Page images
[ocr errors]

for which cause the prophet says, “ He who toucheth you toucheth the apple of the eye of God himself.” For the great conjunction that is between Father and Son, although in essence they are altogether diverse, is the reason why the blood of Christ is called the blood of God the Father himself, especially if it be considered as shed for us; for Christ is the Lamb of God, that takes away the sins of the world, whence the blood shed to that purpose may be called the blood of God himself. Nor is it to be passed by in silence, that in the Syriac edition, in the place of God, Christ is read.'

There is scarce any place in returning an answer whereunto the adversaries of the deity of Christ do less agree among themselves than about this. 1. Some say the name of God is not here taken absolutely, but with relation to office, and so Christ is spoken of, and called “ God by office :” so Socin. ad Bellar. et Weik. p. 200, etc. Some say that the words are thus to be read, “Feed the church of God, which Christ hath purchased by his own blood:” so Ochinus and Lælius Socinus, whom Zanchius answers, "De Tribus Elohim,” lib. iii. cap. vi. p. 456. Some flee to the Syriac translation, contrary to the constant consenting testimony of all famous copies of the original, all agreeing in the word so, some adding roŨ Kupiou. So Grotius would have it, affirming that the manuscript he used had soũ Kupiou, not telling them that it added 80m, which is the same with what we affirm; and therefore he ventures at asserting the text to be corrupted, and, in short writing, Joũ to be crept in for yoũ (manuscript contractions for so and Xploroû], contrary to the faith and consent of all ancient copies : which is all he hath to plead. 2. Our catechists know not what to say: "Necessarily this word 'God' is not to be referred to Christ; it may be referred to God the Father.” Give an instance of the like phrase of speech, and take the interpretation, Can it be said that one's blood was shed when it was not shed, but another's? and there is no mention that that other's blood was shed. 3. If the Father's blood was shed, or said truly to be shed, because Christ's blood was shed, then you may say that God the Father died,

“Quid ad septimum respondes ?—Respondeo, nomen Dei hoc loco non referri ad Christum necessario, sed ad ipsum Deum Patrem referri posse, cujus apostolus eum sanguinem, quem Christus fudit, sanguinem vocat, eo genere loquendi, et eam ob causam, quo genere loquendi, et quam ob causam propheta ait, Eum qui tangit populum Dei, tangere pupillam oculi Dei ipsius. Etenim summa quæ est inter Deum Patrem et Christum conjunctio, etsi essentia sint prorsus diversi, in causa est, cur Christi sanguis, sanguis ipsius Dei Patris dicatur, præsertim si quis expendat quatenus is est pro nobis fusus: etenim Christus est Agnus Dei, qui tollit peccata mundi. Unde sanguis in eum finem fusus, ipsius Dei sanguis jure vocari potest. Nec vero prætereundum est silentio, quod in editione Syriaca loco Dei legatur Christi."

? It is necessary to state that this is far from being correct. Eminent critics, such as Bengel, Matthäi, and Scholz, it is true, decide for ossū, but Griesbach, Lachman. and Tischendorf, give to Kupiou as the proper reading. The leading manuscripts A, C, D, E are in favour of the latter; but Tischendorf has now proved that manuscript B, com. monly known as the Vatican manuscript, and formerly supposed to agree with them, on the contrary, has soő, a prima manu. All the evidence cannot be weighed and discussed in this note, but the authority for osoũ is, on the whole, sufficient to establish it as the true reading.-Ed.


and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and that God the Father rose from the dead; that he was dead, and is alive; that that blood that was shed was not Christ's, but somebody's else that he loved, and was near unto him. 4. There is no analogy between that of the prophet, of the “ apple of God's eye,” and this here spoken of. Uncontrollably a metaphor must there be allowed ;-here is no metaphor insisted on; but that which is the blood of Christ is called the blood of God, and Christ not to be that God is their interpretation. There, divers persons are spoken of, God and believers; here, one only, that did that which is expressed. And all the force of this exposition lies in this, “There is a figurative expression in one place, the matter spoken of requiring it, therefore here must be a figure admitted also,” where there is not the same reason. What is this but to“ make the Scripture a nose of wax?” The work of “redeeming the church with his blood” is ever ascribed to Christ as peculiar to him, constantly, without exception, and never to God the Father; neither would our adversaries allow it to be so here, but that they know not how to stand before the testimony wherewith they are pressed. 5. If, because of the conjunction that is between God the Father and Christ, the blood of Christ may be called the blood of God the Father, then the hunger and thirst of Christ, his dying and being buried, his rising again, may be called the hunger and thirst of God the Father, his sweating, dying, and rising. And he is a strange natural and proper Son who hath a quite different nature and essence from his own proper Father, as is here affirmed. 6. Christ is called “The Lamb of God," as answering and fulfilling all the sacrifices that were made to God of old; and if the blood of Christ may be called the blood of God the Father because he appointed it to be shed for us, then the blood of any sacrifice was also the blood of the man that appointed it to be shed, yea, of God, who ordained it. The words are, 'Εκκλησίας του Θεού, ήν περιεποιήσατο δια του ιδίου αιματος. If any words in the world can properly express that it is one and the same person who is intended, that it is his own blood properly that bought the church with it, surely these words do it to the full. Christ, then, is God.

The next place they are pleased to take notice of, as to this head of testimonies about the names of God, is 1 John iii. 16, Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us. He who laid down his life for us was God; that is, he was so when he laid down his life for us, and not made a God since.

[ocr errors]


Q. To the eighth what sayest thou ?

A. First take this account, that neither in any Greek edition (but only the Complutensis) nor in the Syriac the word “ God” is found. But suppose that this word were found in all copies, were therefore this word “he” to be referred to“God”? No, doubtless; not only for that reason which we gave a little before, in answer to the third testimony, that such words are not always referred to the next person, but, moreover, because John doth often in this epistle refer the Greek word izsīvos to him who was named long before, as in the 3d, 5th, and 7th verses of this chapter.'

1. Our catechists do very faintly adhere to the first exception, about the word osoīin the original, granting that it is in some copies, and knowing that the like phrase is used elsewhere, and that the sense in this place necessarily requires the presence of that word. 2. Supposing it as they do, we deny that this is a very just exception which they insist upon, that as a relative may sometimes, and in some cases, where the sense is evident, be referred to the remote antecedent, therefore it may or ought to be so in any place, contrary to the propriety of grammar, where there are no circumstances enforcing such a construction, but all things requiring the proper sense of it. 3. It is allowed of only where several persons are spoken of immediately before, which here are not, one only being intimated or expressed. 4. They can give no example of the word “God” going before, and ézsīvos following after, where éxsīvos is referred to any thing or person more remote; much less here, where the apostle, having treated of God and the love of God, draws an argument from the love of God to enforce our love of one another. 5. In the places they point unto, ineivos in every one of them is referred to the next and immediate antecedent, as will be evident to our reader upon the first view.

Give them their great associate and we have done: “'Excīvos hic est Christus, ut supra ver. 5, subintelligendum hic autem est, hoc Christum fecisse Deo sic decernente nostri causa quod expressum est, Rom. v. 8.” That szęīvos is Christ is confessed; but the word being a relative, and expressive of some person before mentioned, we say it relates unto so, the word going immediately before it. No, says Grotius, but “the sense is, 'Herein appeared the love of God, that by his appointment Christ died for us." That Christ laid down his life

' for us by the appointment of the Father is most true, but that that is the intendment of this place, or that the grammatical construction of the words will bear any such sense, we deny.

And this is what they have to except to the testimonies which themselves choose to insist on to give in their exceptions to, as to the names of Jehovah and God being ascribed unto Jesus Christ; which having vindicated from all their sophistry, I shall shut up the discourse of them with this argument, which they afford us for the confirmation of the sacred truth contended for: He who is Jehovah, God, the only true God, etc., he is God by nature; but thus is Jesus Christ God, and these are the names the Scripture calls and knows him by: therefore he is so, God by nature, blessed for ever.

1" Ad octavum vero quid ?-Primum igitur sic habeto, neque in Græca editione ulla (excepta Complutensi), nec in editione Syriaca, vocem Deus haberi. Verum etiamsi hæc vox haberetur in omnibus exemplaribus, num idcirco ea vox ille ad Deum erit referenda? Non certe ; non solum ob eam causam quam paulo superius attulimus, in responsione ad testimonium tertium, quod verba ejusmodi non semper ad propinquiores personas referantur, verum etiam quod ixsīvos vocem Græcum Johannes in hac epistola sæpe ad eum refert, qui longe antea nominatus fuerat, ut et 3, 5, et 7, versu ejusdem capitis in Græco apparet.”

. It cannot now be questioned that there is no authority for the insertion of Ossū. Even our authorized version consigns it to Italics, as a supplement, and not in the original.--Ed.

That many more testimonies to this purpose may be produced, and have been so by those who have pleaded the deity of Christ against its opposers, both of old and of late, is known to all that inquire after such things. I content myself to vindicate what they have put in exceptions unto.


Of the work of creation assigned to Jesus Christ, etc.—The confirmation of his

eternal deity from thence.

The scriptures which assign the creating of all things to Jesus Christ they propose as the next testimony of his deity whereunto they desire to give in their exceptions. To these they annex them wherein it is affirmed that he brought the people of Israel out of Egypt, and that he was with them in the wilderness; with one particular out of Isaiah, compared with the account given of it in the gospel, about the prophet's seeing the glory of Christ. Of those which are of the first sort they instance in John i. 3, 10; Col. i. 16, 17; Heb. i. 2, 10-12.

The first and second of these I have already vindicated, in the consideration of them as they lay in their conjuncture with them going before in verse 1; proceed we therefore to the third, which is Col. i. 16, 17, “For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: and he is before all things, and by him all things consist.”

1. That these words are spoken of Jesus Christ is acknowledged. The verses foregoing prevent all question thereof: “He hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: in whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: who is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of every creature: for by bim were all things," etc.

2. In what sense Christ is the “image of the invisible God,” even the “express image of his Father's person,” shall be afterward declared. The other part of the description of him belongs to that which we

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]


[ocr errors]

nave in hand. He is #pwróFoxos túons xridews," the first-born of every creature;" that is, before them all, above them all, heir of them all, and so none of them. It is not said he is īpwTÓXTIGT05, first created, but #pwrótoxos, the first-born. Now, the term “first" in the ,

” Scripture represents either what follows, and so denotes an order in the things spoken of, he that is the first being one of them, as Adam was the first man; or it respects things going before, in which sense it denies all order or series of things in the same kind. So God is said to be the “first,” Isa. xli. 4, because before him there was none, Isa. xliii. 10. And in this sense is Christ the “first-born,”—so the first-born as to be the “only-begotten Son of God,” John iii. 18. This the apostle proves and gives an account of in the following verses; for the clearing of his intendment wherein a few things may be premised:

1. Though he speaks of him who is Mediator, and describes him, yet he speaks not of him as Mediator; for that he enters upon verse 18, “ And he is the head of the body, the church,” etc.

2. That the things whose creation is here assigned unto Jesus Christ are evidently contradistinguished to the things of the church, or new creation, which are mentioned verse 18. Here he is said to be the “first-born of every creature;” there, the “first-born from the dead;" —here, to make all things; there, to be “the head of the body, the church."

3. The creation of all things simply and absolutely is most emphatically expressed :-(1.) In general : “By him all things were created.” (2.) A distribution is made of those “ all things” into "all things that are in heaven and that are in earth;" which is the common expression of all things that were made at the beginning, Exod. xx. 11, Acts iv. 24. (3.) A description is given of the things so created according to two adjuncts which divide all creatures whatever,-- whether they are "visible or invisible." (4.) An enumeration is in particular made of one sort, of things invisible; which being of greatest eminency and dignity, might seem, if any, to be exempted from the state and condition of being created by Jesus Christ : “Whether they be thrones, etc. (5.) This distribution and enumeration being closed, the general assumption is again repeated, as having received confirmation from what was said before : "All things were created by him," of what sort soever, whether expressed in the enumeration foregoing or no; all things were created by him. They were created for him sis airóv, as it is said of the Father, Rom. xi. 36; which, Rev. iv. 11, is said to be for his will and“ pleasure." (6.) For a farther description of him, verse 17, his pre-existence before all things, and his providence in supporting them and continuing that being to them which he gave them by creation, are asserted : “And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.”

[ocr errors]


« PreviousContinue »