Gambar halaman


Sundry other testimonies, given to the Deity of Christ, vindicated. In the next place they heap up a great many testimonies confusedly, containing spiritual attributions unto Christ, of such things as manifest him to be God, which we shall consider in that order, or rather disorder, wherein they are placed of them.

Their first question here is.
'Q. Ina what Scriptures is Christ called God?

• A. John i. 1. The Word was God. John xx.28. Thomas saith unto Christ, My Lord, and my God. Rom. ix. 5. The apostle saith, that Christ is God over all blessed for ever.'

Q. What can be proved by these testimonies ?'

* A. That a divine nature cannot be demonstrated from them, besides the things that are before produced, is hence manifest, that in the first testimony the Word is spoken of, and John saith that he was with God: in the second, Thomas calleth him God, in whose feet and hands he found the print of the nails, and of the spear in his side: and Paul calleth him, who according to the flesh was of the fathers, God over all blessed for ever: all which cannot be spoken of him, who by nature is God; for thence it would follow, that there are two gods of whom one was with the other: and these things, to have the prints of wounds, and to be of the fathers belong wholly to a man; which were absurd to ascribe to him, who is God by nature. And if any one shall pretend that veil of the distinction of natures, we have above removed that, and have shewed, that this distinction cannot be maintained.'

a In quibus Scripturis Christus vocatur Deus ?-Johan. 1. 1. et Verbum fuit Deus. et cap. 20. v. 28. Thomas ad Christum ait, Dominus meus, et Deus meus ; et Rom. ix. v. 5. Apostolus scribit Christum deum (esse) supra omnes benedictum in secula. Quid liis testimoniis effici potest.-Naturam divinam in Christo ex iis demonstrari non posse, præter ea quæ superius allata sunt, hinc manifestum est, quod in primo testimonio agatur de Verbo, quod Johannes testatur apud illum Deum fuisse. In secundo, Thomas eum appellat Deum, in cujus pedibus et manibus clavorum, in latere Janceæ vestigia deprehendit; et Paulus eum, qui secundum carnem a patribus erat, Deum supra omnia benedictum vocat. Quæ omnia dici de eo, qui natura Deus sit nullo modo posse, planum est. Etenim ex illo sequeretur duos esse Deos, quorum alter apud alterum fuerit. Hæc vero, vestigia vulnerum habere, ex patribus esse, hominis sunt prorsus; quæ ei, qui natura deas sit, ascribi nimis absonum esset. Quod si illud distinctionis naturarum velum quis prætendat, jam superius illud amovimus et docuinus, hanc distinctionem nullo modo posse sustineri.

That in all this answer our catechists do nothing but beg the thing in question, and fly to their own hypothesis, not against assertions but arguments, themselves so far know, as to be forced to apologize for it in the close. 1. That Christ is not God, because he is not the person of the Father;' that he is not God, because he is man,' is the sum of their answer. And yet these men knew, that we insisted on these testimonies to prove him God, though he be man, and though he be not the same person with the Father. 2. They do all along impose upon us their own most false hypothesis ; that Christ is God, although he be not God by nature. Those who are not God by nature, and yet pretend to be gods, are idols, and shall be destroyed. And they only are the men who affirm there are two gods; one who is so by nature and another made so, one indeed God and no man, the other a man and no God: the Lord our God, is one God. 3. In particular, John i. 1. the Word is Christ, as hath been above abundantly demonstrated. Christ in respect of another nature, that he had before ‘he took flesh, and dwelt with men:' ver. 14. Herein is he said to be with the Father, in respect of his distinct personal subsistence, who was one with the Father, as to his nature and essence. And this is that which we prove from his testimony, which will not be warded with a bare denial. The Word was with God, and the Word was God'. God by nature, and with God in his personal distinction. 4. Thomas confesses him to be his Lord and God, in whose hands and feet he saw the print of the nails; as God is said to redeem the church with his own blood. He was the Lord and God of Thomas, who in his human nature shed his blood, and had the print of the nails in his hands and feet. Of this confession of Thomas I have spoken before, and therefore I shall not now farther insist

it. He whom Thomas in the confession of his faith as a believer, owned for his Lord and God, he is the true God, God by nature; of a made God, a God by office, to be confessed and believed in, the Scripture is utterly silent. 5. The same is affirmed of Rom. ix. 5. The apostle distinguishes of Christ, as to his flesh, and as to his Deity; as to his flesh, or human nature, he says, he was of the fathers : but in the other regard he is God over all blessed for ever.' And as this is a signal expression of the true God, God over all blessed for ever,' so there is no occasion of that expression, tò kard sápka, ‘as to the flesh,' but to assert something in Christ, which he afterward affirms to be his everlasting Deity, in regard whereof he is not of the fathers. He is then of the fathers το κατά σάρκα, ο ών επί πάντων θεός ευλογητός εις τους αιώνας, αμήν. The words are most emphatically expressive of the eternal Deity of Christ, in contradistinction to what he received of the fathers : ó wv, even then when he took flesh of the fathers, then was he, and now he is, and ever will be God over all; that is, the Most High God blessed for ever. It is evident, that the apostle intends to ascribe to Christ here, two most solemn attributes of God; the Most High, and the Blessed One. Nor is this testimony to be parted with for their begging, or with their importunity. 6. It is our adversaries who say, there are two Gods, as hath been shewed, not we; and the prints of wounds are proper to him who is God by nature, though not in that regard, on the account whereof he is so. 7. What they have said to oppose the distinction of two natures, in the one person of Christ, hath already been considered, and manifested to be false and frivolous.


I could wish to these testimonies they had added one or two more; as that of Isa. liv. 5. • Thy Maker is thine husband, the Lord of Hosts is his name, and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel, the God of the whole earth shall he be called.' That Jesus Christ is the husband and spouse of the church, will not be denied ; Eph. v. 25. Rev.xxi.9. but he who is so, is 'the Lord of Hosts, the God of Israel, the Lord of the whole earth.' And Heb. iii. 4. the apostle says, that he that made all things is God;' that is, his church; for of that he treats : he that created all things, that is, ' the church as well as all other things,' he is God; none could do it but God: but Christ built this house:' ver. 3. But this is not my present employment.

The learned Grotius is pitifully entangled about the two last places urged by our catechists. Of his sleight in dealing with that of John xx. 28. I have spoken of before, and discovered the vanity of his insinuations. Here he tells you, that after Christ's resurrection, it grew common with the Christians to call him God, and urges Rom. ix. 5. but coming to expound that place, he finds that shift will not serve the turn, it being not any Christians calling of him God, that there is mentioned, but the blessed apostle plainly affirming, that he is God over all, blessed for ever;' and therefore forgetting what he had said before, he falls upon a worse and more desperate evasion, affirming, that the word Ocòs, ought not to be in the text : because Erasmus had observed, that. Cyprian and Hilary, citing this text, did not name the word: and this he rests upon; although he knew, that all original copies whatever, constantly without any exception do read it; and that Beza had manifested against Erasmus, that Cyprian lib. ad Judæ 2. cap. 5. and Hilary ad Psal. 12. do both cite this place to prove, that Christ is called God, though they do not express the text to the full. And it is known, how Athanasius used it against the Arians, without any hesitation, as to the corruption of the text. This

way of shifting indeed is very wretched, and not to be pardoned. I am well contented with all, that, from what he writes on John i. 1. (the first place mentioned) do apprehend, that when he wrote his annotations on that place, he was no opposer of the Deity of Christ : but I must take leave to say, that for mine own part, I am not able to collect from all there spoken in his own words, that he doth at all assert the assuming of the human nature into personal subsistence with the Son of God: I speak as to the thing itself, and not to the expressions which he disallows. But we must proceed with our catechists.

'Q. Whereb doth the Scripture testify that Christ is one with the Father?

* A. John x. 29–31. My Father which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of his hand. I and my Father are one. Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.

• Q. How dost thou answer this testimony ?

b Ubi vero Scriptura testatur Christnm cum Patre esse unum ?--Johan. X. 29, 30. Ubi Dominus ait; Pater qui mihi (oves) dedit, major omnibus est, et nemo eas rapere potest e manibus Patris mei. Ego et Pater unum sumus.

c Qua ratione respondes ad id testimonium ?-Ex eo, quod dicatur Christus esse cum patre unum, effici non posse, esse unum cum eo patura, verba Christi, quæ ad Patrem de discipulis habuit, demonstrant. Johan. xvii. 11. Pater sancte, serva illos in nomine tuo, ut sint unum, quemadmodum et nos unum sumus. Et paulo inferius, v. 22. Ego gloriam, quam dedisti mihi, dedi illis, ut sint unum, quemadmodum nos

Quod vero Christus sit unum cum Patre, hoc aut de voluntate, aut de potentia in salutis nostræ ratione accipi debet : unde naturam divinam non probari

unum sunius.


• A. That from hence that Christ is said to be one with the Father, that it cannot be proved that he is one with him in nature, the words of Christ to his Father of the disciples do shew; John xvii. 11. that they may be one as we are ; and a little after, ver. 22. that they may be one even as we are one. That Christ is one with the Father, this ought to be understood either of will, or power, in the business of our salvation. Whence that a divine nature cannot be proved, is manifest from those places where Christ saith his Father is greater than all, and consequently than Christ himself, as he expressly confesseth, and that he gave him his sheep; John xiv. 28

Of this place I have spoken before. That it is an unity of essence that is here intended by our Saviour, appears ; 1. From the apprehension the Jews had of his meaning in those words, who immediately upon them took up stones to stone him for blasphemy, rendering an account of their so doing, ver. 33.' because he being a man, did make himself God.' 2. From the exposition he makes himself of his words, ver. 36. I am the Son of God:' that is it I intended; I am so one with him, as a Son is with the Father, that is, one in nature and essence. 3. He is so one with him, as that the Father is in him, and he in him, by a divine immanency of persons. 2. Those words of our Saviour, John xvii. 12. 22. do not argue a parity in the union of believers among themselves, with that of him and his father, but a similitude : see Matt. xvii. 20. that they may be one in affection, as his Father and he are in essence. We are to be holy, as God is holy. 2. If oneness of will and consent be the ground of this, that the Son and Father are one; then the angels and God are one, for with their wills they always do his. 3. Oneness of power with God, in any work, argues oneness of es

God's power is omnipotent, and none can be one with him in power, but he who is omnipotent; that is, who is God. And if it be unity of power here asserted, it is spoken absolutely, and not referred to any particular kind of thing. 4. It is true, God the Father is greater than Christ, as is affirmed John xiv. 28. in respect of his office of medi

[ocr errors]


ex eodem loco constat, ubi Christus ait, Patrem omnibus esse majorem, ac proinde etiam ipso Domino, quemadmodum idem Dominus expresse fatetur, et quod cas oves ei dederit, Joan. xiv. 28.

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »