« PreviousContinue »
the sense of this place which is the sense of them, though neither the scope of the places nor the sense of the words themselves will bear it. If the latter, it is most false. There is not one word, phrase, or expression, in any one of the places pointed unto, at all coincident with them here used. Besides, the two places mentioned are of very different senses, the one speaking of God's purpose appointing Christ to be a mediator, the other of the promise given presently after the fall. 2. We grant that Christ, in respect of his human nature, was predestinated unto glory; but that he calls God's purpose his “ glory,” “ the glory which he had,” “ which he had with God,” wherewith he desires to be “ glorified with him again,” is to be proved from the text, or context, or phrase of speech, or parallel place, or analogy of faith, or somewhat, and not nakedly to be imposed on us. Let Prov. viii. 22–31, Phil. ii. 6-11, be consulted, as parallel to this place. Eph. i. 3, 4, speaks indeed of our predestination in Christ, “ that we should be holy," and so come to glory, but of the glory that Christ had before the world was it speaks not; yea, verse 3, we are said to be actually" blessed,” or to have the heavenly blessings, when we do enjoy them, which we are elected to, verse 4. What the Jews say of the Law, and the like, we must allow learned men to tell us, that they may be known to be so, although the sense of the Scripture be insensibly darkened thereby.
To the same purpose is that of Peter, 1 Epist. i. 10, 11, “ Of which salvation the prophets have inquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you : searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.” To which add that more clear place, 1 Pet. iii. 18-20, “ Quickened by the Spirit, by which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison, which sometime were disobedient ..... in the days of Noah.” He who was in the days of the prophets of old, and in the days of Noah, so long before his being born according to the flesh, he was from everlasting, or had an existence antecedent to his incarnation ; but this is expressly affirmed of our Saviour. It was his Spirit that spake in the prophets; which if he were not, could not be, for of him who is not nothing can be affirmed. He preached by his Spirit in the days of Noah to the spirits that are in prison.
Of this latter place our catechists take no notice; about the first they inquire,
Q. What answerest thou to this
A. Neither is a divine nature proved from hence: for the Spirit which was in the prophets may be said to be “the Spirit Christ,” not that he was given of Christ, but because he fore-declared the things of Christ, as Peter there speaks ; “he testified beforehand of the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should fol. low.” Which manner of speaking we have, 1 John iv. 6, “Hence know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error;" where it is not called the spirit of truth and error because truth and error as persons do bestow the spirit, but because the spirit of truth speaks the things of truth, and the spirit of error the things of error.'
1. It is confessed that if the Spirit that was in the prophets was the Spirit of Christ, then he hath a divine nature; for the only evasion used is, that it is not, or may not (possibly, be, so meant in this place, not denying but that if it be so, then the conclusion intended follows. 2. That this place is to be interpreted by 1 John iv. 6 there is no colour nor pretence. Christ is a person;
he was so when Peter wrote: truth and error are not, and the spirit of them is to be interpreted according to the subject matter. 3. The Spirit in other places is called the Spirit of Christ in the same sense as he is called the Spirit of God, Rom. viii. 9, Gal. iv. 6. 4. The Spirit of Christ is said directly to take of his and show it to his apostles, John xvi. 15; and so he did to the prophets. They may as well, on the pretence of 1 John iv. 6, deny him to be the Spirit of God the Father as the Spirit of Christ, as being of him and sent by him.
And thus far of the testimonies proving the pre-existence of Christ unto his incarnation, and so, consequently, his eternity: whence it follows that he is God over all, blessed for ever, having this evidence of his eternal power and Godhead. Sundry others of the same tendency will fall under consideration in our progress.
Of the names of God given unto Christ.
In the next place, as a third head, our catechists consider the scriptural attributions of the names of God unto our Saviour, Jesus Christ; whence this is our argument:
He who is Jehovah, God, the only true God, he is God properly by nature; but Jesus Christ is Jehovah, the true God, etc.: therefore he is God properly by nature.”
The proposition is clear in itself. Of the innumerable testimonies which are or may be produced to confirm the assumption, our catechists fix upon a very few,--namely, those which are answered by Socinus against Weik the Jesuit, whence most of their exceptions to these witnesses are transcribed. To the consideration of these they thus proceed:
1 “Quid ad hoc respondes ?-Neque hinc naturam in Christo divinam effici ; nam hic Spiritus qui in prophetis erat, Christi dici potest, non quod a Christo datus fuerit, sed quod ea quæ Christi fuerunt prænunciarit, ut ibidem Petrus ait, prænuncians illas in Christum passiones, et post hæc glorias. Quem loquendi modum etiam, 1 Joh. iv. 6, habes, Hinc cognoscimus spiritum veritatis
, et spiritum erroris ; ubi non propterea spiritus veritatis et erroris spiritus dicitur, quod veritas et error, tanquam personxe, eum spiritum conferant; verum eo, quod spiritus veritatis loquatur quæ veritatis sunt, et spiritus erroris quæ sunt erroris."
Ques. What are those places of Scripture which seem to attribute something to Christ in a certain and definite time?
Ans. They are of two sorts, whereof some respect the names, others the works, which they suppose in the Scriptures to be attributed to Christ.
Q. Which are they that respect the names of Christ ?
A. Those where they suppose in the Scripture that Christ is called “Jehovah," etc., Jer. xxiii. 6; Zech. ii. 8; 1 John v. 20; Jude 4; Tit. ii. 13; Rev. i. 8, iv. 8; Acts xx. 28; 1 John üï. 16.
The first testimony is Jer. xxiii. 6, in these words, “In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, JEHOVAH OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS." To which add the next, Zech. ii. 8.
Before I come to consider their exceptions to these texts in particular, some things in general may be premised, for the better understanding of what we are about, and what from these places we intend to prove and confirm :
1. The end of citing these two places is, to prove that Jesus Christ is in the Old Testament called Jehovah; which is by them denied, the granting of it being destructive to their whole cause.
2. It is granted that Jehovah is the proper and peculiar name of the one only true God of Israel ;-a name as far significant of his nature and being as possibly we are enabled to understand; yea, so far expressive of God, that as the thing signified by it is incomprehensible, so many have thought the very word itself to be ineffable, or at least not lawful to be uttered. This name God peculiarly appropriates to himself in an eminent manner, Exod. vi. 2, 3; so that this is taken for granted on all hands, that he whose name is Jehovah is the only true God, the God of Israel. Whenever that name is used properly, without a trope or figure, it is used of him only. What the adversaries of Christ except against this shall be vindicated in its proper place.
3. Our catechists have very faintly brought forth the testimonies that are usually insisted on in this cause, naming but two of them; wherefore I shall take liberty to add a few more to them out of the many that are ready at hand: Isa. xl. 3, “The voice of him that
“ crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of Jehovah, make straight
1 “Quænam ea loca Scripturæ quæ videntur Christo quædam tempore certo et definito attribuere ?—Ea sunt duplicia; quorum alia nomina, alia facta respiciunt, quæ Christo a Scriptura attribui opinantur.
“Quænam sunt quæ Christi nomina respiciunt ?-Ea, ubi arbitrantur Jesum & Scriptura vocari Jehovam ; Dominum exercituum ; Deum verum ; solum verum ; Deum magnum ; Dominum Deum omnipotentem, qui fuit, qui est, et qui venturus est; Deum qui acquisivit proprio sanguine ecclesiam ; Deum qui animam posuit pro nobis.— Jer. xxiii. 6; Zech. ii. 8; 1 Joh. v. 20; Jude 4; Tit. ii. 13; Apoc. i. 8, iv. 8; Act. xx. 28; 1 Joh. iii, 16.
in the desert a highway for our God.” That it is Christ who is here called Jehovah is clear from that farther expression in Mal. iii. 1, and from the execution of the thing itself, Matt. iii. 3, Mark i. 2, 3, John i. 23. Isa. xlv. 22–25, "Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else. I have sworr by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear. Surely, shall one say, in Jehovah have I righteousness and strength : even to him shall men come; and all that are incensed against him shall be ashamed. In Jehovah shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and shall glory." The apostle expressly affirms all this to be spoken of Christ, Rom. xiv. 10–12, etc. Hos. xiii. 14 is also applied to Christ, 1 Cor. xv. 54, 55. He that would at once consider all the texts of the Old Testament, chiefly ascribing this name to Christ, let him read Zanchius “ De Tribus Elohim," who hath made a large collection of them.
Let us now see what our catechists except against the first testimony:
Q. What dost thou answer to the first testimony?
A. First, that hence it cannot be necessarily evinced that the name of Jehovah is attributed to Christ. For these words, “ And this is his name whereby they shall call him, The LORD our righteousness," may be referred to Israel, of whom he spake a little before, “In his days shall Judah be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely,” etc., as from a like place may be seen in the same prophet, chap. xxxiii. 15, 16, where he saith, “In those days, and at that time, will I cause the Branch of righteousness to grow up unto David; and he shall execute judgment and righteousness in the land. In those days shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely: and this is the name wherewith she shall be called, The Lord our righteousness.” For in the Hebrew it is expressly read, “ They shall call her;" which last words are referred of necessity to Jerusalem, and in this place answereth to Israel, which is put in the first place. It seems, therefore, likely that also, in the first place, these words, “ They shall call him," are referred to Israel. But although we should grant that the name of Jehovah may be referred unto Christ, yet from the other testimonies it appears that it cannot be asserted that Christ is called Jehovah simply, neither doth it thence follow that Christ is really Jehovah. Whether, therefore, these last words in this testimony of Jeremiah be understood of Christ or of Israel, their sense is, “ Thou Jehovah, our one God, wilt justify us;" for at that time when Christ was to appear God would do that in Israel."
1 “Quid vero tu ad ea ordine respondes, ac ante omnia ad primum ?—Primum, quod ex eo confici non possit necessario nomen Jehovæ Christo attribui. Ea enim verba, Et hoc est nomen ejus quo vocabunt eum, Jehovah justitia nostra, referri possunt ad Israelem, de quo paulo superius eodem versu loquitur, In diebus ejus servabitur Juda, et Israel habitabit secure, et hoc est nomen ejus, etc., ut e loco simili conspici potest apud eundem prophetam, cap. xxxiii. 15, 16, ubi ait, In diebus illis, et in illo tempore, faciam ut existat Davidi Surculus justitiæ, et faciet judicium et justitiam in terra. In diebus illis servabitur Juda, et Jerusalem habitabit secure: et hoc (supple nomen) quo vocabunt eam, Jehovam justitiæ nostra. Etenim in Hebræo expresse legitur, Vocabunt eam, quam vocem posteriorem ad Hierusalem referri prorsus est necesse, et hoc quidem loco Israeli, qui in priori loco positus est, respondet. Videtur igitur prorsus verisimile, quod in priori etiam loco, hæc verba, Vocabunt eam, ad Israelem referantur. At licet concedamus nomen Jehovæ ad Christum posse referri, ex altero tamen testimonio apparet asseri non posse Jehovam simpliciter Christum vocari, neque ex eo sequi, Christum reipsa esse Jehovam. Sive igitur de Christo, sive de Israele postrema verba in testimonio Hieremiæ accipiantur, sententia ipsorum est, Tum Jehovam unum Deum nostrum nos justificaturum, etenim illo tempore cum Christus appariturus esset Deus id in Israele facturus erat.”
The sum of this answer is:-1. It may be these words are not spoken of Christ, but of Israel; 2. The same words are used of that which is not God; 3. If they be referred to Christ, they prove him not to be God; 4. Their sense is, that God will justify us in the days of Christ. Of each briefly:
1. The subject spoken of all along is Christ:-(1.) He is the subject-matter of whatever here is affirmed: "I will raise up a righteous Branch to David; he shall be a king, and he shall reign, and his name shall be called The LORD our righteousness.” (2.) Why are these words to be referred to Israel only, and not also to Judah (if to any but Christ), they being both named together, and upon the same account (yea, and Judah hath the pre-eminence, being named in the first place)? And if they belong to both, the words should be, “ This is their name whereby they shall be called.” (3.) Israel was never called “our righteousness,” but Christ is called so upon the matter in the New Testament sundry times, and is so, 1 Cor. i. 30; so that, without departing from the propriety of the words, intendment, and scope of the place, with the truth of the thing itself, these words cannot be so perverted. The violence used to them is notoriously manifest.
2. The expression is not the same in both places, neither is Jerusalem there called “The LORD our righteousness," but He who calls her is “The LORD our righteousness;" and so are the words rendered by Arias Montanus and others. And if what Jerusalem shall be called be intimated, and not what His name is that calls her, it is merely by a metonymy, upon the account of the presence of Christ in her; as the church is called “Christ” improperly, 1 Cor. xii. 12: Christ properly is Jesus only. But the words are not to be rendered, “This is the name whereby she shall be called,” but, “ This is the name whereby he shall call her, The LORD our righteousness;" that is, he who is the LORD our righteousness shall call her to peace and safety, which are there treated on. Christ is our righteousness; Jerusalem is not.
3. It is evident that Christ is absolutely called Jehovah in this as well as in the other places before mentioned, and many more; and it hence evidently follows that he is Jehovah, as he who properly is called so, and understood by that name. Where God simply says his name is Jehovah, we believe him; and where he says the name of the Branch of the house of David is Jehovah, we believe him also. And we say hence that Christ is Jehovah, or the words have not a tolerable sense. Of this again afterward.