Page images
[ocr errors]

itoinen • 9105 begiven och fylw, undoubtedly belongs to the true and supreme God: but it does not thence follow, that avüket Pes étapézio itaw rõ v0270, should be understood of the spirit of another or inferior God. Certainly s. John when he speaks of the Baptist, igfót7o ävegasta árisangelua a la oig, meant, he had his Commission from Heaven; and when it is spoken of Christ, dax sv automs izoriav téxva Ofõ fueat, and again, ir org igfuvéono av, it must be underfood of the true God the Father. In the like manner, Θεόν έδεις εώρακε πώποτε, if it were taken τυχόν ως of any ever called God; nay, even of Christ Jesus as man, it were certainly falfe. How can then any deny the word to be the supreme God, because he is called simply Ords, 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 Aiterius the Arian, Oix ίπεν ο μακάριο- Πωλ3- Χρισόν κηρύσαν τ' τ Θιά διώαμιν, ή τ’ τα Θιο Cοφίαν, άλλα δίχα σε προθήκης, διμύαμιν Θιά, και Θιά (φίαν· άλλία και είναι τ' ιδίαν αυτό το Θιά διώαμιν τ' έμφυλον αυτό και ζωυπάρχεσαν αρνήτως, κηρύσσων. There are the words of Afterius recorded by Athanasius, Orat. 2. contra Arianos. in which place, notwithstanding, none can deny but O: is twice taken without an Article for the true and Supreme God. Thus Didymus of Alexandria de Sp. S. would distingnish between the person and the Gift of the Holy Ghost, by the addition or defect of the Article ; Apoftoli quando intelligi volunt Personam Spiritus Sancti addunt Articulum, to aveõuce, fine quo Spiritus Sanéti dona notantur. And Athanafius 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 are upea had not so much as an Article prefixed, which might give some colour to intera pret it of the Holy Spirit. Ουδε γδ άδ' αν το άρθρον έχη το οξα το τραβήτα λεγόμενον να σευμα, ένα καν πρύφωσιν έχησε. Epift. 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. 'Eæv peń tos gove &ñ iš udalou sej avsívala, John. 3.5. and to yeafooruifkov in wvúpec?G, V.6. So I john 3. Ι. Μη πανί πνόύμαι πις όύετε, αλλα δοκιμάζετε τα σιδύματα: And again, Εν τέτω γινώσκετε το πνεύμα 78 Osso sáv mye õpece, &c. And beside, according to that distinction, to wvrõv.a certainly stands for the gift of the spirit, i Theff. 5.19. so sveõpece pesi Sivule

. In the like manner, it is so far from truth, that the Scriptures observe so much the Articles, as to use Osos, always for the true and supreme God, and Seos for the false or inferior; that where the true is professedly opposed to the false, even there he is styled simply Ofog. As, 'Arici Tote ox eidótes Otov, icrabícale Tois pen púod sos Seois : New yvóv785 Otor. pãrdov ö riwat617es most ofg, Gal. 4. 8,9: . And where the supreme is diftinguished from him whom they make the inferior God, he is called likewise Osos without an Article : As, Agro 'incs Xeisă, sowerowel a vis suaelyénion Orõ, and verat év jó Ocß cs owweuts, Rom. I, 1, 4. 'AπόσολG- 'Ιησε Χρισ8 Δα Dennuc7c 0es, 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 Pharifees were not fo: Εί και εγω ν σνούμαι Θε8 εκβάλλω τα δαιμόνια, άρα έφθασεν εφ' υμάς η βασιλεία το Θεύ, 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.

[ocr errors]

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, s. light of men ; and the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not : so, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word, which so was in the beginning, was with God, and the Word was God; that is, the same God with whom any other way, than by having the fame 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 God.

Secondly, He who was subsisting in the form of God, and thought himself to be equal with God, (in which thought he could not 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, 7form 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 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. 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 servant. Thirdly, That he was in the form of God, thát 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 such indignities, or died that death ; and when they did, their death did not make, but find them, or suppose them servants. Beside our Saviour in all the degrees of his humiliation never lived as a servant unto any Master


Dei conftitutus. Tertull.


[ocr errors]

Gal. 4. t.

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 fent 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 conlift in fomething distinct from his sufferings, or submission unto men; as the

condition in which he was when he so submitted and so suffered. In that Rim. 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 sin 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 himthe 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 copulaAnd icv roj tive conjunctions, neither of which is in the * original text, and three dicairwos, rog- stinct propositions, without any dependence of one upon the other ; whereoby dois xa

as all the words together are but an expression of Christ's exinanition, βων, ν ομοιώMay aytgan ay with an explication shewing in what it consisteth : which will clearly appear afcópofa, by this literal translation, But emptied himself, taking the form of a ferexactly"obfer- vant, being made in the likeness of men. Where if any man doubt how ved by the Christ emptied himself, the text will satisfy him, by taking the form of a bulgar Larin, fervant ; if any still question how he took the form of a fervant, 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 servi accipi add another act of Christ's humiliation ; a Ånd being found in fashion as a tudine homi- man, being already by his exinanition in the form of a servant, or the likenuin factus, ness of men, he humbled himself, and became (or rather becoming) obeeller @ is 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 afand have been 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 dnevwme the Hebrews. For whereas these words are clearly in the Psalmist, 6 Sacriall one ont fice and offering thou didst not desire, mine ears haft thou opened: The vart 106 wv, Apostle appropriateth the fentence to Christ; When he cometh into the inabot Xuó- world, he faith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body haft

thou prepared me. Now being the boring of the car under the Law, was a t 'Etaweiva- note of perpetual servitude, being this was expressed in the words of the home Pfalmist, and changed by the Apostle into the preparing of a body; it fol

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

* 'Αλλ

a Phil. 2.8.

[ocr errors]

is but one

Conjunction, joining together two Acts of our Saviour, his first exinanition or inivere, and his farther humiliation, or ÉTATHWce' the resi are all participles added for explication to the verbs.

Pfal. 40. 6.

c Exod. 21. 6.

Deut. 15. 17.


[ocr errors]

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 so, 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 emptiness

. 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 fervant be contemporary with his exinanition ; if that exinanition necessarily presupposerh 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 * To civo ima beside the essential, which is the Divine Nature it self, could infer an e-Deo. Tertull

. quality with God. To whom will ye liken me, and make me equal, Elre fe æquafaith'the Holy one? There can be but one infinite, eternal and indepen- Cypr. Efte 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

; himself 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 hity note of Sor the Apostle with a respect unto that other, of the form of a servant, ex- can we un

derstand any less by to divcr ioa, than tirónia, irov and is being indifferently used by the Greeks, as Pindarus Olymp. Ode 2. "Icov 3 νύκλείσιν αιει, "Ίσα ώ αμέραις άλιον έχοντες λινέσερον. Έσλοί νέμονο βίο7ον. So whom the Greeks call ισοθεον" Homer ίσα O.Odyd.o.

Τον γω ίσα Θεώ Ιθακήσιοι ασορόωσι. . Where ica has not the nature of an Adverb, as belonging to sicocówoo, but of a Noun referred to the Antecedent tòv, or including an Adverb added to a Noun, i ruü ws icóbcom. The Collection of Grotius from this verse is very strange ; civas iod oso, eft fpectari tanquam Deum. As if he should have said cicoegwer signifie's fpeétant, therefore eluce fignifies spectari. This he was forced to put off thus, because the strength of our interpretation, rendring an equality, lies in the Verb substantive to είναι. As Dionyfius of Alexandria very anciently, κενώσας εαυτόν, και ταπεινώσας έως θανάτε, θανάτο και σωρέ, ίσα Θεώ υπάρχ4. Epist. ad Pauluin Samosat. For we acknowledge that ioa by it self ofc-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 5; 25:75353, quasi in nocte, iva vexti, 5. 14..

73317 ficut caseum, toa tuçõ, 10. 10. 2007, quafi putredo, Sym. Öpoiwe ontscós, LXX. loa áoxū 13. 21. O, ficut aquam, ice word, 15, 16. pyä tanquam lignum, iode žúra, 24. 20. 107), ficut lutum, ion anno, sryno 27. 16. ficut vestimento, ica dixhoidi, 29. 14. 172), quali bos, iva Boriv, 40. 15. Where we see the vulgar Latin useth for the Hebrew, quasi, sicut, tanquam, the LXX.ica. Sometime it answerth to no word in the original, but supplieth a fimilitude understood, not expressed, in the Hebrew : as plyt tanquam pullum, ica övw, 11. 12. 12N1 & lapis, ioa aitw 28. 2. mans, luto, ioa wnho, 30. 19. Once it rendreth an Hebrew word rather according to the intention, than the signification ; 798 DUD, comparabitur cineri

, ad verbum proverbia cineris, ita avodã, 13. 12. So that in all these places it is used adverbially for inftar, and in none ha:h the addition of to divas 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 ipfum esse æternum & fuminum Deum, ut potius ex hoc ipso neceffario consequatur non effe æternum & summum Deum. Nemo enim fibi ipsi æqualis esse potest. Soc. ad 8. c. Iiek, 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 yuwciæy xon kús. and the basis of one Triangle is supposed equal to the basis of another Triangle, because the same line was basis to both, or ßeois xová. In the same manner certainly may the son be said to be equal to the Father in essence or power, cause they both have they fame essence and power, that is ácia sj de amor xocoli. Ocellus de Universo; daa' de la Town και ωσαύτως διατελεί και ίσον και όμοιον αυτό εντά. Ρ. ΙΙ. a Ifa.40.25. and 46. 5.





Rev. I. II.

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 ef. sential 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 faJhion, in which he was found, destroy, but rather assert the truth of his Humanity, And therefore, as fure as Christ was really and essentially man, of the same nature with us, in whose similitude he was made: lo certainly was he also really and essentially God, of the fame nature and being with him, in whose form he did fubfift

. Seeing then we have clearly evinced from the express words of S. Paul, that Christ was in the form of å fervant as soon as he was made man, that he was in the form of God before he was in the form of a servant, that the form of God in which he fubfisted 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 Essence, 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 efsentially God. For by this title God defcribeth

his own being, and distinguisheth it from all other. I the Lord, the first, 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. But

Christ is expressly called Alpha and Omega, the first and the last. He fo proclaimed himself by a great voice, as of a Trumpet, saying, I am Alpha

and Omega, the first and the last. Which anfwereth to that folemn call and Isa. 48. 12. proclamation in the Prophet, Hearken unto me, O Jacob, and Ifrael my

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 tribulation by virtue of the same description. These things saith the first and

the last, which was dead and is alive. He ascertaineth his coming unto JudgRev. 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 assignation of any particular in respect of which he is the first *With the Ar- or last; in the same latitude and * eminence of

expression in which it is or elsewhere

can be attributed to the supreme God. There is yet another Scripture in stood upon, wo which the same description may seem of a more dubious interpretation: a I anTo w, o zgürx

, i am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, Jaith the Lord, which is szaroThe and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. For being it is the Alpha and the Lord who so calls himself, which title belongeth to the Father and the Son, first and the it may be doubted whether it be spoken by the Father or the Son; but whelaft. For we ther it be understood of the one or of the other, it will sufficiently make good msust not take what we intend to prove. For if they be understood of Christ, as the preGrammarians cedent and the following words imply, then is he certainly that Lord, which do, by which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty; that is, the fuonly the let- preme eternal God, of the fame Divine Essence with the Father, who was that figure, and called by that name. As appeareth by Eratosthenes, who was called Bjta, not to Bapec?a, as Suidas corruptly. Hesychius Illuftrius, from whom Suidas had that passage ; 'Eeg?000 évns ale to do Tepote Warri ei de cadebas τοις άκρoις εγγίζων, Βήτα εκλήθη. And Martianus Heracleota in Periplo, και μετ' εκείνον Ερατοσθένης, όν Βήτα κάλεσαν οι Tã Mochy wegsár?es.


Rev. I. 17.

2. 8.

ticle so much

ter written in

a Rev. 1. 8.



before described by him which is, and which was, and which is to come, Rev. I. 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 su- 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 might 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 hath so immediately, and with so great solemnity 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 furst, 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 whose Glory Isaiah faw in the year that King Uzziah died had a being before Christ was begotten of the Virgin, and that being was the Divine Essence, by which he was naturally and essentially God: For he is expressly called the Lord, Holy, holy, holy, the Lord of hosts, whose Glo- Ifa.6.1, 3. my filleth the whole earth; which titles can belong to none beside the one and only God. But Christ was he whose Glory Isaiah saw, as S. John doth testify, saying. These things said Ifaias, when he saw his Glory, and John 12. 41. spake of him: and he whose 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. Jefus) had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him, that is, Christ who wrought those Miracles. The reason why they believed not on him was, That the saying of Isaias the Prophet might be 38. fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and as 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 with 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 prescience 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 spake of him. 41. Now if the Glory which Isaias saw were the Glory of Christ, and he of whom Isaias 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 Isaias's Vision, and the appropriation of it unto Christ

. Wherefore S. John hath infallibly taught us, that the Propher faw 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 have 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 cán any be that one God,



« PreviousContinue »