Page images
PDF
EPUB

5.

Col. 2. 9.

who was not fo from all eternity. But Jefus Christ, being in the nature of man, is frequently in the facred Scriptures called God; and that name is attributed unto him in fuch a manner, as by it no other can be understood but the one Almighty 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 Effence, and fo but one fupreme God. Wherefore were it not faid in the Scriptures, there are many Gods; did not he himself who is fupreme, 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 fupreme 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. But if Christ be none of thofe 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 clearly distinguished from them, and opposed to them. We read in the Pfalmift, Pfal. 82.6. I have faid ye are Gods, and all of you are children of the most High. But we must not reckon Christ among thofe Gods, we must not number the only begotten Son among thofe Children. For they knew not, neither would they understand, they walked on in darkness: and whofoever were Gods only as they were, either did, or might do fo. Whereas Chrift, in whom alone dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily, is not only distinguish'd John 16. 30. from, but oppofed to, fuch Gods as thofe, by his Difciples, faying, Now we we John 8 12. are fure that thou knoweft 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 gods many, and lords many; but withal hath taught us, that to us there is but one God, the Father, and one Lord Jefus Christ. In which words as the Father is oppofed as much unto the many Lords, as many Gods, fo is the Son as much unto the many Gods, as many Lords; the Father being as much Lord as God, and the Son as much God as Lord. Wherefore being we find in Scripture frequent mention of one God, and befide that one an intimation of many Gods, and whofoever is called God, must either be that one, or one of those many; being we find our bleffed Saviour to be wholly opposed to the many Gods, and confequently to be none of them, and yet we read him often styled God, it followeth, that that name is attributed unto him in fuch 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 abfolutely, as the fubject of any propofition, it always fignifies the fupreme Power and Majefty, excluding all others from that Deity. Secondly, where the fame name is any way used with an Article, by way of excellency, it likewife fignifieth the fame fupreme Godhead as admitting others to a communion of Deity, but excluding them from the fupremacy. Upon these two rules they have raised unto themselves this obfervation, That whenfoever the name of God abfolutely taken is placed as the fubject of any propofition, it is not to be understood of Chrift: and wherefoever the fame name is fpoken of our Saviour by way of predicate, it never hath an Article denoting excellency annexed to it; and confequently leaves him in the number of those Gods who are excluded from the Majefty of the eternal Deity...

Now though there can be no kind of certainty in any fuch obfervations of the Articles, because the Greeks promifcuously often use them or omit them, without any reafon of their ufurpation or omiffion, (whereof examples are innumerable:) though if those rules were granted, yet would not their Con

2

clufion

.

clusion follow, because the fupreme God is often named (as they confefs without an Article, and therefore the fame name may fignify the fame God when spoken of Chrift, as well as when of the Father, fo far as can concern the omiffion of the Article: yet to compleat my demonstration, I shall flew, first, that the name of God taken fubjectively is to be understood of Chrift, fecondly, that the fame name with the Article affixed is attributed unto him; thirdly, that if it were not fo, yet where the Article is wanting, there is that added to the predicate which hath as great a virtue to fignify that excellency. as the Article could have.

S. Paul, unfolding the mystery of Godliness, hath delivered fix Propofitions together, and the fubject of all and each of them is God. Without 1 Tim. 3. 15. controverfie great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifefted in the flefb, juftified in the Spirit, feen of Angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. And this God which is the subject of all these Propofitions must be understood of Christ, because of him each one is true, and all are fo of none but him; He was the Word which was God, and was made flesh, and confequently God manifefted in the flesh. Upon him the Spirit defcended at his Baptifm, and after his Afcenfion was poured upon his Apoftles, ratifying his Commiffion, and confirming the Doctrine which they received from him: wherefore he was God juftified in the Spirit. His nativity the Angels celebrated, in the discharge of his Office they miniftred unto him, at his Refurrection and Afcenfion they were prefent, always ready to confefs and adere him: he was therefore God feen of Angels. The Apostles preached unto all Nations, and he

a

e

b

с

17. 3, 18.. Rom. 16. 25. 2 Cor. I. 19. II. 4.

b Gal.1.15,16.

e

Acts 16. 31.

whom they preached was Jefus Christ. The Father Separated S. Paul & Acts 8. 5,35. from his Mother's womb, and called him by his grace, to reveal his Son 9.20. 11. 20. unto him, that he might preach him among the heathen; therefore he 19. 13. was God preached unto the Gentiles. John the Baptift spake unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. We have believed in Jefus Christ, faith S. Paul, Phil. 1. 18. who fo taught the Gaoler trembling at his feet, Believe in the Lord Jefus & Acts 19. 4. Christ, and thou shalt be faved: he therefore was God believed on in the Gal. 2. 16. world. When he had been forty days on earth after his Refurrection, he was taken visibly up into Heaven, and fat down at the right hand of the Father wherefore he was God received up into glory. And thus all these fix Propofitions, according to the plain and familiar language of the Scriptures, are infallibly true of Christ, and fo 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 ipfiwe grant the Divine Perfections and Attributes to be the fame with the Di- us de fervanvine Effence, yet are they never in the Scriptures called God; nor can any bus, per hoof them with the leaft fhew of probability be pretended as the fubject of mines infirthefe Propofitions, or afford any tolerable interpretation. When they tell mos & morus that God, that is the *Will of God, was manifefted in the flesh, that is, patefacta eft, was revealed by frail and mortal men, and received up in glory, that is, was : Catech. received gloriously on earth, they teach a language which the Scriptures Quest. 59.

dis homini

tales perfectè

Racov, ad

Infignem in modum & fumma cum gloria recepta fuit 16. † For Θεός is not θέλημα Θε5, much lefs is αναλήφθη received or embraced. Elias fpeaketh not of his reception, but his afcenfion, when he faith το Elitha, Τί ποιήσω (οι πριν ἢ ἀναληφθίναι ἀπὸ (8; 2 Kings 2. 9. and Ἐὰν ἴδης με αναλαμβανόμθμον ἀπὸ ὅ, καὶ ἔσαι, (οὶ ὅτως. When he actually afcended, as the original yn, it is no otherwife tranflated by the Septuagint, than avapen His ON CUSHIONED AS HIS & eavor. Which language was preferved by the Hellenizing Jews: O ávarpleis es daran wuggs, Sirac. 48. 9. and again, ávaanden ñws eis à vor, I Mac. 2. 58. Neither did they use it of Elias only, but of Enoch also. Oude eis cution of • 'Evax, x jo autos dvaλupon daò & yes. The fame Language is continued in the New Testament of our Saviour's Afcenfion, ávaλnøen eis è &egvev, Mar. 16. 19. · ávaλnObeis áð iμär eis & segerov, Acts 1. 11. and fingly, ávarúøen, Acts 1.2. and αναλήφθη ἀφ ̓ ἡμῶν, Acts I. 22. As therefore avantis rõ Mwośws, in the Language of the Jews, was not the reception of Mofes by the Ifraelites, but the affumption of his body; so áváàntic rỡ Xess is the Afcenfion of Chrift, Luke 9. 51. Wherefore this being the conftant notion of the word, it must fo be here likewife underflood, avannpon cu doźn as the vulgar Latin, (whofe authority is pretended against us,) affumptum eft in gloria; rendring it here by the fame word by which he always tranfated αναλήφθη. know

7

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 diftinguished from him, as being justified by the Spirit; not the Father, who was not manifefted in the flesh, nor received up in glory. It remaineth therefore that, whereas the Son is the only perfon to whom all these clearly and undoubtedly belong, which are here jointly attributed unto God, as fure as the name of God is expreffed univerfally in the *Copies of the Original Language, fo thus abfolutely and fubjectively taken muft it be was written understood of Chrift.

*For being

the Epiftle

in the Greek

Language, it

is enough if all thofe Copies do agree. Nor need we be troubled with the obfervation of Grotius on the place: Sufpe⚫ctam nobis hanc lectionem faciunt interpretes veteres, Latinus, Syrus, Arabs & Ambrofius, qui omnes legerunt à ipangwen. I confess the vulgar Latin reads it otherwife than the Greek, Quod manifeftatum eft in carne; and it cannot be denied but the Syriac, however tranflated by Tremellius, agreeth with the Latin; and both seem to have read instead of is. But the joint confent of the Greek Copies and Interpreters are above the authority of these two Tranflators; and the Arabick fet forth in the Biblia Polyglotta agreeth exprefly with them. But that which Grotius hath farther obferved is of far greater confideration: Addit Hincmarus opufculo 55. illud Os hic pofitum a Neftorianis. For if at first the Greeks read à panzen, and that were altered into is by the Nestorians, then ought we to corrett the Greek Copy by the Latin, and confefs there is not only no force, but not so much as any ground or colour for our Arguments. But first, it is no way probable that the Nettorians fhould find it in the Original, d, and make it Otos, because that by fo doing they had overthrown their own Affertion, 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 Ghoft remaining upon him, xì 7 áváantiaires xagioco, Concil. Ephef. part. 1. cap. 17. Secondly, it is certain that they did not make this alteration, because the Catholick Greeks read it Oeds before they were fuch Hereticks, fo called, Neftoriani à Neftorio Epifcopo, Patriarcha Conftantinopolitano, Aug. Haref. Neftorius, from whom that Herefie began, was Patriarch of Conftantinople after Silinius, Sifinius after Atticus, Atticus after Nectarius, who fucceeded Joannes, vulgarly called Chryfoftomus. But S. Chryfoftome read not , but Osos, as appears by his Commentaries upon the place; ios ipangwen is Cazni, talésiv, ò demigos. And S. Cyril, who by all means oppofed Neftorius upon the first appearance of his Herefie, wrote two large Epistles to the Queens Pulcheria and Eudofia, in both which he maketh great use of this Text. In the first, after the repetition of the words as they are now in the Greek Copies, he proceedeth thus; Tiscs Cagni pavegwleis; ἦ δῆλον, ὅτι πάντη τε καὶ πάντως ὁ ἐκ θες παρός λόγος, ὅτω δ' ἔσαι μέγα τὸ τὰ εὐσεβείας μυτήριον, θεὸς ἐφανηρώθη εν (αρκί. Wherefore in S. Paul he read eos God, and took that God to be the Word. In the fecond, repeating the fame Text verbatim, he manageth it thus againft Nellorius ; Εἰ Θεὸς ὢν ὁ λόγος ἐνανθρωπήσαι λέγοιτο, καὶ εἰ δήπε μεθεὶς τὸ εἶναι θεός, ἀλλ' ἐν οἷς ἐν ἀεὶ Διαρθρων, μέγα δὴ τότε καὶ ὁμολο εμβρύως μέγα ἐπὶ τὸ ἢ οὐσεβείας μυσήριον· εἰ ἢ ἄνθρωπος νοεί) κοινὸς ὁ · Χριςός, πῶς ἐν (αρκί πεφανέρως, και τοι πῶς ἐχ ἅπασιν εναργές, ὅτι πᾶς ἄνθρωπο εν (αρκί τε ἐξὶ, καὶ ἐχ' ὧν ἑτέρως •ξωτό τισι. And in the explanation of the Second Anathematism he maketh use of no other Text but this to prove the Hypoftatical Union, giving it this glofs or expofition: Ti isi tò, éparngwon cv Caçxi; 787651, vélove Cágğ ö in dez walogs nó, &c. The fame he urgeth in his Scholion de Unigeniti Incarnatione. So alfo Theodoret contemporary with s. Cyril: Θεὸς δὲ ὧν καὶ θεῖ τὸς, καὶ ἀόρατον ἔχων τ' φύσιν, δῆλον ἅπασιν ἐνανθρωπήσας ελύετο, (αφῶς ἢ ἡμᾶς δύο Φύσεις ἐδίδαξεν, ὦ (αρκὶ γδ' τα θείαν ἔφη φανηκωθμώαι φύσιν. Thirdly, Hincmarus does nor fay that the Neftorians put Os into the Greek Text, but that he which put it in was cast out of his Bishoprick for a Neftorian. His words are thefe: Quidam nimirum ipfas Scripturas verbis inlicitis impofturaverunt: ficut Macedonius Conftantinopolitanus Epifcopus, qui ab Anaftafio Imperatore ideo a Civitate expulfus 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 falfavit. Ubi enim habuit Qui, hoc eft Oz monofyllabum Græcum, litera mutata Ó in → vertit; & fecit Oz, id eft ut effet, Deus apparuit per carnem. Quapropter tanquam Neftorianus fuit expulfus. Hinem. Opuf. 55. c. 18. Now whereas Hincmarus fays expulfus legitur, we read not in Euagrius, or the Ex cerpta of Theodotus, or in Joannes Malala, that Macedonius was caft out of his Bishoprick for any fuch falfation. It is therefore probable that he had it from Liberatus, a Deacon of the Church of Carthage, who wrote a Breviary, collected partly out of the Ecclefiaftical Hiftories and Acts 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 fame relation, only with this difference, that ✪ is not turned into O, but into Q, and so O2 becomes not O2, but NÉ. So thaz firft the Greek Copies are not faid to have read it, but ös, and fo not to have relation to the mystery, but to the perfon of Chrift; and therefore this makes nothing for the vulgar Latin. Secondly, whereas Hincmarus fays there was but one letter changed, no fuch mutation can of OE make OEOZ, it may , as we read in Liberatus; and then this is nothing to the Greek Text. Thirdly, Macedonius was no Neftorian, but Anaftafius an Eutychian, and he ejected him not as he did other Catholick Bishops under the pretence of Neftorianism, 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 Oos. And if he had been ejected for fubftituting Otos, without question Anaftafius would have taken care for the restoring s, which we find not in any Copy. It remaineth therefore that the Neftorians did not falfify the Text by reading Otos ipangwen, but that the ancient Greek Fathers read it fo; and confequently, being the Greek is the Original, this Lection must be acknowledged authentical.

Acts 20. 28.

Again S. Paul fpeaketh thus to the Elders of the Church of Ephesus; Take heed unto your felves, and to all the flock over the which the Holy Ghoft hath made you overfeers, to feed the Church of God, which he bath purchafed with his own blood. In these words this doctrinal Propofition 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

b

For though

Christ, Mat.

ἐκκλησίαι το

16. 16. as we

II. 16.

14. yet in

whom the Predicate is repugnant, both in refpect of the act, or our Redemption, and of the means, the Blood. If then the Holy Ghoft hath not purchased the Church; if he hath not blood to fhed for our Redemption, and without blood fhed there is no remiffion; if there be no other word to which, according to the literal conftruction, the act of purchafing can be applied; if the name of God, moft frequently joined to his * Church, be im-* The cxxxmediately and properly applicable by all rules of Syntax to the Verb which is TOS. followeth it: then is it of neceffity to be received as the fubject of this Pro- the church be pofition, 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 Chrift; it may, because he hath; it must, because no other 16. 18. Col. perfon which is called God hath fo purchafed the Church. a We were not re- 1. 24. and in deemed with corruptible things, as filver and gold, but with the precious read once as the plural we blood of Chrift. With this price were we bought; and therefore it may well is T be faid, that Chrift our God hath purchased us with his own blood. But Xess. Rom. no other perfon which is, or is called, God, can be faid fo to have purcha- do of the fed us, because it is an act belonging properly to the Mediatorship; and Churches of there is but one Mediator between God and man: and the Church is fan- God, 1 Cor. ctified through the offering of the body of Jefus Christ once for all. Nor 2 Theff. 1.4. can the expreffion of this act, peculiar to the Son, be attributed to the Father, and 1 Theff. because this blood fignificth death: and though the Father be Omnipotent, Ania 18018, and can do all things, yet he cannot die. And though it might be faid that is frequently ufed; as he purchased us, because he his Son to be a ranfom for us, yet it cannot Cor. 1. 2. gave be faid that he did it by his own blood; for then it would follow, that he and 10. 32. gave nor his Son, or that the Son and the Father were the fame Perfon. Be- and 15.9. and fide, it is very obfervable, that this particular phrafe of his own blood, is in 1.1. 1 Tim.3. the Scripture put by way of oppofition to the blood of t another: and how-5. 15. but foever we may attribute the Acts of the Son unto the Father, because fent by Xess 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 be entred in once into the holy place; and whereas & the High-Priest reason to alter entred every year with the blood of others, Chrift appeared once to put it in this Text, away fin by the facrifice of himself. He then which purchased us wrought first written it by his own blood, as an High-Prieft opposed to the Aaronical, who made xs, and then atonement by the blood of others. But the Father taketh no Priestly Office, made neither could he be opposed to the legal Prieft, as not dying himfelf, but gi- often written ving another. Wherefore wherefoever the Father and the Son are defcribed is, not xestogether as working the Salvation of man, the blood by which it is wrought. Some MSS. is attributed to the Son, not to the Father: as when S. Paul fpeaketh of the andrian, Canredemption that is in Jefus Christ, whom God hath fet forth to be a pro- tabrigian, and pitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness; his, that New Coll. is, his own righteousness, hath reference to God the Father; but his, that r Kveis, and is, his own blood, must be referred to Christ the Son. When he glorifieth the InterpreGod the Father and our Lord Jefus Christ, attributing unto him, that he us, regere hath bleffed, elected, predeftinated, adopted, accepted us, made known Ecclefiam unto us the mystery of his will, and gathered us together in one; in the Domini, 1.3. midst of this acknowledgment he brings in the beloved in whom we have others repre

[ocr errors]

11. 22. 2 Cor.

I

ἐκκλησία το

we have no

or to fanfie it

when it is fo

the Alex

MSS. read it

ter of Irenæ

G. 14.

Sent Kveis

, followed by the Arabick Interpreter; which makes not at all against our Argument; but, because in this particu lar unusual, not like to be true. The Syriack tranflating it Chrifti, ( not Domino, as it is in the Latin Tranflation) gives rather an Expofition than a Verfion. a 1 Pet. 1. 18, 19. b Heb. 10. 10. t'idior aiμa is oppofed to aiμa ánλótesov. And therefore it is obfervable that the Author of the Rocovian Catechism, in his Anfver to this place of Scripture, doth never make the least mention of idiov or proprium, but only affirms that the blood of Chrift 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 idior, whereas the ftrength of our Argument lies in those words, a to idix ans, or, as the Alexandrian MS. and one mentioned by Beza, 2/4 To aíμa? To idis. © Heb. 9. 12. d Ver. 25, 26. € Rom. 3. 25. "Ον προέθετο ὁ Θεὸς ἱλασήριον τὰ πίσεως ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ αἵμεν, εἰς ἔνδειξιν ο δικαιοσιώης αὐτῷ. f Eph. 1. 6, 7.

S

redemption

redemption through his blood, as that which cannot be attributed to the Fa ther. Chrift hath bleffed us; and the Apostle faith, the Father hath bleffed us: which is true, because he fent his Son to bless us. Chrift hath made known unto us the will of his Father; and the Apoftle faith, the Father bath made known unto us the mystery of his will; because he fent his Son to reveal it. Col. 1. 13. Chrift hath delivered us; and the Father is faid to deliver us from the power

Alts 3. 26.
Eph. 1. 9.

Gal. I. 4.

of darkness: not that we are twice delivered, but because the Father delivereth us by his Son. And thus these general acts are familiarly attributed to them both; but still a difference must be obferved 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 himfelf to us; but that the Son did so, it is. They both deliver us from fin and death: but the Son gave himself for our fins that he might deliver us; the Father is not, cannot be faid to have given 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 hath 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 Covenant is fuch, that it is alfo a Teftament, and therefore the blood must be the blood of the Heb. 9. 16. Teftator; for where a Teftament is, there must also of neceffity be the death of the Teftator. But the Teftator which died is not, cannot be, the Father, but the Son; and confequently, 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 Jefus Chrift the Son of God, and God. And thus have I proved the firft of the three Affertions, that the name of God abfolutely taken and placed subjectively, is fometimes to be understood of Chrift.

το όνομα αυτό

Εμμανδήλ, ὁ

μeleg

The fecond, 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 Mar. 1. 23. name, faith S. Matthew, being interpreted, is God with us, and in that interKai naseis pretation the Greek* Article is prefixed. But Chrift is called Emmanuel; that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the Prophet, is, - faying, Behold, a Virgin fhall be with child, and fhall bring forth a Son. μloor, and they fhall call his name Emmanuel. Therefore he is that God with us, Μεθ ̓ ἡμῶν ὁ which is expreffed by way of Excellency, and diftinguished from all other a Verfe 22, 23. who are any ways honoured with that name: For it is a vain imagination to think that Chrift 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 FeruFer. 33. 16. falem was called the Lord our righteousness, and yet that City was not the

Θεός.

[ocr errors]

εἰμί.
Ifa. 9. C.

Lord. Because these two notions, which are conjoined in the name EmJohn 1. 14. manuel, are feverally true of Chrift. First, he is Emmanu, that is, with us, for he hath dwelt among us: and when he parted from the earth, he faid to his Mat. 28. 20. Difciples, I am with you alway, even to the end of the world. Secondly, μ He is El, and that name was given him, as the fame Prophet teftifieth, For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given; and his name fhall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, the mighty God. He then who is both properly called El, that is, God, and is alfo really Emmanu, that is, with us, he muft infallibly be that Emmanuel who is God with us. Indeed if the name Emmanuel 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 Jerufalem; then should it have been the name not of Chrift,

2

« PreviousContinue »