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 absolutely and subjectively taken must it be understood of Christ. 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 & ipavegán.' 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 rós. 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 ads hic positum a Nestorianis.' For if at first the Greeks read pavagn, and that were altered into so 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 %, and make it is, 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 not ascend unto heaven, but Christ by the Holy Ghost remaining upon him, καὶ τὴν ἀνάληψιν αὐτῷ χαρισάμενον. Concil. Ephes. par. i. cap. 17. Secondly, it is certain that they did not make this alteration, because the Catholic Greeks read it d before there were such heretics, so called. Nestoriani a Nestorio Episcopo, Patriarcha Constantinopolitano.' S. August. Hares. 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 %, but eos, as appears by his Commentaries upon the place : Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκὶ, του τέστιν, ὁ δημιουργός. 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: Tiçó év capul φανερωθείς ; ἦ δῆλον, ὅτι πάντη τε καὶ πάντως ὁ ἐκ Θεοῦ πατρὸς Λόγος· οὕτω γὰρ ἔσται μέγε τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον, Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη agni. de Rect. Fid. t. v. par. ii. p. 124. Wherefore in St. Paul he read ees God, and took that God to be the Word. In the second, repeating the same text verbatim, he manageth it thus against Nestorius: Εἰ Θεὸς ὢν ὁ λόγος ἐνανθρωπῆσαι λέγοιτο, καὶ οὐ δήπου μεθεὶς τὸ εἶναι Θεὸς, ἀλλ ̓ ἐν οἷς ἦν ἀεὶ διαμένων, μέγα δὴ τότε καὶ ὁμολογουμένως μέγα ἐστὶ τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον· εἰ δὲ ἄνθρωπος νοεῖται κοινὸς ὁ Χριστὸς, πῶς ἐν σαρκὶ πεφανέρωται ; καί τα πῶς οὐχ ἅπασιν ἐναργές, ὅτι πᾶς ἄνθρωπος ἐν σαρκί τε ἐστὶ, καὶ οὐχ ἂν ἑτέρως ὁρῶτό τισί. Ibid. §. 33. p. 153. And in the explanation of the second anathematism, he maketh use of no other text but this to prove the hypostatical union, giving it this gloss or exposition: Τί ἐστι τὸ, ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί ; τουτέστι, γέγονε σὰρξ ὁ ἐκ Θεοῦ πατρὸς λόγος, &c. The same he urgeth in his Scholion de Unigeniti Incarnatione. So also Theodoret contemporary with St. Cyril: tos yàp av xai Θεοῦ υἱὸς, καὶ ἀόρατον ἔχων τὴν φύσιν, δέλος ἅπασιν ἐνανθρωπήσας ἐγένετο, σαφῶς δὲ ἡμᾶς δύο φύσεις ἐδίδαξεν, ἐν σαρκὶ γὰρ τὴν θείαν ἔφη φανερωθῆναι φύσιν. Ad Timoth. Ep. I. c. iii. 16. tom. iii. p. 478. Thirdly, Hincmarus does not say that the Nestorians put Od 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 Oz monosyllabum Græcum, litera 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 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 Scripture-truth, God hath mutata o invertit; et fecit z, id est , and so not to have relation to the mystery, but to the person of Christ; and there. fore this makes nothing for the Vulgar Latin. Secondly, whereas Hincmarus says there was but one letter changed, no such mutation can of Oz make EOE, 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 tóc. And if he had been ejected for substituting ads, without question Anastasius would have taken care for the restorings, which we find not in any copy. It remaineth therefore that the Nestorians did not falsify the text by reading Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη, but that the ancient Greek fathers read it so; and, consequently, being the Greek is the original, this Lection must be acknowledged authentical. * Τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ. For though the Church be properly the Church of Christ, Matt. xvi. 18. Col. i. 24. and in the plural we read once aἱ ἐκκλησίαι τοῦ Χριστοῦ, Rom. xvi. 16. as we do of the churches of God, 1 Cor. xi. 16. 2 Thess. i. 4. 1 Thess. ii. 14. yet ἡ ἐκκλησία 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 innλnoia ro Χριστοῦ not once named. And therefore we have no reason to alter it in this text, or to fancy it first written you, and then made 8o, when it is so often written ou, not Xero. Some MSS. as the Alexandrian, Cantabrigian, and New Coll. MSS. read it τοῦ Κυρίου, and the interpreter of Irenæus, regere Ecclesiam Domini, l. iii. ç. 14. Others represent Kuglou xa! soũ, followed by the Arabic interpreter; which makes not at all against our argument; but, because in this particular unusual, not like to be true. The Syriac translat ing it Christi, ( not Domino, as it is in the Latin translation) gives rather an exposition than a version. 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." (I 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; 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 highpriest 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 Ιδιον αἷμα is opposed to aἷμα ἀλλότριον. 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 ide: whereas the strength of our argument lies in those words, διὰ τοῦ ἰδίου αἵματος, or, as the Alexandrian MSS. and one mentioned by Beza, διὰ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ ἰδίου. † Ον προέθετο ὁ Θεὸς ἱλαστήριον διὰ τῆς πίστεως ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι, εἰς ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ. 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 be 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 hath 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 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 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 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 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. 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 * Καὶ καλέσουσι τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἐμμανουὴλ, ὅ ἐστι μεθερμηνευόμενον, Μεθ ̓ ἡμῶν ὁ Θεός. † Εγώ μεθ ̓ ὑμῶν εἰμί. אל גבור + § Indeed it hath been answered, that these words are not to be referred to Christ, but to God the Father. So Theodorus Mopsuestenus in his Commentary on St. John: Thomas quidem, cum sic credidisset, Dominus meus et Deus meus dicit, non ipsum Dominum et Deum dicens (non enim resurrectionis scientia docebat |
