore ανάληψις το Μωσέως, in the Language of the jewς, was not the reception of Moses by the Israelites, but the assumption of his body; so úvánnyos Xessõ is the Ascension of Christ, Luke 9. 51. Wherefore this being the constant notion of the word, it must so be here likewise understood, diccnápon doen as the vulgar Latin, (whose authority is pretended against us,) assumptum eft in gloria; rendring it here by the same word by which he always translated dvaan on.


know not, and the Holy Ghost never used, and as no Attributes, fo no perfon but the Son can be here understood under the name of God: Not the Holy Ghost, for he is distinguished from him, as being justified by the Spirit; nor the Father, who was not manifested in the flesh, nor received up in glory. It remainech therefore that, whereas the Son is the only person to whom all

these clearly and undoubtedly belong, which are here jointly attributed unto * For being

God, as fure as the name of God is expressed universally in the * Copies of the Epitle" the Original Language, so thus absolutely and subjectively taken must it be was written understood of Christ. .. . in the Greek Language, it is eñouch if all those Copies do agree. Nor need we be troubled with the observation of Grotius on the place : Suspectam nobis hanc lectionem faciunt interpretes veteres, Latinus, Syrus, Arabs & Ambrosius, qui omnes legerunt à Ovnentn. I confess the vulgar Latin reads it otherwise than the Greek, Quod inanifeftatum est in carne; and it can not be denied but the Syriac, however transated by Tremellius, agreeth with the Latin; and both seem to have read dinstead of otos. But ihe joint consent of the Greek Copies and Interpreters are above the authority of these two Trans llators: and the Arabick set forth in the Biblia Polyglotta agreeth exprelly with them. But that which Grotius hath farther observed is of far greater confideration : Addit Hincmarus opusculo 55. illud oss hic pofitum a Neftorianis. For if at first the Greeks read å ipavacon, and, that ö were altered into Olds by the Neftorians, then ought we to correct the Greek Copy by the Latin, and confess there is not only no force, but not so much as any ground or colour for our Arguments. But firit, it is no way probable that the Neitorians should find it in the Original, ê, and make it ords. because that by fo doing they had overthrown their own Afertion, which was, that God was not incarnate, nor born of the Virgin Mary: that God did not ascend unto Heaven, but Chrift by the Holy Ghost remaining upon him, teil om avea agato cut yaencé lor , Concil. Ephef. part. I. cap. 17. Secondly, it is certain that they did not make this alteration, because the Catholick Greeks read it Oids before they were such Hereticks, so called, Neftoriani à Neitorio Epifcopo, Patriarcha Conftantinopolitano, Aug. Heref. Neftorius, from whom that Herefie began, was Patriarch of Conftantinople after Silinius, Sisinius after Atticus, Atticus after Nectarius, who succeeded Joannes, vulgarly called Chryfoftomus. But S. Chrysostome read not o, but cos, as appears by his Commentaries upon the place; og i arme con co roxi, trésmódsurségás: 'And S. Cyril, who by all means opposed Neftorius :upon the first appearance of his Herolie, wrote two large Epiftles to the Queens Pulcheria and Eudofia, in both which he maketh great use of this Text. In the fert, after the repetition of the words as they are now in the Greek Copies, he proceedeth thus; Tís Caexi Parepaleis:

dozo r na tesi o'y7ws i'r geg women's horou. Stw go sou péya To S EUTE Scias pusierov, Jeos é Qarneala w rdexi. Wherefore in S. Paul'he read eos God, and took that God to be the Word. In the second, repeating the same Text verbatim, he manageth it thus against Neltorius ; Ei Joos wy o sólos cravogurhoor nélo17o, rj ó ón y redes To Birou Dios, ára's. ois i de leuwv, péya dj TÓTe sy Oncohol opifiws péya isi to os crebriols Musheron. Bi ö är@gwTog Voc) xotros Xeroco mas o paeni m avépan, xai tou wūs 8 STOTI Cragyis, ott wäs år!gwro e Cozxí ti isi, xj x cév étézus ogóró Tiel. And in the explanation of the second Anathematism he maketh use of no other Text but this to prove the Hypoftatical Union, giving it his gloss or exposition : Ti ist to, ipuinguén Cagri; 787651, vérove Cbeži o cn Ješ Tuleos nóra, &c. The same he argeth in his Scholion de Unigeniti Incarnatione. So also Theodoret contemporary with s. Cyril: Odos os dir giã yjos, vej cóegelov xwe qúow, na atatu cav@gwincas égfútlo, Crioãs ä peãs dúo Qúcsaidid cekev. Ý Caixins in Selaev on puungwelw as Púrrv. Thirdly, Hincmarus does not say that the Nestorians put Odos into the Greek Text, but that he which put it in was cast out of his Bishoprick for a Neftorian. His words are these : Quidam nimirum ipfas Scripturas verbis inlicitis impofturaverunt: ficut Macedonius Constantinopolitanus Episcopus, qui ab Anastasio Imperatore ideo a Civitate expulsus legitur, quoniam falfavit Evangelia, & illum Apoftoli locum ubi dicit, quod apparuit in carne, juftificatum eft in Spiritu, per cognationem Græcarum literarum, o in hoc modo mutando falsavit. Ubi enim habuit qui, hoc eft og monosyllabuin Græcum, litera mutata o in vertit; & fecit ok, id eft ut esset, Deus apparuit per carnem. Quapropter tanquain Neftorianus fuit expulsus. Hincm. Opus. 55. c. 18. Now whereas Hincmarus says expullus legitur, we read not in Euagrius, or the Excerpta of Theodotus, or in Joannes Malala, that Macedonius was cast out of his Bishoprick for any such falsation. It is therefore probable that he had it from Liberatus, a Deacon of the Church of Carthage, who wrote a Breviary, collected Dartla out of the Ecclesiastical Histories and Afts of the Councils, partly out of the relations of such men as he thought fit to believe, extant in the fourth Tome of the Councils. In which, chap. 19. we have the same relation, only with this difference, that is not turned into o, but into 12, and so os becomes not o, but 122. So that first the Greek Copies are not said to have read it o, but ös, and so not to have relation to the mystery, but to the person of Christ; and therefore this makes nothing for the vulgar Latin. Secondly, whereas Hincmarus says there was but one letter changed, no such mutation can of os make OEOE, it may 12$, as we read in Liberatus ; and then this is nothing to the Greek Text. Thirdly, Macedonius was no Nestorian, but Anaftafius an Eutychian, and he .ejected him not as be did other Catholick Bishops under the pretence of Nestorianism, but for other reafons. However Macedonius could not falfifie all the Greek Copies, when as well those which were before his time, as those which were written fince, all acknowledge Ocos. And if he had been ejected for substituting los, without question Anaftafius would have taken care for the restoring ôs, which we find not in any Copy. It remaineth therefore that the Neftorians did not falsify the Text by reading Odos é purngaion, but that the ancient Greek Fathers read it fo; and consequently, being the Greek is the Original, this Lection must be acknowledged authentical..

Afts 20. 28. Again S. Paul speaketh thus to the Elders of the Church of Ephefus;

Take heed unto your felves, and to all the flock over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the Church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. In these words this doctrinal Proposition is clearly contained, God hath purchased the Church with his own blood. For there is no other word either in or near the Text which can by any Grammatical Construction be joined with the Verb, except the Holy Ghost, to




whom the Predicate is repugnant, both in refpect of the act, or our Redemption, and of the means, the Blood. If then the Holy Ghost hath not purchased the Church; if he hath not blood to shed for our Redemption, and without blood shed there is no remision ; if there be no other word to which, according to the literal construction, the act of purchasing can be applied; if the name of God, inost frequently joined to his * Church, be im- * T le cxx Amie mediately and properly applicable by all rules of Syntax to the Verb which rice of Ors.

D For though followerh it: then is it of necessity to be received as the subject of this Pro

e lubject of this PTO- the Church be position, then is this to be embraced as infallible Scripture-truth, God hath properly the purchased the Church with his own blood. But this God may and must be Church of understood of Christ; it may, because he hath; it must, because no other 16.15. Col. person which is called God háth so purchafed the Church. a We were not re-1, 24. and in deemed with corruptible th

Cilver a d, but with the precious;

We the plural ve

AT W11 ne preTIOTD read once a blood of Christ. With this price were we bought ; and therefore it may well inxăncias 78 be said, that Christ our God hath purchased us with his own blood. But Xerg. Rom.

16. 16. as we no other person which is, or is called, God, can be said fo to have purcha- do of ihes a fed us, because it is an act belonging properly to the Mediatoribip; and Churches of there is but one Mediator between God and man: and the Church is b fan- God, 1 Cor. Etified through the offering af the body of Jesus Christ once for all. Nor 2 Theil. 1.4. can the expression of this act, peculiar to the Son, be attributed to the Father, and i Theff.z. because this blood signifieth death: and though the Father be Omnipotent, transmeton

* 14. yet i circa and can do all things, yet he cannot die. And though it inight be said that is frequently he purchased us, because he gave his Son to be a ransom for us, yet it cannot used; as be laid that he did it by his own blood; for then it would follow, that he and 19. 32. gave nor his Son, or that the Son and the Father were the same Person. Be- and 15.9. and fide, it is very observable, that this particular phrase of his own blood, is innitimos:

11.22.2 Cor. the Scripture put by way of opposition to the blood of t another : and how- 5:15. but

τ οκκλησία το loever we may attribute the Acts of the Son unto the Farhei

Y Xeiss not him ; yet we cannot but acknowledge that the blood and death was of ano- once named. ther than the Father. Not by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own And therefore blood he entred in once into the holy place; and whereas d the High-Priest house

Es reason to alter entred every year with the blood of others, Christ appeared once to put it in this Text, away sin by the facrifice of. himself. He then which purchased us wrought or to fanfie it

first written it by his own blood, as an High-Priest opposed to the Aaronical, who made ză, and then atonement by the blood of others. But the Father taketh no Priestly Office, made 98

when it is so neither could he be opposed to the legal Priest, as not dying himself, but gi- What

Il 31. often written ving another. Wherefore wheresoever the Father and the Son are described Ois, not xertogether as working the Salvation of man, the blood by which it is wrought så. Some MSS.

as the Alexis attributed to the Son, not to the Father: as when S. Paul speaketh of the andrian, Cancredemption that is in Jesus Christ, whom God hath set forth to be a pro- tabrigian, and pitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness; his, that is read ir is, his own righteousness, hath reference to God the Father ; but his, that tá Kveis, and is, his own blood, must be referred to Christ the Son. When he glorifieth the interpreGod the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ, attributing unto him, that he us, regere

ter of Irenæhath blessed, elected, predestinated, adopted, accepted us, made known Eccletiam unto us the mystery of his will, and gathered us together in one; in the

the Doinini, 1. 3.

14.11. midst of this acknowledgment he brings in f the beloved in whom we have Orhers repre

fent Kvery w Oss, followed by the Arabick Interpreter; which makes not at all against our Argument; but, because in this particular unusual, not like to be true. The Syriack translating is Chrifti, NAUD7 not Domino, as it is in the Latin Trannation) gives rather an Exposition than a Version. a 1 Pet. 1. 18, 19. Heb. 10.10. "loson alue is opposed to aina arrótesor. And therefore it is observable that the Author of the Rocovian Catechism, in his Ansvier to this place of Scripture, doth never make the least mention of idior or proprium, but only affirms that the blood of Christ may be called the blood of God the Father ; & totidem verbis did Socinus answer to Wiekus before, but in his whole Answer concealed the force of idor, whereas the strength of our Argument lies in those ivords; als og idix au 70, or, as the Alexandrian Ms. and one mentioned by Beza, ale are ce? Täidis. Heb. 9. 12. d V'er. 25, 26.

Rom. 3.25. "Ov w ogé0670 ) Ofis inashesar 2 of wiseus es tu ar ģ cuno. és érder to op Oixa06 wró. {Éph, 1:6, 7.


we have no

erbis non or prone of the r. Hebo

redemption through his blood, as that which cannot be attributed to the fa.

ther. Christ hath blessed us; and the Apostle faith, the Father hath bleffed aits 26 which is true, because he sent his Son to bless us. Christ hath made known Eph. 1. 9. unto us the will of his Father; and the Apostle faith, the Father bath made

known unto us the mystery of his will; because he sent his Son to reveal it. Col. 1:13. Christ hath delivered us; and the Father is faid to deliver us from the power

of darkness : not that we are twice delivered, but because the Father deli. vereth us by his Son. And thus these general acts are familiarly attributed to them both; but still a difference must be observed and acknowledged in the means and manner of the performance of these acts. For though 'tis true. that the Father and the Son revealed to us the will of God; yet it is not

true that the Father revealed it by himself to us; but that the Son did fo, it is Gal. 1. 4.

They both deliver us from sin and death: but the Son gave bim felf for our lins; that he might deliver us; the Father is not, cannot be faid to have gie

ven himself, but his Son : and therefore the Apostle giveth thanks unto the Col. 1. 13, 14, Father, who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and bath tran.

flated us into the kingdom of his dear Son, in whom we have redemption through his blood. Now this blood is not only the blood of the new Covenant; and confequently of the Mediator : but the nature of this Covenanc is such.

that it is also a Teftament, and therefore the blood must be the blood of the Heb. 9. 16. Testator ; for where a Testament is, there must also of necessity be the death

of the Teftator. But the Testator which died is not, cannot be, the Father. but the Son; and consequently, the blood is the blood of the Son, not of the Father. It remaineth therefore that God, who purchased the Church with his own blood, is not the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, or any other which is called God, but only Jesus Christ the Son of God, and God. And thus have I proved the first of the three Assertions, that the name of God absolutely taken and placed subjectively, is sometimes to be understood of Christ.

The second, That the name of God invested by way of excellency with an Article, is attributed in the Scriptures unto Chrift, may be thus made good.

He which is called Emmanuel is named God by way of excellency; for that Mat. 1. 23. name, faith S. Matthew, being interpreted, is God with us, and in that inter* Kai ranáceis pretation the Greek * Article is prefixed. But Christ is called Emmanuel, to ovopese on to a that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the Prophet, isi, pillsea Saying, Behold, a Virgin shall be with child, and Mall bring forth a Son. pelwocówon, and they ball call his name Emmanuel. Therefore he is that God with us, Med nuwe

Ted by way of Excellency, and distinguished from all other a Verse 22, 23. who are any ways honoured with that name: For it is a vain imagination to

think that Christ is called Emmanuel, but that he is not what he is called : Exod. 17. 15. as Mofes built an Altar, and called the name of it Jehovah Niffi, and Gideon Judges 6. 24. another called Jehovah Shalom; and yet neither Altar was Jehovah; as JeruJer. 33. 16. falem was called the Lord our righteousness, and yet that City was not the

Lord. Becaule these two notions, which are conjoined in the name Em. John 1. 14. manuel, are severally true of Christ. First, he is Emmanu, that is, with us,

for he hath dwelt among us: and when he parted from the earth, he said to his Mat. 28. 20. Disciples, I am with you alway, even to the end of the world. Secondly, Ela me or imar He is El, and that name was given him, as the same Prophet testifieth, For Guí. 1ja. 9.c. unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given ; and his name shall be called 512a 42 Wonderful, Counsellor, the mighty God. He then who is both properly cal

led El, that is, God, and is also really Emmanu, that is, with us, he muft infallibly be that Emmanuel who is God with us. Indeed if the name Em

manuel were to be interpreted by way of a propofition, God is with us, as Ezek. 48. 35. the Lord our righteousness, and the Lord is there, must be understood where they are the names of Jerusalem; then should it have been the name not of



which is

« PreviousContinue »