« ZurückWeiter »
and consequently to be none of them, and yet we read him often styled God: it followeth, that that name is attributed 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 same 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 same 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 observation, That whensoever the name of God absolutely taken is placed as the subject of any proposition, it is not to be understood of Christ : 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 leaves him 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 conclusion 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 complete my demonstration, I shall shew, 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.
St. Paul, unfolding the mystery of godliness, hath delivered six propositions together, and the subject of all and each of them is God “Without controversy 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.” (1 Tim. iii. 16.) And this God which 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 descended at his baptism, 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 celebrated, in the discharge of his office they ministered unto him, at his resurrection and ascension they were present, always ready to confess and adore him: he was therefore “ God seen of angels." The apostles preached unto all nations, and he whom they preached was Jesus Christ. (Acts viii.5.35. ix. 20. xi. 20. xvii. 3. 18. xix. 13. Rom. xvi. 25. 2 Cor. i. 19. Phil. i.18.) The Father "separated St. Paul from his mother's womb, and called him by his grace, to reveal his Son unto him, that he might preach him among the heathen:” (Gal. i. 15, 16.) therefore he was “God preached unto the Gentiles." John the Baptist spake "unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus." (Acts xix. 4.) “We have believed in Jesus Christ,” (Gal. ii. 16.) saith St. Paul, who so taught the gaoler trembling at his feet, “ Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved:" (Acts xvi. 31.) he therefore was “God believed on in the World.” When he had been forty days on earth after his resurrection, he 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 six propositions, according to the plain and familiar language of the Scriptures, are infallibly true of Christ, and so of God, as he is taken by St. John, (i. 1.) when he speaks those words," the Word was God.” But all these cannot be understood of any other, which either is, or is called, God. For though we grant the divine perfections and attributes to be the same with the divine essence, yet are they never in the Scriptures called God; nor can any of them with the least show of probability be pretended as the subject of these propositions, or afford any tolerable interpretation. When they tell us that “God," that is, the will of God, * " was manifested in the flesh,” that is, was revealed by frail and mortal men, and “received up into glory,” that is, was received gloriously on earth,+ they teach us a language which the Scripturest know not, and the Holy
· Deus, i. e. voluntas ipsius de ovoselou og eis tòv oúpavov. ver. 11. servandis hominibus, per homines in. Which language was preserved by the firmos et mortales perfecte patefacta Hellenizing Jews: 'O ávalnpoeis év est, &c.' Catech. Racov. ad Quæst. 59. lailati hupòs, Sirac. xlviii. 9. and
t 'Insignem in modum et summa again: ávenpon ëws els tòv ovpavdy, cum gloria recepta fuit.' Ibid. 16. 1 Mac. ii. 58. Neither did they use
# For Ocòs is not géinua Okoõ, much it of Elias only, but of Enoch also: less is άνελήφθη received or embraced. Ουδε εις εκτίσθη οίος 'Ενώχ, και γάρ · Elias speaketh not of his reception, autós ávennoon åtò rñs yns. Sirac. but his ascension, when he saith to xlix. 14. The same language is conElisha: Tí motýow col piv ñ ávaln- tinued in the New Testament of our puñvai áTO GOŨ; 2 Kings ji. 9. and ver. Saviour's ascension: dvednoon els tòx 10. Εάν ίδης με αναλαμβανόμενον από ουρανόν, Mark xvi. 19. ο αναληφθείς rov, kai čoral ool oŰTWS. When he ac- áo' inww eis tòv oupavòv, Acts i. ll. and tually ascended, as the original gyny, singly, ávexnoon, Acts i. 2. and, áveit is no otherwise translated by the inpon áo' nuov, Acts i. 22. As thereSeptuagint, than ανελήφθη Ήλιού έν fore ανάληψις του Μωσέως, in the las
Ghost never used, and as no attributes, so no person 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; not the Father, who was not manifested in the flesh, nor received up into glory. It remaineth therefore, that, whereas the Son is the only person to whom all these clearly and undoubtedly belong, which are here jointly attributed unto God, as sure as the name of God is expressed universally in the copies* of the original language, so thus abguage of the Jews, was not the recep- not ascend unto heaven, but Christ tion of Moses by the Israelites, but by the Holy Ghost remaining upon the assumption of his body; so ανά- him, και την ανάληψιν αυτώ χαρισάμεAmpis toũ XplotoŨ is the ascension of vov. Concil. Ephes. par. i. cap. 17. Christ, Luke ix. 51. Wherefore this Secondly, it is certain that they did being the constant notion of the word, not make this alteration, because the it must so be here likewise understood, Catholio Greeks read it Oxós before åvelhoon év 86&yo as the Vulgar Latin there were such heretics, so called. (wliose authority is pretended against 'Nestoriani a Nestorio Episcopo, Paus), assumptum est in gloria ; render- triarcha Constantinopolitano. S. Auing it here by the same word by which gust. Hæres. Nestorius, from whom he always translated ανελήφθη. . that heresy began, was Patriarch of
* For being the Epistle was written Constantinople after Sisinnius, Sisinin the Greek language, it is enough if nius after Atticus, Atticus after Nectaall those copies do agree. Nor need rius, who succeeded Joannes, vulgarly we be troubled with the observation called Chrysostomus. But St. Chryof Grotius on the place: “Suspectam sostom read not o, but Oeds, as appears nobis hanc lectionem faciunt interpre- by his Commentaries upon the place: tes veteres, Latinus, Syrus, Arabs, et Oeds épaveposen év gapki, tourtotiv, Ó Ambrosius, qui omnes legerunt ô épa- dnulovoyós. Orat. 11. And St. Cyril, vepúbn. I confess the Vulgar Latin who by all means opposed Nestorius reads it otherwise than the Greek, upon the first appearance of his hereQuod manifestatum est in carne ; and sy, wrote two large epistles to the it cannot be denied but the Syriac, Queens Pulcheria and Eudocia, in however translated by Tremellius, both which he maketh great use of agreeth with the Latin ; and both this text. In the first, after the repe-> seem to have read 8 instead of Deós. tition of the words as they are now in But the joint consent of the Greek co- the Greek copies, he proceeded thus: pies and interpreters are above the Tίς εν σαρκί φανερωθείς; ή δήλον, ότι authority of these two translators; πάντη τε και πάντως ο εκ θεού πατρός and the Arabic set forth in the Biblia Λόγος" ούτω γάρ έσται μέγα το της ευσε. Polyglotta agreetlh expressly with βείας μυστήριον, θεός εφανερώθη εν them. But that which Grotius hath o apki. de Rect. Fid. t. v. par. ii. p. 124. farther observed is of far greater con- Wherefore in St. Paul he read Ods sideration : Addit Hincmarus opu- God, and took that God to be the sculo 55. illud Oos hic positum a Ne- Word. In the second, repeating the storianis.' For if at first the Greeks same text verbatim, be manageth it read ô épavepógn, and that ô were al- thus against Nestorius: El Oso; wv å tered into θεός by the Nestorians, λόγος ενανθρωπήσαι λέγοιτο, και ου δήthen ought we to correct the Greek που μεθείς το είναι θεός, αλλ' εν οις ήν copy by the Latin, and confess there αεί διαμένων, μέγα δη τότε και ομολοis not only no force, but not so much γουμένως μέγα εστί το της ευσεβείας as any ground or colour for our argu- μυστήριον· ει δε άνθρωπος νοείται κοινός ments. But first, it is no way proba- • Xploròs, tās ļv paprì nepavépwrat ; ble tlaat the Nestorians should bnd it και του πώς ούχ άπασιν εναργές, ότι πάς in the original 8, and make it θεός, άνθρωπος εν σαρκί τε εστί, και ουκ αν because that by so doing they had črépwg òpūró tloi. Ibid. §. 33. p. 153. overthrown their own assertion, which And in the explanation of the second was, that God was not incarnate, nor anathematism, he maketh use of no born of the Virgin Mary; that God did other text but this to prove the hypo
solutely, and subjectively taken must it be understood of Christ.
Again, St. Paul speaketh thus to the elders of the church of Ephesus; “ Take heed unto yourselves, 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.” (Acts xx. 28.) 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 respect 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 shedding of blood
statical union, giving it this gloss or lected partly out of the ecclesiastical exposition: Tí toti Tò, špavepwon év histories and acts of the Councils, σαρκί ; τουτέστι, γέγονε σάρξ ο εκ θεού partly out of the relations of such men Tarpos lóyos, &c. The same he urgeth as he thought fit to believe, extant in in his Scholion de Unigeniti Incarna- the fourth Tome of the Councils. In tione. So also Theodoret contempo- which, chap. xxix. we have the same rary with St. Cyril: Osòs yào ūvkai relation, only with this difference, that geoŨ viòs, kaì åóparov čxwv TÌv púoiv, o is not turned into o, but into l, and δήλος άπασιν ενανθρωπήσας εγένετο, so ΟΣ becomes not ΘΣ, but ΩΣ. So σαφώς δε ημάς δύο φύσεις εδίδαξεν, έν that the first Greek copies are not said σαρκί γάρ την θείαν έφη φανερωθήναι to have read it o,but δς, and so not to púoiv. Ad Timoth. Ep. I. c. iii. 16. have relation to the mystery, but to tom. iii. p. 478. Thirdly, Hincmarus the person of Christ; and therefore does not say that the Nestorians.put this makes nothing for the Vulgar LaOcòs into the Greek text, but that he tin. Secondly, whereas Hincmarus which put it in was cast out of his bi- says there was but one letter changed, shoprick for a Nestorian. His words no such mutation can of 02 make are these : “Quidam nimirum ipsas OE02, it may 29, as we read in LibeScripturas verbis inlicitis impostura- ratus; and then this is nothing to the verunt: sicut Macedonius Constanti- Greek text. Thirdly, Macedonius nopolitanus Episcopus, qui ab Ana- was no Nestorian, but Anastasius an stasio Imperatore ideo a Civitate ex- Eutychian, and he ejected him, not pulsus legitur, quoniam falsavit Evan- [some of the earlier editions omit not] gelia, et illum Apostoli locum ubi as he did other Catholic bishops under dicit, quod apparuit in carne, justificu-' the pretence of Nestorianism, but for tum est in Spiritu, per cognationem other reasons. However, MacedoGræcarum literarum, o in e hoc modo nius could not falsify all the Greek mutando falsavit. Ubi enim habuit copies, when as well those which were Qui, hoc est og monosyllabum Græ- before his time, as those wbich were cum, -litera mutata o in o vertit; et written since, all acknowledge osóg: fecit ex, id est ut esset, Deus apparuit And if he had been ejected for substiper carnem. Quapropter tanquam tating Deos, without question AnastaNestorianus fuit expulsus. Hincm. sius would have taken care for the Opus. Iv. c. 18. Now whereas Hinc- restoring ög, which we find not in any marus says expulsus legitur, we read copy. It remaineth therefore that the not in Evagrius, or the Excerpta of Nestorians did not falsify the text by Theodotus, or in Joannes Malala, that reading Osòs épavepwon, but that the Macedonjus was cast out of his bi-, ancient Greek fathers read it so; and, shoprick for any such falsation. It is consequently, being the Greek is, the therefore probable that he had it from original, this Lection must be acknowLiberatus, a deacon of the Church of ledged authentical. Carthage, who wrote a Breviary, col
there is no remission;" (Heb. ix. 22.) 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, most frequently joined to his Church,* be immediately and properly applicable by all rules of syntax to the verb which followeth it: then is it of necessity to be received as the subject of this proposition, then is this to be embraced as infallible Scripturetruth, God hath purchased the Church with his own blood. But this God may and must be understood of Christ: it may, because he hath; it must, because no other person which is called God hath so purchased the Church. We “were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, but with the precious blood of Christ.” (1 Pet. i. 18, 19.) With this price were we bought; and therefore it may well be said, that Christ our God “ hath purchased us with his own blood.” But no other person which is, or is called, God, can be said so to have purchased us, because it is an act belonging properly to the mediatorship; and “ there is but one Mediator between God and men:"(1 Tim. ii. 5.) and the Church is “sanctified, through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.” (Heb. x. 10.) Nor can the expression of this act, peculiar to the Son, be attributed to the Father, because this blood signifieth death: and though the Father be omnipotent, and can do all things, yet he cannot die. And though it might be said that he purchased us, because he gave his Son to be a ransom for us, yet it cannot be said that he did it by “his own blood;" for then it would follow, that he gave not his Son, or that the Son'and the Father were the same person. Beside, it is very observable, that this particular phrase of “his own blood," is in the Scripture put by way of opposition to the blood of another;t and howsoever we may attribute the acts of the Son unto the Father, because sent by him ;
: * T)VÉKKảnoiav toő Okoû. For though gument; but, because in this particular the Church be properly the Church of unusual, not like to be true. The SyChrist, Matt. xvi. 18. Col. i. 24. and riac translating it Ch , ( in the plural we read once ai łkkinoial not Domino, as it is in the Latin transToŨ Xplotoũ, Rom. xvi. 16. as we do of lation) gives rather an' exposition the churches of God, 1 Cor. xi. 16. 2 than a version. Thess. i. 4. 1 Thess. ii. 14. yet in tr "Ιδιον αίμα is opposed to αίμα αλkinoia toŨ Okoũ, is frequently used; as, Lórplov. And therefore it is observable, 1 Cor. i. 2. x. 32. xv.9. xi. 22. 2 Cor. that the author of the Racovian Catei. 1. 1 Tim. iii. 5. 15. but ý ťkkinoia chism, in his Answer to this place of Toû Xplotoữ not once named. And Scripture, doth never make the least therefore we have no reason to alter it mention of "dov or proprium, but only in this text, or to fancy it first written affirms that the blood of Christ may be xoũ, and then made doữ, when it is so called the blood of God the Father; often written 'Osoữ, not Xplotoữ. Some' and totidem verbis did Socinus answer MSS. as the Alexandrian, Cantabri- to Wiekus before, but in his whole gian, and New Coll. MSS. read it toû Answer concealed the force of idov: Kuplov, and the interpreter of Irenæus, whereas the strength of our argument regere Ecclesiam Domini, 1. iii. c. 14. lies in those words, dià toũ idiov'a'rpaOthers represent Kvplov kai Okoũ, fol- tos; or, as the Alexandrian MSS. and lowed by the Arabic interpreter; one mentioned by Beza, did toŨ aiuawhich makes not at all against our ar- Toc ToŨ idiov.