Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

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

[ocr errors]

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 Scriptures‡ know not, and the Holy

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

συσσεισμῷ ὡς εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν. ver. 11. Which language was preserved by the Hellenizing Jews: O ávaλŋp0eis ¿v λaiλamι πνρòç, Sirac. xlviii. 9. and again: aveλýp0n ëwc eiç ròv ovpavòv, 1 Mac. ii. 58. Neither did they use it of Elias only, but of Enoch also: Οὐδὲ εἷς ἐκτίσθη οἷος Ενώχ, καὶ γὰρ avròc ȧveλýpoŋ áñò rñs yns. Sirac. xlix. 14. The same language is continued in the New Testament of our Saviour's ascension: åveλýp0n eiç tòV οὐρανὸν, Mark xvi. 19. ὁ ἀναληφθεὶς ἀφ ̓ ὑμῶν εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν, Acts i. ll. and singly, åveλnpen, Acts i. 2. and, åveAnpon apur, Acts i. 22. As therefore ἀνάληψις τοῦ Μωσέως, in the lan

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 reception of Moses by the Israelites, but the assumption of his body; so ἀνάAmis rou Xplorou is the ascension of Christ, Luke ix. 51. Wherefore this being the constant notion of the word, it must so be here likewise understood, åveλýp&n év dóžy as the Vulgar Latin (whose authority is pretended against us), assumptum est in gloria; rendering it here by the same word by which he always translated ἀνελήφθη.

* For being the Epistle was written in the Greek language, it is enough 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, et Ambrosius, qui omnes legerunt ò ipaVEρwon. I confess the Vulgar Latin reads it otherwise than the Greek, Quod manifestatum est in carne; and it cannot be denied but the Syriac, however translated by Tremellius, agreeth with the Latin; and both seem to have read & instead of Ocóc. But the joint consent of the Greek copies and interpreters are above the authority of these two translators; and the Arabic set forth in the Biblia Polyglotta agreeth expressly with them. But that which Grotius hath farther observed is of far greater consideration: Addit Hincmarus opusculo 55. illud Oɛòç hic positum a Nestorianis.' For if at first the Greeks read ò ¿pavɛpwn, and that ò were altered into Θεός by the Nestorians, 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 first, it is no way probable that the Nestorians should find it in the original ὃ, and make it Θεὸς, because that by so doing they had overthrown their own assertion, which was, that God was not incarnate, nor born of the Virgin Mary; that God did

[ocr errors]

not ascend unto heaven, but Christ by the Holy Ghost remaining upon him, καὶ τὴν ἀνάληψιν αὐτῷ χαρισάμεvov. Concil. Ephes. par. i. cap. 17. Secondly, it is certain that they did not make this alteration, because the Catholic Greeks read it Oɛog before there were such heretics, so called. Nestoriani a Nestorio Episcopo, Patriarcha Constantinopolitano.' S. August. Hæres. Nestorius, from whom that heresy began, was Patriarch of Constantinople after Sisinnius, Sisinnius after Atticus, Atticus after Nectarius, who succeeded Joannes, vulgarly called Chrysostomus. But St. Chrysostom read not ô, but Oɛde, as appears by his Commentaries upon the place: Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκὶ, τουτέστιν, ὁ dnμiovρyós. Orat. 11. And St. Cyril, who by all means opposed Nestorius upon the first appearance of his heresy, wrote two large epistles to the Queens Pulcheria and Eudocia, 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 proceeded thus: Τίς ὁ ἐν σαρκὶ φανερωθείς; ἦ δῆλον, ὅτι πάντη τε καὶ πάντως ὁ ἐκ Θεοῦ πατρὸς Λόγος· οὕτω γὰρ ἔσται μέγα τὸ τῆς εὐσε βείας μυστήριον, Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν oaorí. de Rect. Fid. t. v. par. ii. p. 124. Wherefore in St. Paul he read OεÒÇ God, and took that God to be the Word. In the second, repeating the same text verbatim, he manageth it thus against Nestorius: Ei Oɛờg ŵv å λόγος ἐνανθρωπῆσαι λέγοιτο, καὶ οὐ δή Tov μeleiç rò elvai Đeòs, áλX′ ¿volg hv ἀεὶ διαμένων, μέγα δὴ τότε καὶ ὁμολο γουμένως μέγα ἐστὶ τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον· εἰ δὲ ἄνθρωπος νοεῖται κοινὸς ὁ Χριστὸς, πῶς ἐν σαρκὶ πεφανέρωται; καί τοι πῶς οὐχ ἅπασιν ἐναργές, ὅτι πᾶς ἄνθρωπος ἐν σαρκί τε ἐστὶ, καὶ οὐχ ἂν tripws operó rioi. Ibid. §. 33. p. 153. And in the explanation of the second anathematism, he maketh use of no other text but this to prove the bypo

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

[ocr errors]

statical union, giving it this gloss or exposition: Tí ¿ori rò, ¿pavepwen v σαρκί; τουτέστι, γέγονε σὰρξ ὁ ἐκ Θεοῦ πaтρòs λóyos, &c. The same he urgeth in his Scholion de Unigeniti Incarnatione. So also Theodoret contemporary with St. Cyril: Oɛòs yàp v kai Jεov vids, kai ȧópaтov ëxwv τǹv púow, δῆλος ἅπασιν ἐνανθρωπήσας ἐγένετο, σαφῶς δὲ ἡμᾶς δύο φύσεις ἐδίδαξεν, ἐν σαρκὶ γὰρ τὴν θείαν ἔφη φανερωθῆναι puoi. Ad Timoth. Ep. I. c. iii. 16. tom. iii. p. 478. Thirdly, Hincmarus does not say that the Nestorians put Osos into the Greek text, but that he which put it in was cast out of his bishoprick for a Nestorian. His words are these: Quidam nimirum ipsas Scripturas verbis inlicitis imposturaverunt: sicut Macedonius Constantinopolitanus Episcopus, qui ab Anastasio Imperatore ideo a Civitate expulsus legitur, quoniam falsavit Evangelia, et illum Apostoli locum ubi dicit, quod apparuit in carne, justificatum est in Spiritu, per cognationem Græcarum literarum, O in → hoc modo mutando falsavit. Ubi enim habuit Qui, hoc est o monosyllabum Græcum, litera mutata O in O vertit; et fecit ex, id est ut esset, Deus apparuit per carnem. Quapropter tanquam Nestorianus fuit expulsus.' Hincm. Opus. Iv. c. 18. Now whereas Hincmarus says expulsus legitur, we read not in Evagrius, or the Excerpta of Theodotus, or in Joannes Malala, that Macedonius was cast out of his bi-, shoprick 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, col

lected partly out of the ecclesiastical histories 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. xxix. we have the same relation, only with this difference, that O is not turned into e, but into 2, and so ΟΣ becomes not ex, but ΩΣ. So that the first Greek copies are not said to have read it ὃ, but ὃς, 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 Hinemarus says there was but one letter changed, no such mutation can of O2 make OEO2, it may 22, as we read in Liberatus; and then this is nothing to the Greek text. Thirdly, Macedonius was no Nestorian, but Anastasius an Eutychian, and he ejected him, not [some of the earlier editions omit not] as he did other Catholic bishops under the pretence of Nestorianism, but for other reasons. However, Macedonius could not falsify all the Greek copies, when as well those which were before his time, as those which were written since, all acknowledge ɛóc. And if he had been ejected for substituting Oeòs, without question Anastasius would have taken care for the restoring og, which we find not in any copy. It remaineth therefore that the Nestorians did not falsify the text by reading Oeds ¿pavepwon, but that the ancient Greek fathers read it so; and, consequently, being the Greek is the original, this Lection must be acknowledged authentical.

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; and howsoever we may attribute the acts of the Son unto the Father, because sent by him ; * Týv ¿kkλŋσíaν TOU OOU. For though the Church be properly the Church of Christ, Matt. xvi. 18. Col. i. 24. and in the plural we read once ai kккλŋσíaι TOU XOLσTov, Rom. xvi. 16. as we do of the churches of God, 1 Cor. xi. 16. 2 Thess. i. 4. 1 Thess. ii. 14. yet кκλησία τοῦ Θεοῦ, is frequently used; as, 1 Cor. i. 2. x. 32. xv. 9. xi. 22. 2 Cor. i. 1. 1 Tim. iii. 5. 15. but ǹ Eккλŋoía TO Xpirou not once named. And therefore we have no reason to alter it in this text, or to fancy it first written Xou, and then made fou, when it is so often written Oεou, not Xρiσrov. Some MSS. as the Alexandrian, Cantabrigian, and New Coll. MSS. read it roũ Kupiov, and the interpreter of Irenæus, regere Ecclesiam Domini, I. iii. c. 14. Others represent Kvpíov Kai Oɛou, followed by the Arabic interpreter; which makes not at all against our ar

gument; but,because in this particular unusual, not like to be true. The Syriac_translating it Christi, (NITIVAT notDomino, as it is in the Latin translation) gives rather an exposition than a version.

† "Ιδιον αἷμα is opposed to αἷμα ἀλ λότριον. And therefore it is observable, that the author of the Racovian Catechism, in his Answer to this place of Scripture, doth never make the least mention of idov or proprium, but only affirms that the blood of Christ may be called the blood of God the Father; and totidem verbis did Socinus answer to Wiekus before, but in his whole Answer concealed the force of idiov: whereas the strength of our argument lies in those words, dia rov idiov aiparog, or, as the Alexandrian MSS. and one mentioned by Beza, dià rov aïμarog roỡ idíov.

« ZurückWeiter »