The Mystery of the Gospel Vindicated and Socinianism Examined, Commentary on text · Chapter 10
CHAP. X.
Of the names of God given unto Christ.
IN the next place, as a third Head, our Catechists consider the §. 1.Scripturall 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, &c. Therefore he is God properly by nature.
The proposition is cleare in it selfe; of the innumerable Testimonies which are, or may be produced to confirme the Assumption, our Catechists fix upon a very few, namely, those which are answered by Socinus against Weicke the Jesuite, whence most of their exceptions to these Witnesses are transcribed. To the consideration of these they thus proceed.§. 2.
What are those places of Scripture, which seeme to attribute Quaenam ea loca Scripturae quae videntur Christo quaedam tempore certo & definito attribuere? Ea sunt duplicia; quorum alia nomina, alia facta respiciunt, quae Christ… a Scriptura attribui opinantur.something to Christ in a certaine and definite time?
They are of two sorts, whereof some respect the Names, other the Workes which they suppose in the Scriptures to be Attributed to Christ.
Which are they that respect the names of Christ?
Those, where they suppose in the Scripture Quaenam sunt quae Christi nomina respiciunt? Ea, ubi arbitrantur Jesum a Scriptura vocari Jehovam: Dominum exercituum, Deum verum, solum verum, Deum magnum, dominum Deum omnipotentem, qui fuit, qui est, & qui venturus est; Deum qui acquisivit proprio sanguine Ecclesiam; Deum qui animem posuit pro nobis. Jerem. 23. 6. Zac. 2. 8. 1 Joan. 5. 20. Jud. 4. Tit. 2. 13. Apoc. 1. 8. 4. 8. Act. 20. 28. 1 Joan. 3. 16.that Christ is called Jehovah, &c. Jerem: 23. 6. Zach. 2. 8. 1 John 5. 20. Jude 4. Titus 2. 13. Revel. 1. 18. and 4. 8. Acts 20. 28. 1 Iohn 3. 16.
The first Testimony is Jerem: 23. 6. in these words: In his dayes Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely, and this is his name whereby he shall be called, Jehovah our Righteousnesse. To which adde the next, Zech. 2. 8.
Before I come to consider their Exceptions to these Texts in particular, some things in Generall may be premised, for the better understanding of what we are about; and what from these places we intend to prove and confirme.
1. The end of citing these two places, is to prove, that Jesus §. 4.Christ is in the Old Testament called Iehovah; which is by them denyed; the granting of it being destructive to their whole cause.
2. It is granted, that Iehovah is the proper and peculiar name of the one only true God of Israel: a name as farre significant of his Nature and Being, as possibly we are enabled to understand: yea so farre expressive of God, that as the thing signified by it, is incomprehensible, so many have thought the very word it selfe to be ineffable, or (at least) not lawfull to be uttered. This name God peculiarly appropriates to himselfe, in an eminent manner, Exod: 6. 2, 9. So that this is taken for granted on all hands, that he whose name is Iehovah, is the only true God, the God of Israel; when ever 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 §. 5.two of them; wherefore I shall take liberty to adde a few more to them, out of the many that are ready at hand. Isa. 40. 3. The voyce of him that cryeth in the Wildernesse, prepare ye the way of Iehovah, make straight in the desert an high way for our God. That it is Christ who is here called Iehovah, is cleare from that farther expression in Mal. 3. 1. and the execution of the thing it selfe, Ioh. 1. 23. Matth. 3. 3. Mark. 1. 2, 3. Isa. 45. 22, 23, 24, 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 sworne by my selfe, the word is gone out of my mouth in Righteousnesse, and shall not returne, that unto mee every knee shall …ow, every tongue shall sweare: surely, shall one say, in the Lord Iehovah have I Righteousnesse 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 Glory. The Apostle expresly affirmes all this to be spoken of Christ, Rom. 14. 11, 12, &c. Hos. 13. 14. is also applied to Christ, 1 Cor. 15. 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 §. 6.Testimony.
What dost thou Answer to the first Testimony?
First, that hence it cannot be necessarily evinced, Quid vero tu ad ea ordine respondes, ac ante omnia ad primum? Primum, quod ex eo confici non possit necessario nomen Jehovae Christo attribui. E… enim verba; & hoc est nomen ejus, quo vocabunt eum, Jehovah justitia nostra, referri possunt ad Israelem, de quo paulo superius eodem versu loquitur: In diebus ejus servibitur Juda, & Israel habitabit secure, & hoc est nomen ejus, &c. Ʋt e loco simili conspici potest apud eundem Prophetam cap. 33. v. 15, 16. ubi ait, in diebus illis, & in illo tempore, faciam ut existat Davidi surculus justitiae, & faciet judicium & justitiā in terra. In diebus illis servabitur Iuda & Jerusalē habitabit securè, & hoc (supple nomen) quo vocabunt eam, Jehovah justitiae nostra. Etenim in Haebraeo expresse legitur, vocabunt eam, quam vocem posteriorem ad Hierusalem referri prorsus est necesse; & hoc quidem loco Israeli, qui in priori loco positus est, respondet. Videtur igitur prorsus verisimile, quod in priori etiam loco, haec verba, vocabunt eum, ad Israelem referantur. At licet concedamus, nomen Jehovae ad Christum posse referri, ex altero tamen Testimonio apparet asseri non posse, Iehovam simpliciter Christum vocari: ne{que} ex eo sequi, Christum reipsâ esse Iehovam; sive igitur de Christo, sive de Israele postrema verba in Testimonia Hieremiae accipiantur, sententia ipsorum est, tum Iehovam unum Deum nostrum nos justificaturum. Etenim illo tempore, cum Christus appariturus esset, Deus id in Israele facturus erat.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 Righteousnesse, may be referred to Israel, of whom he spake a little before; In his daies shall Judah be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely, &c. as from a like place may be seen in the same Prophet, Chap. 33. 15, 16. where he saith, In those daies, and at that time, will I cause the Branch of Righteousnesse to grow up unto David, and he shall execute judgement and Righteousnesse in the Land: In those daies shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely; and this is the name wherewith she shall be called, the Lord our Righteousnesse; for in the Hebrew it is expresly 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 seemes 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 sence is, thou Jehovah our one God wilt justify us; for at that time when Christ was to appeare, God would doe that in Israel.
The summe 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 sence is, that God will justify us in the daies of Christ. Of each briefly.
1. The Subject spoken of all along is Christ; He is the subject §. 7.matter of what ever here is affirmed. I will raise up a Righteous branch to David, He shall be a King, and he shall raigne, and his name shall be called the Lord our Righteousnesse. 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 preheminence, 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 Righteousnesse, but Christ is called so upon the matter in the New Testament sundry times, and is so; 1 Cor. 1. 30. so that without departing from the propriety of the Words, intendment, and scope of the place, with the truth of the thing it selfe, 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 §. 8.Jerusalem there called the Lord our Righteousnesse; but He who calls her, is, the Lord our Righteousnesse; and so are the words rendred 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 meerly by a Metonymy, upon the account of the presence of Christ in her; As the Church is called Christ improperly, 1 Cor. 12. 12. Christ properly is Jesus only. But the words are not to be rendred, this is the name whereby she shall be called, but this is the name whereby he shall call her, the Lord our Righteousnesse; that is, he who is the Lord our Righteousnesse shall call her to peace and safety, which are there treated on. Christ is our Righteousnesse, Jerusalem is not.
3. It is evident that Christ is absolutely called Jehovah in §. 9.this, as well as in the other places before mentioned, and many more. And it thence evidently followes, that he is Jehovah, as he who properly is called so, and understood by that name. Where God simply saies, his name is Jehovah, we believe him: and where he saies, the name of the Branch of the house of David is Iehovah, we believe him also. And we say hence, that Christ is Iehovah, or the words have not a tolerable sence: of this againe afterwards.
4. The interpretation given of the words is most perverse, §. 10.and opposite to the meaning of them. The Prophet saies not, that Iehovah the one God shall be our Righteousnesse, but the Branch of David shall be the Lord our Righteousnesse. The subject is the Branch of David, not Jehovah. The Branch of David shall be called the Lord our Righteousnesse; that is, the Lord shall justify us, when the Branch of David shall be brought forth: Who could have discovered this sence, but our Catechists and their Masters, whose words these are. It remaineth then, that the Branch of David, who Ruleth in Righteousnesse, is Jehovah our Righteousnesse: our Righteousnesse, as being made so to us; Jehovah, as being so in himselfe.
Grotius expounds this place, as that of Micha. 5. 2. of Zorubbabel, §. 11.helping on his friends with a new diversion, which they knew Socin. de seruit p. 3. cap. 4. Franz. de Sacrif. p. 786.not of. Socinus as he professes being not acquainted with the Iewish Doctors, though some believe him not. And yet the learned Annotatour cannot hold out, as he begins, but is forced to put out the name of Zerubbabell, and to put in that of the People, when he comes to the name insisted on: so leaving no certain designe in the whole words, from the beginning to the ending.
Two things doth he here oppose himselfe in, to the received §. 12.Interpretation of Christians. 1. That it is Zorubbabell who is here intended. 2. That it is the People who is called the Lord our Righteousnesse.
For the first, thus he on v. 5. Germen justum, a Righteous Branch: Zorubbabelem qui foreign ut hic appellatur, ita & Zechariae 6. 12. nimirum quod velut surculus renatus esset ex Arbore Davidis quasi …raecisa. Iustitiae nomine commendatur Zorubbabel etiam apud Zechariam, 9. 9. Zorubbabel who is here called the Branch, as also Zech. 6. 12. because as a Branch he arose from the Tree of David which was as cut off. Also Zorubbabel is commended for justice or Righteousnesse, Zech. 9. 9.
That this is a Prophesy of Christ, the circumstances of the §. 13.place evince: The Rabbins were also of the same mind, as plentifull collections from them are made to demonstrate it, by Ioseph de Voysin, pug. fid. par. 3. dist. 1. cap. 4. And the matter spoken of, can be accommodated to no other, as hath been declared. Grotius his proofes that Zorubbabell is intended, are worse then the opinion it selfe. That he is called the Branch, Zech. 6. 12. is most false: He who is called the Branch there, is a King and a Priest. He shall rule upon his Throne, and he shall be a Priest, which Zorubbabell was not; nor had any thing to doe with the Priestly office, which in his daies was administred by Iehoshua, more evidently false is it, that he is spoken of Zech. 9. 9. which place is precisely interpreted of Christ, and the accomplishment, in the very letter of the thing foretold, recorded, Math. 21. 5. The words are, Rejoyce greatly O Daughter of Sion, shout O Daughter of Ierusalem, behold thy King cometh to thee, he is just, and having Salvation, lowly, and riding upon an Asse, and upon a Colt the foale of an Asse. That a man professing Christian Religion, should afffirme any one but Iesus Christ to be here intended, is somewhat strange.
Upon the Accommodation of the next words to Zorubbabell, A King shall raigne and prosper, &c. I shall not insist; they contain not the matter of our present contest, though they are pittifully wrested by the Annotatour, and do no wayes serve his designe.
For the particular words about which our contest is, this is §. 14.his Comment. And this is the name whereby they shall call him: nempe populum: namely the people: they shall call the people. How this change comes, in his daies Iudah shall be saved, and this is the name whereby he shall be called, that is, the People shall be called, he shewes not. That there is no colour of Reason for it, hath been shewed; what hath been said need not to be repeated. He proceeds. Dominus justitia nostra, i. e. Deus nobis benefecit, God hath done well for us, or dealt kindly with us. But it is not about the intimation of goodnes that is in the Words; but of the signification of the name given to Iesus Christ, that here we plead. In what sence Christ is the Lord our Righteousnesse appears, Isa. 45. 22, 23, 24, 25. 1 Cor. 1. 30.
The second Testimony is Zech. 2. 8. in these words: For thus §. 15.saith the Lord of Hosts, after the Glory, hath he sent me unto the Nations which spoyled you: for be that toucheth you, toucheth the apple of his eye: for behold, I will shake mine hand upon them, &c. v. 9, 10, 11, 12.
Briefely to declare what this witnesse speakes to, before we permit him to the examination of our Adversaries: The Person speaking, is, the Lord of Hosts: Thus saith the Lord of Hosts: And He is the person spoken of; after the Glory (saith he) (or after this glorious deliverance of you my people from the captivity wherein you were among the Nations) hath he sent me, even me the Lord of Hosts hath he sent. Thus saith the Lord of Hosts, he hath sent me; and it was to the Nations, as in the words following; and who sent him? ye shall know, that the Lord of Hosts hath sent me; The people of Israel shall know, that the Lord of Hosts hath sent me the Lord of Hosts to the Nations: but how shall they know that he is so sent? He tells them v. 11. it shall be known by the conversion of the Nations: Many Nations shall be joyned to the Lord in that day; and what then? They shall be my people; mine who am sent; my people, the people of the Lord of Hosts that was sent; that is, of Jesus Christ, and I (saith he) whose people they are, will dwell in the middest of them, (as God promised to do,) and thou shalt know the Lord of Hosts hath sent me: I omit the circumstances of the place. Let us now see what is excepted by our Catechists.§. 16.
What dost thou answer to this second Testimony?Ad secundum vero quid respondes? Locum Zechariae ad hunc modum citant hoc dicit Dominus Exerci…uum; Post gloriam misit me ad gentes, quae vos spoliarunt: qui enim vos tangit, tangit pupillam oculi mei, &c. Quae ad Christum torquent, quod hic ut arbitrantur, dicatur, dominum exercituum missum esse a Domino exercituum. Verum ea hic non habentur; quod hinc perspicuum est, quod ea verba, post gloriam misit me &c. sunt ab ali… prolata, nempe ab Angelo, qui cum Zecharia & alio Angelo colloquebatur, ut idem eodem capite paulo ante planum est, a versu quarto initio facto, ubi is Angelus loquens introducitur. Quod idem ea ex re videre est, quod ea quae citant verba, hoc dicit Dominus exereituum, in Haebraeo legantur sic dicit Dominus exercituum item illa, tangit pupillam oculi mei, legantur pupillam oculi ejus, quae non ad Dominum exercituum, sed ad Legatum referri necesse est.
The place of Zechary they thus cite. This saith the Lord of Hosts; after the Glory hath he sent me to the Nations which spoyled you; for he that toucheth you, toucheth the apple of mine eye; which they wrest unto Christ; because here as they suppose, it is said, that the Lord of Hosts is sent from the Lord of Hosts. But these things are not so; for it is evident that these words, after the Glory he hath sent me, are spoken of another, namely of the Angell, who spake with Zechariah, and the other Angell; the same is evident in the same Chapter a little before, beginning at the 4. v. where the Angell is brought in speaking; which also is to be seen from hence, that those words which they cite, this saith the Lord of Hosts, in the Hebrew may be read, thus said the Lord of Hosts, and those, toucheth the apple of mine eye, may be read, the apple of his eye; which of necessity are referred to his Messenger, and not to the Lord of Hosts.
These Gentlemen being excellent at cavils and exceptions, and §. 17.thereupon undertaking to answer any thing in the world, doe not lightly acquit themselves more weakely, and jejunely in any place then in this. For
1. We contend not with them about the translation of the words, their exceptions being to the vulgar Latine only: We take them as they have rendred them. To omit that therefore.
2. That these words are spoken by him, who is called the §. 18.Angell, we grant; but the only question is, who is this Angell that speakes them: It is evident from the former Chapter, and this, that it is the man, who was upon the red horse, 1. Chap. 8. v. who is called Angelus Jehovae, v. 11. and makes Intercession for the Church v. 12. which is the proper Office of Jesus Christ; and that he is no created Angell, but Iehovah himselfe, the second person of the Trinity, we prove, because he calls himselfe the Lord of Hosts; saies he will destroy his enemies with the shaking of his hand, that he will convert a people, and make them his people, and that he will dwell in his Church, and yet unto all this he adds three times, that he is sent of the Lord of Hosts. We confesse then all these things to be spoken of him, who was sent, but upon all these Testimonies conclude, that he who was sent was the Lord of Hosts.
Grotius interprets all this place of an Angell, and names him §. 19.to boote. Michael it is; but who that Mitchaell is, and whither he be no more then an Angell, that is, a Messenger, He enquires not. That the ancient * Iewish Doctors interpreted this place of the Bereschith Rab. ad gen. 25. 28.Messiah is evident. Of that no notice here is taken, it is not to the purpose in hand. To the reasons already offered, to prove that it is no meer Creature that is here intended, but the Lord of Hosts, who is sent by the Lord of Hosts, I shall only adde my desire, that the friends and Apollogizers for this learned Annotatour would reconcile this exposition of this place to its selfe, in those things which at first view present themselves to every ordinary observer. Take one instance. Ye shall know that the Lord of Hosts hath sent me, that is, Michaell. And I will dwell in the middest of thee; Templū meū ibi habebo. I will have my temple there. If he who speakes be Michael, a Created Angell, how comes the Temple of Jehovah to be his? and such let the attempts of all appeare to be, who mannage any designe against the eternall glory of the Sonne of God.
The 3 Testimony is 1 Joh. 5. 20. And we know that the Sonne of God §. 20.is come, and hath given us understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Sonne Iesus Christ; This is the true God and eternall life.
What dost thou answer to this?Quid respondes ad tertium? In hoc Testimonio, scimus filium Dei venisse &c. Haec verba, hic est verus deus, nego referri ad dei Filium; non quodnegē Christum esse verum deum; sed quod is locus ea de Christo accipi non admittat: Etenim hic agitur non solum de vero deo; sed de illo uno vero deo, ut articulus in Graeco additus indicat. Christus vero etsii verus deus sit, non est tamen ille ex se unus deus, qui per se & per sectissima ratione deus est, eum is deus tantū sit Pater. Nec vero quicquam juvat Adversarios qui propterea haec ad Christum referri volunt, quod verba, Hic est verus deus, & Christi mentio proxime antecesserit. Etenim pronomina relativa, ut hic & similia, non semper ad proxime antecedentia, verum saepenumero ad id, de quo potissimum sermo est, referuntur, ut patet ex his locis, Act. 7. 19, 20. & Act. 10. 6. Joh. 2. 7. e quibus locis apparet, pronomen relativum hic non ad proxime antecedentes personas, sed ad remotiores referri.
These words, this is the True God, I deny to be referred to the Sonne of God. Not that I deny Christ to be true God: but that that place will not admit those words to be understood of Christ: for here he treats not only of the the true God, but of the only true God, as the article added in the Greeke doth declare. But Christ, although he be true God, he is not yet of himselfe that one God, who by himselfe, and upon the most excellent account is God, seeing that is only God the Father. Nor doth it availe the Adversaries, who would have those words referred to Christ, because the mention of Christ doth immediately goe before those words, this is the true God. For pronounce relatives as this and the like, are not alwayes referred to the next Antecedents, but often to that which is chiefely spoken of, as Acts 7. 19, 20. John 2. 7. from which places it appeares, that the pronoune relative, this, is referred not to the next, but to the most remote person.
1. It is well, it is acknowledged, that the only true God is §. 21.here intended; and that this is proved by the prefixed Article, this may be of use afterward.
2. In what sence these men grant Christ to be a true God, we know: a made God, a God by office, not nature: a man Deifyed with Authority; so making two true Gods, contrary to innumerarable expresse Texts of Scripture, and the Nature of the Deity.
3. That those words are not meant of Christ, they prove, because §. 22.He is not the only true God, but only the Father: but Friends! these words are produced to prove the contrary; as expressly affirming it; and is it a sufficient Reason to deny it, by saying, He is not the only true God, therefore these words are not spoken of him; When the Argument is, these words are spoken of him, therefore He is the only true God.
4. Their instances prove, that in some cases a Relative may §. 23.relate to the more remote Antecedent, but that in this place, that mentioned ought to do so, they pretend not once to urge: yea their Reason they give is against themselves; namely, that it refers to him chiefely spoken of, which here is eminently, and indisputably Iesus Christ. In the places by them produced, it is impossible from the subject matter in hand, that the Relative should be referred to any but the remoter Antecedent; but that therefore here we must offer violence to the words, and straine them into an Incoherence, and transgresse all rules of construction, (nothing enforcing to such a proceedure) is not proved.
5 In the beginning of the 20. verse it is said, the Sonne of God §. 24.is come, and hath given us an understanding: and we are said to be in him, even in Iesus Christ, on which it immediately followes, foreign, this, this Iesus Christ is the true God and eternall Life.
6. That Jesus Christ is by John peculiarly called Life, and §. 25.Life Eternall, is evident both from his Gospell, and this Epistle; and without doubt, by the same terme, in his usuall manner. He expresses here the same person; Chap. 1. v. 2. The Sonne of God is Life, eternall Life, He that hath the Sonne, hath life; we are in him, the Sonne Jesus Christ, this is the true God, and Eternall Life: so he began, and so he ends his Epistle.
And this is all our Adversaries have to say against this most expresse §. 26.Testimony of the Divine nature of Jesus Christ; in their entrance whereunto they cry haile Master, as one before them did, (he is a true God,) but in the close betray him (as farre as lyes in them) by denying his divine nature.
Even at the light of this most evident Testimony the eyes of §. 27.Grotius dazled, that he could not see the Truth: His note is, foreign. is nempe quem Iesus monstravit, colendum{que} d…cuit, non alius. foreign saepe refertur ad aliquid praecedens non foreign. Act. 8. 19. 10. 6. The very same plea with the former: only Acts 8. 19. is mistaken for Acts 7. 19. the place urged by our Catechists, & be fore them by Socinus against Wieke, to whom not only they, but Grotius is beholding. That citation of Acts 10. 6. helps not the businesse at all: foreign is twice used, once immediately at the beginning of the verse, secondly being guided by the first, the latter is referred to the same Person, nor can possibly signify any other. Here is no such thing. Not any one circumstance to cause us, to put any force upon the Constructure of the words: the discourse being still of the same Person without any Alteration: which in the other places is not.
Of the next Testimony, which is from those words of Iude, §. 28.denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Iesus Christ, v. 4. (not to increase words) this is the summe. There being but one Article prefixed to all the words, it seemes to carry the sence, that it is wholy spoken of Christ. The Catechists reckon some places, where one Article serves to sundry things, as Math. 21. 12. but it is evident, that they are utterly things of another kind, and another manner of speaking, then what is here: but the judgment hereof is left to the Reader; it being not indeed cleare to me, whether Christ be called foreign any where in the New Testament, though he be Lord and God, and the true God, full often.
The 2 of Titus 13. must be more fully insisted on: Looking for §. 29.the blessed hope, and the glorious appearance of the Great God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ.
What …ost thou Answer to this?Ad quintum quid respondes?
In this place they strive to evince by two Reasons, that the Epithite of the Great God is Quintum Testimonium est: Expectantes beatam spe… &c. Quo in loco epithetcn magni dei ad Christum referri duabus rationibus evincere conantur: Prior est superius, de articulo uno praefixa regula. Posterior, quod adventum non expectemus Patris, sed Filii. Verum ad primum argumentum responsum habes in responsione ad quartum testimonium. Ad altorum respondeo, Paulū non dicere, expectantes adventum Magni dei, verum dicere, expectantes apparitionem gloriae Magni der. Posse vero dici gloriam Dei patris illustratam iri, cum Christus ad judicium venerit, verba Christi oftendunt, cum ait, quod venturus sit in gloria, id est, cum gloria dei Patris sui. Math. 16. 27. Marc. 8. 38. praeterea, quod est inconveniens si dicatur, Deus pater venturus (prout illi è vulgata citant) cum Filius ad mundum judicandum venerit? An Christus Dei patris personam, in judicio mundi, tanquam ejus, a quo munus judicandi accepit, non sustinebit?referred to Christ. The first is the rule forementioned, of one Article prefixed to all the words: the other, that we doe not expect that coming of the Father, but of the Son. To the first you have an Answer already, in the Answer to the Fourth Testimony; To the other I Answer, Paul doth not say, expecting the coming of the Great God, but expecting the appearance of the Glory of the Great God. But now the words of Christ shew, that the Glory of God the Father may be said to be illustrated, when Christ comes to judgement; whereas he saith, that he shall come in Glory, that is, with the glory of God his Father, Math. 16. 27. Mark. 8. 38. Besides, what inconvenience is it, if it shall be said, that God the Father shall come, (as they cite the words out of the vulgar) when the Son comes to judge the World? shall not Christ sustaine the Person of the Father, as of him from whom he hath received this office of judging?
About the Reading of the words, with them we shall not contend; §. 30.It is the Originall we are to be tryed by, and there is in that no ambiguity. That foreign, the Appearance of the Glory, is an Hebraisme, for the Glorious Appearance, cannot be questioned. An hundred expressions of that nature in the New Testament, may be produced to give countenance to this. That the blessed Hepe looked for, is the thing hoped for, the Resurrection to life and immortality, is not denyed. Neither is it disputed whether the subject spoken of be Iesus Christ, and his coming to judgment. The subject is one; his Epithites here two. 1. That belonging to his Essence in himselfe, He is the Great God. 2. That of Office unto us: He is our Saviour. That it is Christ which is spoken of, appears. 1. From the single Article that is assigned to all the words: foreign, which no lesse signifies one person, then that other expression, foreign, the God and Father of Iesus Christ: Should I say, that one Person is here intended, and not two, (God, and the Father of Jesus Christ being the same) our Catechists may say no; for it is found in another place, that there is but one Article prefixed, where sundry Persons are after spoken of. But is it not evident in those places from the subject matter, that they are sundry Persons, as also from the severall conditions of them mentioned, as in that of Math: 21. 12. he cast out the sellers and buyers. The proper force then of the expression enforces this Attribution to Iesus Christ. 2. Mention is made foreign, of the glorious appearance of him, of whom the Apostle speaks. That Christ is the Person spoken of, and his Employment of coming to judgement, primarily and directly, is confessed. This word is never used of God the Father, but frequently of Christ, and that in particular, in respect of the thing here spoken of. Yea it is properly expressive of his second coming, in opposition to his first coming under contempt, scorne, and reproach, 1 Tim. 6. 14. Keep this commandement foreign: 2 Tim. 4. 18. which the Lord the Righteous judge shall give me at that day, and not to me only, but to them that love foreign. Neither (as was said) is it ever used of the Father, but is the Word continually used to expresse the second coming of Iesus Christ; sometimes foreign foreign hath the same signification, and is therefore never ascribed to the Father. 3. It is not what MAY be said to be done, whether the Glory of the Father may be said to be illustrated by the coming of Christ, but what IS said. The Glorious Appearance of the Great God is not the manifestation of his Glory, but his Glory is manifested in his Appearance. 4. It is true, it is said that Christ shall come in the Glory of his Father, Math. 16. 21. Mark. 8. 38. but it is no where said, that the Glory of the Father shall come or appeare. 5. Their whole Interpretation of the words will scarce admit of any good sence; nor can it be properly said, that two Persons come, when only one comes, though that one have Glory and Authority from the other. 6. Christ shall also judge in his owne Name, and by the Laws, which as Lord he hath given. 7. There is but the same way of coming, and Appearance of the Great God, and our Saviour, which if our Saviour come really, and indeed, and the Great God only because he sends him; the one comes, and the other comes not; which is not doubtlesse they both come.
Grotius agrees with our Catechists, but saies not one word more §. 31.for the proof of his Interpretation, nor in way of exception to ours, then they say: as they say no more then Socinus against Bellarmine; nor He much more then Erasmus before him; from whom Grotius also borrowed his consent of Ambrose, which he urges in the exposition of this place; which, were it not for my peculiar respect to Erasmus, I would say were not honestly done, himselfe having proved that comment under the name of Ambrose, to be a Paltry, corrupted, depraved, foysted piece; but Grotius hath not a word but what hath been spoken to.
The next Testimony mentioned is Revel. 1. 8. I am …ha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, … and which §. 32.was, and which is to come, the Almighty. To which is added that of Chap. 4. 8. Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come.
What saist thou to this?Quid ad sextum resp…ndes?
This place, they say, referres to Christ, because Eum vero locum propterea ad Christum referunt, quod arbitrentur neminem venturum, ni… Christum. Is enim venturus est ad judicandum vivos & mortuos. Verum tenendum est, eam voc…m quam ilii reddidere, venturus est, reddi aequè posse, futurus est. ut J…an. 16. 13. ubi Domi…us ait de Spiritu, quem Apostolis promittchat, quòd illis esset futura annunciaturus; & Act. 18. 21. ubi legimus, diem festum futurum: in quibus locis duobus, vex Graeca est foreign. Deinde, quis est qui nesciat, cum prias dietum sit, qui erat, & qui est, & posterius hoc, quod additum est,they suppose none is said to come but only Christ, for he is to come to judge the quick and dead. But it is to be noted, that that word, which they have rendered to come, may equally be rendred, is to be, as Ioh. 16. 13. Where the Lord saies of the Spirit, which he promised to the Apostles, that he should shew them things to come; and Act. 18. 21. we read, that the Feast day was to be, in which place the Greek word is foreign. Lastly, who is there that knowes not, that seeing it is said before, which was and is, this last which is added, may be rendred to be, that the words in every part may be taken of existence, and not in the two former mention of existence, in the latter of coming. Neither is there any one who doth not observe, that the Eternity of per futurum esse reddi debere, ut ubi{que} de existentia ea oratio accipiatur; & non in prioribus duobus membris de existentia, in postremo de adventu. Nec est quisquam qui non animadvertat hic describi aeternitatem Dei, quae tempus praeteritum, praesens, & futurum comprehendit. Sed quod erassum errorem hune detegit, est quod Apoc. 1. 4, 5. legimus. Gratia vobis, & pax ab eo, qui est, & qui erat, & qui futurus est, & a septem spiritibus, qui sunt ante faciem throni ejus, & a Jesu Christo, qui est testis fidelis. E quo testimonio apparet, Jesum Christum ab eo, qui est, qui erat, & qui futurus est, vel, ut illi credunt, venturus, esse longe alium.God is here described, which comprehendeth time past, present, and to come. But that which discovers this grosse errour, is that, Revel. 1. 4, 5. where we read, Grace be to you, and Peace from him which is, which was, and which is to come; and from the seaven Spirits which are before His Throne, and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithfull witnesse. From which Testimony it appears, that Jesus Christ is quite another from him, which is, and was, and is to be, or as they think, is to come.
1. There is not one place which they have mentioned, §. 33.wherein the word here used, foreign, may not properly be translated to come, which they seem to acknowledge at first to be peculiar to Christ: but 2. These Gentlemen make themselves and their Disciples merry, by perswading them, that we have no other Argument to prove these words to be spoken of Christ, but only because he is said to be foreign, which yet in conjunction with other things is not without its weight, being as it were a *foreign. Gen. 49. 10. foreign. Mat. 11. 3.name of the Messiah, Math. 11. 3. from Gen. 49. 10. though it may be otherwise applied. 3. They are no lesse triumphant doubtlesse in their following Answer, that these words describe the Eternity of God, and therefore belong not to Christ, when the Argument is, that Christ is God, because amongst other things these words ascribe Eternity to him: is this an Answer to us, who not only believe him, but prove him Eternall? 4. And they are upon the same pin still, in their last expression, that these words are ascribed to the Father, v. 4. when they know that the Argument which they have undertaken to Answer, is, that the same names are ascribed to the Son, as to the Father, and therefore he is God equall with him. Their Answer is, this name is not ascribed to Christ, because it is ascribed to the Father. Men must begge, when they can make no earnings at work. 5. We confesse Christ to be alius, another, another Person from the Father; not another God, as our Catechists pretend.
Having stopt the mouthes of our Catechists, we may briefly §. 34.consider the Text it selfe. That by this expression, who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Apostle expresses that name of God, Ehejeh, Exod. 3. 14. which as the Rabbins say, is of all seasons, and expressive of all times, is evident. To which adde that other name of God, Almighty, and it cannot at all be questioned, but that He, who is intended in these words, is the only true God. 2. That the words are here used of Jesus Christ, is so undeniable from the Context, that his Adversaries thought good not once to mention it: v. 7. His coming is described in Glory: Behold He cometh with clouds, and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him, and all kindreds of the Earth shall waile because of him: whereupon himselfe immediately addes the words of this Testimony, I am Alpha and Omega: for 1. They are words spoken to John by him who gave him the Revelation, which was Iesus Christ: v. 1. 2. They are the words of him that speaks on to John, which was Iesus Christ, v. 18. 3. Iesus Christ twice in this Chapter afterwards gives himselfe the same title, v. 11. I am Alpha and Omega; and v. 17. I am the first and the last; But who was He? I am he that liveth, and was dead; and behold I live for evermore, Amen: and have the keys of Hell and death, v. 18. He gave the Revelation; He is described; He speaks all allwaies; He gives himselfe the same Titles twice againe in this Chapter.
But our Catechists think they have taken a course to prevent all this, and therefore have avoided the consideration of the §. 35.words, as they are placed, Chap. 1. v. 8. considering the same words in Chap. 4. 8. where they want some of the circumstances, which in this place give light to their Application. They are not there spoken by any that ascribes them to himselfe, but by others are ascribed to him that sits on the Throne, who cry (as the Seraphims Isa. 6. 3) Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God Almighty, which is, which was, and which is to come. But yet there wants not evidence to evince, that these words belong immediately in this place also to Iesus Christ. For 1. They are the name (as we have seen) whereby not long before he reveals himselfe. 2. They are spoken of him, who sits on the Throne, in the midst of the Christian Churches here represented. And if Christ be not intended in these words, there is no mention of his presence in his Church, in that solemne Representation of its Assembly, although he promised to be in the middest of his, to the end of the World. 3. The honour that is here ascribed to him that is spoken of, is because he is foreign, worthy, as the same is assigned to the Lamb, by the same persons, in the same words, Chap. 5. 12. So that in both these places it is Iesus Christ who is described; He is, He was, He is to come, (or as another place expresses it, the same yesterday, to day, and for ever) the Lord God Almighty.
I shall not need to adde any thing to what Grotius hath observed §. 36.on these places. He holds with our Catechists, and ascribes these Titles, and Expressions to God, in contradistinction to Jesus Christ, and gives in some observations to explain them: but for the Reason of his exposition, wherein he knew that he dissented from the most of Christians, we have foreign: so that I have nothing to do, but to reject his Authority; which upon the experience I have of his designe, I can most freely doe.
Proceed we to the next Testimony, which is Act. 20. 28. §. 37.feed the Church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. He who purchased the Church with his blood, is God: but it was Jesus Christ, who purchased his Church with his blood: Ephes. 5. 25, 26, 27. Tit. 2. 14. Heb. 9. 14. Therefore He is God.
What dost thou answer to this?Quid ad septimum respondes?
I answer, the name of God is not necessarily in this place referred to Christ, but it may be Respondeo, nom…n 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, & eam ob causam, quo genere loquendi, & quam ob causam propheta ait, eum qui tangit populum Dei, tangere pupillam oculi Dei ipsius. Etenim summa, quae est inter Deum patrem & Christum conjunctio, etsi essentia sint prorsus diversi, in causa est, our Christi sanguis, sanguisreferred to God the Father: whose blood the Apostles call that which Christ shed, in that kind of speaking, and for that cause, with which God, and for which cause the Prophet sayes, he who toucheth you, toucheth the apple of the eye of God himselfe. For the great conjunction that is between Father and Sonne, although in Essence they are altogether diverse, is the reason, why the blood of Christ is called the blood of God the Father himselfe, especially if it be considered as shed for us. For Christ is the Lamb of God, that takes away the sinnes of the world. Whence the blood shed to that purpose may be called the blood of God himselfe. Nor is it to ipsius Dei Patris dicatur: prasertim si quis expendat quatenus is est pro nobis fusus. Etenim Christus est agnus Dei, qui tollit … Mundi. Vnde sanguis in eum finem fusus, ipsius dei sanguis jure vocaripotest. Nec vero praetereundum est silentio, quod in editione Syriaca loco dei legatur Christi.be passed by in silence, that in the Syriach 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 lesse agree among §. 38.themselves, then about this. 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. & Wieek. pag. 200. &c. Some, that the words are thus to be read: Feed the Church of God, which Christ hath purchased by his own blood: So Ochinus and Laelius Socinus, whom Zanchius Answers: de tribus Elohim. lib. 3. cap. 6. p. 456.
Some fly to the Syriach Translation, contrary to the constant §. 39.consenting Testimony of all famous copyes of the Originall, all agreeing in the word foreign, some adding foreign: so Grotius would have it; affirming that the manuscript he used had foreign; not telling them that it added foreign, which is the same with what we affirme. And therefore he ventures at asserting the Text to be corrupted, and in short writing, foreign to be crept in for foreign, 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 ones blood was shed, when it was not shed, but anothers, and no mention that that others blood was shed? 3. If the Fathers blood was shed, or said truly to be shed, because Christs blood was shed; Then you may say, that God the Father dyed, and was crucifyed under Pontius Pilate, and God the Father rose from the dead, that he was dead, and is alive: That that blood that was shed, was not Christs, but some bodyes else, that he loved & was neere unto him. 4. There is no Analogy between that of the Prophet, of the Apple of Gods eye, and this here spoken of. Uncontrolably 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 diverse persons are spoken of, God and Believers: here one only, that did that which is expressed. And all the force of this exposition lyes 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? This worke 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 §. 40.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 againe, may be called the hunger and thirst of God the Father, his sweating, dying, and rising. And he is a strange naturall and proper Sonne, 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 fullfilling 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 a man, that appointed it to be shed, yea of God, who ordained it. The words are, foreign; if any words in the world can properly expresse, that it is one and the same person 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 §. 41.head of Testimonies, about the name of God, is 1 Joh. 3. 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.
To the eight what saist thou?Ad octavum vero quid?
First take this account, that neither in any Primum igitur sic habeto, ne{que} in Graecá editione ulla, (excepta complutensi) nec in editione Syriaca, vocem DeusGreeke edition, but only, the Complutensis, nor in the Syriach, the word God is found; but suppose that this word were found in all copies, were therefore this word He to be referred to haberi, Verum etiamsa haec vox haberetur in omnibus exemplaribus, num idcirco ea vox ille, ad Deum erit referenda? Non certè; 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 foreign vocem Graecam Ioannes in hac Epistola saepe adeum refert, qui longe an…ea nominatus fuerat, ut & 3. 5. & 7. versu ejusdem capitis in Graeco apparet.God? Not doubtlesse; not only for that Reason which we gave a little before, in answer to the third Testimony, that such words are not alwaies referred to the next person; but moreover, because John doth often in this Epistle referre the Greeke word foreign to him who was named long before, as in the 3, 5, and 7. verses of this Chapter.
1. Our Catechists doe very faintly adhere to the first exception §. 42.about the word foreign in the Originall, granting that it is in some copies, and knowing that the like phrase is used elsewhere, and that the sence in this place necessarily requires the presence of that word. 2. Supposing it as they doe, we deny, that this is a very just exception which they insist upon, that a Rel…ive may sometimes, and in some cases, where the sence is evident, be referred to the more remote antecedent, therefore it may, or ought to do so in any place, contrary to the propriety of Grammer, where there are no circumstances, enforcing such a construction, but all things requiring the proper sence of it. 3. It is allowed of only where severall 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 foreign following after, where foreign is referred to any thing or Person more remote: much lesse here where the Apostle having treated of God, and the Love of God, drawes an Argument from the Love of God, to enforce our Love of one another. 5. In the places they point unto, foreign in every of them is referred to the next and immediate Antecedent, as will be evident to the Reader upon the first view.
Give them their great Associate, and we have done. foreign §. 43.hi… est Christus ut supra v. 5. subintelligendum hie autem est, hoc Christum fecisse Deo sic decernente nostri causa quod expressum est, Rom. 4. 8. That foreign is Christ is confessed; but the word being a Relative, & expressive of some person before mentioned, we say it relates unto foreign, the word going immediately before it. No saies Grotius, but the sence is, Herein appeared the love of God, that by his a…pointment Christ dyed 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 Grammaticall, construction of the words will beare any such sence, we deny.
And this is what they have to except to the Testimonies, §. 44.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, &c. 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.
That many more Testimonies to this purpose may be produced, and have been so, by those who have pleaded the Deity §. 45.of Christ, against its opposers, both of old and of late, is known to all that enquire after such things. I content my selfe, to vindicate what they have put in exceptions unto.