yet we cannot but acknowledge that the blood and death was of another than the Father. "Not by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood, he entered in once into the holy place;" (Heb. ix. 12.) and whereas "the high-priest entered every year with the blood of others, Christ appeared once to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself." (Ibid. 25, 26.) He then which purchased us wrought it by his own blood, as a high-priest opposed to the Aaronical, who made atonement by the blood of others. But the Father taketh no priestly office, neither could he be opposed to the legal priest, as not dying himself, but giving another. Wherefore wheresoever the Father and the Son are described together as working the salvation of man, the blood by which it is wrought is attributed to the Son, not to the Father: as when St. Paul speaketh of the "redemption that is in Jesus Christ, whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness;" (Rom. iii. 24, 25.)* his, that is, his own righteousness, hath reference to God the Father; but his, that is, his own blood, must be referred to Christ the Son. When he glorifieth the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, attributing unto him, that he hath blessed, elected, predestinated, adopted, accepted us, made known unto us the mystery of his will, and gathered us together in one; in the midst of this acknowledgment he brings in "the Beloved in whom we have redemption through his blood," (Eph. i. 6, 7.) as that which cannot be attributed to the Father. Christ bath blessed us; and the apostle saith the Father hath blessed us : which is true, "because he sent his Son to bless us." (Acts iii. 26.) Christ hath made known unto us the will of his Father; and the apostle saith, the Father "hath made known unto us the mystery of his will;" (Eph. i. 9.) because he sent his Son to reveal it. Christ hath delivered us; and the Father is said to "deliver us from the power of darkness:" (Col. i. 13.) 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 observed and acknowledged in the means and manner of the performance of these acts. For though it is 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 so, it is. They both deliver us from sin and death; but the Son "gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us;" (Gal. i. 4.) the Father is not, cannot be said to have given himself, but his Son; and therefore the apostle giveth thanks unto the Father, "who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son, in whom we have redemption through his blood." (Col. i. 13, 14.) Now this blood is not only the blood of the new * Ὃν προέθετο ὁ Θεὸς ἱλαστήριον διὰ ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ. τῆς πίστεως ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι, εἰς Covenant, and consequently of the Mediator; but the nature of this Covenant is such, that it is also a Testament, and therefore the blood must be the blood of the testator; "for where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator." (Heb. ix. 16.) 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 Christ, may be thus made good. He which is called Emmanuel is named God by way of excellency; for that name, saith St. Matthew, "being interpreted, is God with us;" (Matt. i. 23.) and in that interpretation the Greek* article is prefixed. But Christ is called Emmanuel; "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel." (Ibid. 22, 23.) Therefore he is that "God with us," which is expressed by way of 'excellency, and distinguished from all other 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: as "Moses built an altar, and called the name of it Jehovah Nissi," (Exod. xvii. 15.) and "Gideon" another called "Jehovah Shalom;" (Judg. vi. 24.) and yet neither altar was Jehovah: as Jerusalem was called "the Lord our righteousness;" (Jer. xxxiii. 16.) and yet that city was not the Lord. Because these two notions, which are conjoined in the name Emmanuel, are severally true of Christ. First, he is Emmanu, that is, with us, for he hath "dwelt among us:" (John i. 14.) and when he parted from the earth, he said to his disciples, "I am with you alway, even to the end of the world." (Matt. xxviii. 20.) Secondly, he is El, and that name was given him, as the same prophet testifieth, "For unto us a child is born, unto us a Son is given: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, the mighty God." (Isa. ix. 6.) He then who is both properly called El, that is, God, and is also really Emmanu, that is, with us, he must infallibly be that Emmanuel who is "God with us." Indeed, if the name Emmanuel were to be interpreted by way of a proposition, God is with us,' as "the Lord our righteousness," and "the Lord is there," (Ezek. xlviii. 35.) must be understood * Καὶ καλέσουσι τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ ̓Εμ- † Εγώ μεθ' ὑμῶν εἰμί, μανουὴλ, ὅ ἐστι μεθερμηνευόμενον, Μεθ' ἡμῶν ὁ Θεός. אל גבור t where they are the names of Jerusalem; then should it have been the name not of Christ but of his Church: and if we under the Gospel had been called so, it could have received no other interpretation in reference to us. But being it is not ours, but our Saviour's name, it bears no kind of similitude with those objected appellations, and is as properly and directly to be attributed to the Messias as the name of Jesus. Wherefore it remaineth that Christ be acknowledged God with us, according to the evangelical interpretation, with an expression of that excellency which belongeth to the supreme Deity. 6 66 Again, he to whom St. Thomas said, My Lord and my God," (John xx. 28.) or rather, The Lord of me, and the God of me;' he is that God before whose name the Greek article is prefixed, which they require, by way of excellency. But St. Thomas spake these words to Christ.* For Jesus spake unto Thomas," and Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God." And in these words† he made confession of * Indeed it hath been answered, xix. 3. If it be an ellipsis of the verb that these words are not to be referred el, so frequent in the Scriptures, and to Christ, but to God the Father. So of the person sufficiently understood Theodorus Mopsuestenus in his Com- in the preceding pronoun, then is it mentary on St. John: Thomas qui- evident that ó Ocòc is attributed unto dem, cum sic credidisset, Dominus Christ; for then St. Thomas said unto meus et Deus meus dicit, non ipsum him, Thou art, ♪ Oɛóç pov. If it be an Dominum et Deum dicens (non enim antiptosis, though the construction reresurrectionis scientia docebat et De- quire not a verb, yet the signification um esse eum qui resurrexit), sed qua- virtually requireth as much, which is si pro miraculoso facto Deum collau- equivalent; for he acknowledgeth him dat.' Syn. V. Collat. 4. As if Thomas as much God while he calleth him so, had intended only to have praised as if he did affirm him to be so. NeiGod for raising Christ. But first, it ther can it be objected that the article is plain that Thomas answered Christ; & serveth only in the place of εl, as sigsecondly, that he spake unto him, nifying that the nominative is to be that is to Christ, and consequently, taken for the vocative case; because that the words which he spake belong the nominative may as well stand voto Christ; thirdly, that the words are catively without an article, as 'Iwond a confession of his faith in Christ, as viòs Aaßid, Matt. i. 20. and 'EXénoov our Saviour doth acknowledge. And yμãs, Kúpi, viòcs Aaßid, Matt. xx. 30, whereas Franciscus Davidis did ob- 31. and therefore when the vocative ject, that in a Latin Testament he is invested with an article, it is as confound not et dixit ei, but et dixit with- siderable as in a nominative. And out ei, it is sufficiently discountenanc- being these words were an expression ed by Socinus in his epistle, affirming of the apostle's faith, as Christ underthat all the Greek and Latin copies stood and approved them, they must had it, except that one which he had contain in them, virtually at least, a found: and therefore the omission proposition; because no act of our must be imputed to the negligence of faith can be expressed, where the obthe printer. ject is not at least a virtual proposition. And in that proposition, ὁ Θεὸς must be the predicate, and Christ, to whom these words are spoken, must also be the subject. It cannot therefore be avoided, but that St. Thomas did attribute the name of God to our Saviour with an article. Indeed to me there is no doubt but St. Thomas † Ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ Θεός μου. Either in these words there is an ellipsis of el où, Thou art my Lord, thou art my God: or an antiptosis, the nominative case used for the vocative, as 'Eλwi, 'Elwi, ¿ Оɛóc μov, ò Оɛóc μov, Mark xv. 34. 'Aßßà ò Tarno, Mark xiv. 36. and Χαῖρε ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων, John . his faith; for our Saviour replied, "Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed." (Ibid. 29.) And let him be the Lord of me, and the God of me, who was the Lord and the God of an apostle. David speaks to God & Oɛòs, ó Oɛós μov, πρós σε opłpí?w, Psal. Ixii. 1. the latter is of as great importance as the former. So again, Psal. xlii. 5. ¿oμoλογήσομαι ἐν κιθάρᾳ, ὁ θεὸς, ὁ θεός μου, and xlix. 3. ὁ θεὸς ἐμφανῶς ἥξει, ὁ θεὸς Nor have we only their required testimony of Christ's supreme Divinity, but also an addition of verity asserting that supremacy. For he is not only termed the God, but, for a farther certainty, the true God; and the same apostle, who said "the Word was God," lest any cavil should arise by any omission of an article, though so frequently neglected by all, even the most accurate authors, hath also assured us that he is the true God. For, "we know (saith he) that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding that we may know him that is true: and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.”* (1 John v. 20.) As therefore we read in the Acts, of the "word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ; he is Lord of all :" (x. 36.) where it is acknowledged that the Lord of all is by the pronoun het joined in these words did make as true and must be my supreme God: as when real a confession of his faith concerning the person of Christ, as St. Peter did, when he "answered and said, Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God,” Matt. xvi. 16. and, consequently, that ὁ Κύριος and ὁ Θεὸς do as properly belong unto him, as St. Peter's ὁ Χριστὸς and ὁ υἱός. As therefore Christ said to his disciples, Vos vocatis me ὁ διδάσκαλος καὶ ὁ Κύριος, et bene dicitis, sum etenim, John xiii. 13. so he might have replied to Thomas, You call me ὁ Κύριος, and ὁ Θεὸς, and you say well, for I am so. As for the objection of Socinus, that though Θεὸς be here spoken of Christ, and that with an article 6, yet that article is of no force because of the following pronoun μου, it is most groundless : for the article ò cannot have relation to the following pronoun μov έπεì πç ǹ ἀπαράδεκτος ἀντωνυμία τῶν ἄρθρων ἐν γενικῇ πτώσει εὐθείας ἄρθρον παραδέχε-, ται, as that great critic Apollonius Alexandrinus observes, 1. i. de Syntax. c. 30. And if for pov, it were & ἐμὸς, yet even that article would belong to θεός, for in these words, ὁ θεὸς ὁ ἐμὸς, neither article belongs to ἐμὸς, but both to fɛóc: for, as the same critic observes in the same case, rà duo ἄρθρα εἰς μίαν τὴν εὐθεῖαν ἀναφέρεται οὐκ ἄρα ἐν τῷ, ὁ πατὴρ ὁ ἐμὸς, κατηνάγκασται τὸ ἕτερον τῶν ἄρθρων ἐπὶ τὴν ἀντωνυμίαν φέρεσθαι. So that if ὁ Θεὸς be the supreme God, then & Oɛós μov ́ uv, and Ixxi. 12. ô 0ɛòs μù μakpúvys ἀπ ̓ ἐμοῦ, ὁ θεός μου. I dare not therefore say to any person that he is ò 0ɛóg μου, except that I do believe that he is 0ɛós. Wherefore I conclude that the words of St. Thomas, ó kúpiós μov καὶ ὁ θεός μου, are as fully and highly significative as those of David: Пpóσχες τῇ φωνῇ τῆς δεήσεώς μου, ὁ βασιλεύς μov kaì ò 0ɛós μov, Psal. v. 2. or those, ὁ θεός μου καὶ ὁ κύριός μου, εἰς τὴν δίκην pov, Psal. xxxv. 23. or those, Tà Ivoi αστήριά σου, κύριε τῶν δυνάμεων, ὁ βασιλɛúc μov, raì ò dɛós μov, Psal. lxxxiv. 3. or those of St. John in the Revelation, iv. 11. as they lie in the Alex andrian and Complutensian copies: ̓́Αξιος εἶ, ὁ κύριος καὶ ὁ Θεὸς ἡμῶν ὁ äyros, λaßeiv, &c. or that lastly in the most ancient hymn, Kúpɩ ò Oɛòç, ¿ ἀμνὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ- ἐλέησον ἡμᾶς. * Οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἀληθινὸς θεὸς, καὶ ἡ ζωὴ αἰώνιος. "Hic agitur non solum de vero Deo, sed de illo uno vero Deo, ut articulus in Græco additus indicat.' Catech. Racov. sect. iv. c. l. † Οὗτος for ὃς, as Acts viii. 26. ἀπὸ Ἱερουσαλὴμ εἰς Γάζαν αὕτη ἐστὶν ἔρημος, qua est deserta. 豪 unto Jesus Christ, the immediate, not unto God, the remote antecedent; so likewise here the true God is to be referred unto Christ, who stands next unto it, not unto the Father, spoken of indeed in the text, but at a distance. There is no reason alleged why these last words should not be referred to the Son of God, but only this, that in grammatical construction they may be ascribed to the Father. As, when "another king arose which knew not Joseph, the same dealt subtilly with our kindred;" (Acts vii. 18, 19.) the same referreth us not to Joseph, but to the king of Egypt. Whereas, if nothing else can be objected but a possibility in respect of the grammatical construction, we may as well say that Joseph dealt subtilly with his kindred as the king of Egypt; for whatsoever the incongruity be in history, it makes no solecism in the syntax. Wherefore being Jesus Christ is the immediate antecedent to which the relative may properly be referred; being the Son of God is he of whom the apostle chiefly speaketh; being this is rendered as a reason why "we are in him that is true," by being "in his Son," to wit, because that Son " is the true God;" being in the language of St. John the constant title of our Saviour is "eternal life;" being all these reasons may be drawn out of the text itself, why the title of the true God should be attributed to the Son, and no one reason can be raised from thence, why it should be referred to the Father: I can conclude no less, than that our Saviour is the true God, so styled in the Scriptures by way of eminency, with an article prefixed, as the first Christian writers which immediately followed the apostles did both speak and write.* But, thirdly, Were there no such particular place in which the article were expressed, yet shall we find such adjuncts fixed to the name of God when attributed unto Christ, as will prove equivalent to an article, or whatsoever may express the supreme Majesty. As when St. Paul doth magnify the Jews, "out of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever, Amen." (Rom. ix. 5.) First, it is evident that Christ is called God,† even he who came of * Δοξάζω Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν τὸν Θεόν. Ignat. Epist. ad Smyrn. c. 1. 'Ev Oeλήματι τοῦ Πατρὸς, καὶ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν. Id. Ep. ad Eph. init. Ὁ γὰρ Θεὸς ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦς ὁ Χριστὸς ἐκυοφορήθη ὑπὸ Μαρίας. Ib. c. 18. Ὁ γὰρ θεὸς ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς ἐν Πατρὶ wv μãdλov paiverai. Ep. ad Rom. c. 3. Τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγου τὰ λογικὰ πλάσματα peis. Clem. Alex.adv. Gentes, c. i. p. 3. And it was well observed by the au- + Though some would leave God thor of the Mixpà Aaßúpıv0os, written out of the text, upon this pretence, about the beginning of the third cen- because St. Cyprian, in lib. ii. adv. tury, that not only the ancienter fa- Judæos, §. 6. citing this place, leaves thers before him, as Justin, Miltiades, it out. But that must needs be by the Tatianus, Clemens, Irenæus, Melito, negligence of some of the scribes, as &c. did speak of Christ as God; but is evident. First, because Manutius that the hymns also penned by Christians from the beginning did express Christ's Divinity: Ψαλμοὶ δὲ ὅσοι καὶ ᾠδαὶ ἀδελφῶν ἀπ ̓ ἀρχῆς ὑπὸ πιστῶν γραφεῖσαι τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸν Χρι στὸν ὑμνοῦσι θεολογοῦντες. And the epistle of Pliny to Trajan testides the same, I. x. ep. 97. 'Quod essent soliti stato die ante lucem convenire, carmenque Christo quasi Deo dicere.' |