Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

(Ibid. 13.) by him "that liveth, and was dead, and is alive for evermore" (Ibid. 18.) that is undoubtedly, by Christ. He upholdeth the Church of Smyrna in her tribulation by virtue of the same description. "These things saith the first and the last, which was dead and is alive." (Rev. ii. 8.) He ascertaineth his coming unto judgment with the same assertion, "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last." (Rev. xxii. 13.)* And in all these places this title is attributed unto Christ absolutely and universally, without any kind of restriction or limitation, without any assignation of any particular in respect of which he is the first or last; in the same latitude and eminence of expression, in which it is or can be attributed to the supreme God. There is yet another Scripture, in which the same description may seem of a more dubious interpretation: "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty." (Rev. i. 8.) For being it is "the Lord" who so calls himself, which title belongeth to the Father and the Son, it may be doubted whether it be spoken by the Father or the Son; but whether it be understood of the one or of the other, it will sufficiently make good what we intend to prove. For if they be understood of Christ, as the precedent and the following words imply, then is he certainly that Lord," which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty;" that is, the supreme eternal God, of the same divine essence with the Father, who was before described by "him which is, and which was, and which is to come," (Rev. i. 4.) to whom the six-winged beasts continually cry, "Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come:" (Rev. iv. 8.) as the familiar explication of that name which God revealed to Moses. (Exod. iii. 14.) If they belong unto the supreme God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ; then did he so describe himself unto St. John, and express his supreme Deity, that by those words, "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending," he might be known to be the one almighty and eternal God; and, consequently, whosoever should assume that title, must attribute as much unto himself. Wherefore being Christ hath so immediately, and with so great solemnity and frequency, taken the same style upon him by which the Father did express his Godhead; it followeth, that he hath declared himself to be the supreme, almighty, and eternal God. And being thus the Alpha and the first, he was

With the article so much elsewhere stood upon, τὸ Α καὶ τὸ Ω, ὁ πρῶτος, καὶ ὁ xaros, The Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last. For we must not take

A as the grammarians do, by which they signify only the letter written in that figure, and called by that name. As appeareth by Eratosthenes, who was called

BйTа, not τà Bhuara, as Suidas corruptly. Hesychius Illustrius, from whom Suidas had that passage: Ερατοσθένης διὰ τὸ δευ τερεύειν παντὶ εἴδει παιδείας τοῖς ἄκροις ἐγγίLov, Bira inλnen. And Martianus Heracleota in Periplo: Καὶ μετ ̓ ἐκεῖνον Ερατοσθένης, ὃν Βῆτα ἐκάλεσαν οἱ τοῦ Μουσείου προστάντες.

before any time assignable, and consequently before he was conceived of the Virgin; and the being which then he had was the divine essence, by which he was truly and properly the almighty and eternal God.

Fourthly, He whose glory Isaiah saw in the year that king Uzziah died, had a being, before Christ was begotten of the Virgin, and that being was the divine essence, by which he was naturally and essentially God; for he is expressly called "the Lord, Holy, holy, holy, the Lord of hosts, whose glory filleth the whole earth;" (Isa. vi. 1. 3.) which titles can belong to none beside the one and only God. But Christ was he whose glory Isaiah saw, as St. John doth testify, saying, "These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him:" (John xii. 41.) and he whose glory he saw, and of whom he spake, was certainly Christ: for of him the apostle treateth in that place, and of none but him. "These things spake Jesus and departed. But though he (that is, Jesus) had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him," (Ibid. 36, 37.) that is, Christ who wrought those miracles. The reason why they believed not on him was, "That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report?" (Ibid. 38.) and as they did not, so they could not believe in Christ, "because that Esaias said again, He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their hearts; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, and be converted, and I should heal them." (Ibid. 39, 40.) For those who God foresaw, and the prophet foretold, should not believe, could not do it without contradicting the prescience of the one, and the predictions of the other. But the Jews refusing to assent unto the doctrine of our Saviour, were those of whom the prophet spake: for" these things said Esaias when he saw his glory, and spake of him." (Ibid. 41.) Now if the glory which Isaiah saw, were the glory of Christ, and he of whom Isaiah in that chapter spake, were Christ himself; then must those blinded eyes and hardened hearts belong unto these Jews, and then their infidelity was so long since foretold. Thus doth the fixing of that prophecy upon that people, which saw our Saviour's miracles, depend upon Isaiah's vision, and the appropriation of it unto Christ. Wherefore St. John infallibly hath taught us, that the prophet saw the glory of Christ, and the prophet hath as undoubtedly assured us, that he whose glory then he saw, was the one omnipotent and eternal God; and consequently both together have sealed this truth, that Christ did then subsist in that glorious majesty of the eternal Godhead.

Lastly, He who, being man, is frequently in the Scriptures called God, and that in such a manner, as by that name no other can be understood but the one only and eternal God, he had an existence before he was made man, and the being

which then he had was no other than the divine essence; because all novelty is repugnant to the Deity, nor can any be that one God, who was not so from all eternity. But Jesus Christ being in the nature of man, is frequently in the sacred Scriptures called God; and that name is attributed unto him in such a manner, as by it no other can be understood but the one almighty and eternal God.

Which may be thus demonstrated. It hath been already proved, and we all agree in this, that there can be but one divine essence, and so but one supreme God. Wherefore were it not said in the Scriptures, there are "many gods;" (1 Cor. viii. 4.) did not he himself who is supreme call others so; we durst not give that name to any but to him alone, nor could we think any called God to be any other but that one. It had been then enough to have alleged that Christ is God, to prove his supreme and eternal Deity: whereas now we are answered, that there are "gods many," and therefore it followeth not from that name, that he is the one eternal God. But if Christ be none of those many gods, and yet be God; then can he be no other but that one. And that he is not to be numbered with them, is certain, because he is clearly distinguished from them, and opposed to them. We read in the Psalmist, "I have said, Ye are gods, and all of you are children of the Most High." (Psal. lxxxii. 6.) But we must not reckon Christ among those gods, we must not number the only-begotten Son among those children. For "they knew not, neither would they understand, they walked on in darkness:" (Ibid. 5.) and whosoever were gods only as they were, either did, or might do so. Whereas Christ, in whom alone dwelt "all the fulness of the Godhead bodily," (Col. ii. 9.) is not only distinguished from, but opposed to, such gods as those, by his disciples saying, "Now we are sure that thou knowest all things;" (John xvi. 30.) by himself proclaiming, "I am the light of the world: he that followeth me, shall not walk in darkness." (John viii. 12.) St. Paul hath told us, "there be gods many, and lords many;' but withal hath taught us, that "to us there is but one God, the Father, and one Lord Jesus Christ." (1 Cor. viii. 5, 6.) In which words, as the Father is opposed as much unto the many lords, as many gods; so is the Son as much unto the many gods as many lords; the Father being as much Lord as God, and the Son as much God as Lord. Wherefore being we find in Scripture frequent mention of one God, and beside that one an intimation of many gods, and whosoever is called God, must either be that one, or one of those many; being we find our blessed Saviour to be wholly opposed to the many gods, and consequently to be none of them, and yet we read him often styled God: it followeth, that that name is attributed unto him in such a manner, as by it no other can be understood but the one almighty and eternal God.

Again, those who deny our Saviour to be the same God with the Father, have invented rules to be the touchstone of the eternal power and Godhead. First, Where the name of God is taken absolutely, as the subject of any proposition, it always signifies the supreme power and majesty, excluding all others from that Deity. Secondly, Where the same name is any way used with an article, by way of excellency, it likewise signifieth the same supreme Godhead as admitting others to a communion of Deity, but excluding them from the supremacy. Upon these two rules they have raised unto themselves this observation, That whensoever the name of God absolutely taken is placed as the subject of any proposition, it is not to be understood of Christ: and wheresoever the same name is spoken of our Saviour by way of predicate, it never hath an article denoting excellency annexed to it; and consequently leaves him in the number of those gods, who are excluded from the majesty of the eternal Deity. Now though there can be no kind of certainty in any such observations of the articles, because the Greeks promiscuously often use them or omit them, without any reason of their usurpation or omission (whereof examples are innumerable); though if those rules were granted, yet would not their conclusion follow, because the supreme God is often named (as they confess) without an article, and therefore the same name may signify the same God when spoken of Christ, as well as when of the Father, so far as can concern the omission of the article: yet to complete my demonstration, I shall shew, first, That the name of God taken subjectively is to be understood of Christ. Secondly, That the same name with the article affixed is attributed unto him. Thirdly, That if it were not so, yet where the article is wanting, there is that added to the predicate, which hath as great a virtue to signify that excellency as the article could have.

St. Paul, unfolding the mystery of godliness, hath delivered six propositions together, and the subject of all and each of them is God. "Without controversy great is the mystery of godliness God was manifested in the flesh, justified in the spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory." (1 Tim. iii. 16.) And this God which is the subject of all these propositions must be understood of Christ, because of him each one is true, and all are so of none but him; he was the Word which was God, and was made flesh, and consequently "God manifested in the flesh." Upon him the Spirit descended at his baptism, and after his ascension was poured upon his apostles, ratifying his commission, and confirming the doctrine which they received from him wherefore he was "God justified in the Spirit." His nativity the angels celebrated, in the discharge of his office they ministered unto him, at his resurrection and ascension they were present, always ready to confess and adore him: he he was therefore "God seen of angels." The apostles preached

unto all nations, and he whom they preached was Jesus Christ. (Acts viii. 5. 35. ix. 20. xi. 20. xvii. 3. 18. xix. 13. Rom. xvi. 25. 2 Cor. i. 19. Phil. i. 18.) The Father "separated St. Paul from his mother's womb, and called him by his grace to reveal his Son unto him, that he might preach him among the heathen" (Gal. i. 15, 16.) therefore he was "God preached unto the Gentiles." John the Baptist spake "unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus." (Acts xix. 4.) "We have believed in Jesus Christ," (Gal. ii. 16.) saith St. Paul, who so taught the gaoler trembling at his feet," Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved :" (Acts xvi. 31.) he therefore was "God believed on in the World." When he had been forty days on earth after his resurrection, he was taken visibly up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of the Father: wherefore he was "God received up into glory." And thus all these six propositions, according to the plain and familiar language of the Scriptures, are infallibly true of Christ, and so of God, as he is taken by St. John, (i. 1.) when he speaks those words, "the Word was God." But all these cannot be understood of any other, which either is, or is called, God. For though we grant the divine perfections and attributes to be the same with the divine essence, yet are they never in the Scriptures called God; nor can any of them with the least show of probability be pretended as the subject of these propositions, or afford any tolerable interpretation. When they tell us that "God," that is, the will of God,* "was manifested in the flesh," that is, was revealed by frail and mortal men, and "received up into glory," that is, was received gloriously on earth, they teach us a language which the Scriptures‡ know not, and the Holy Ghost never used, and as no attributes, so no person but the Son can be here understood under the name of God: not the

Deus, i. e. voluntas ipsius de servandis hominibus, per homines infirmos et mortales perfecte patefacta est, &c.' Catech. Racov. ad Quæst. 59.

+ Insignem in modum et summa cum gloria recepta fuit.' lbid, 16.

* For Θεός is not θέλημα Θεοῦ, much less is aveλnon received or embraced. Elias speaketh not of his reception, but his ascension, when he saith to Elisha: Ti ποιήσω σοι πρὶν ἡ ἀναληφθῆναι ἀπὸ σοῦ; 2 Kings ii. 9. and ver. 10. 'Eàv iồng me ávaλαμβανόμενον ἀπό σου, καὶ ἔσται σοι οὕτως. When he actually ascended, as the original, it is no otherwise translated by the Septuagint, than ἀνελήφθη Ἠλιοὺ ἐν συσσεισμό ὡς εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν. ver. Which language was preserved by the Hellenizing Jews : Ὁ ἀναληφθεὶς ἐν λαίλαπι ge, Sirac. xlviii. 9. and again: ¿veλnon Taç siç ròv oùgavov, 1 Mac. ii. 58. Neither

11.

did they use it of Elias only, but of Enoch also : Οὐδὲ εἷς ἐκτίσθη οἷος Ενώχ, καὶ γὰρ αὐτὸς ἀνελήφθη ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς. Sirac. xlix. 14. The same language is continued in the New Testament of our Saviour's ascension : ἀνελήφθη εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν, Mark xvi. 19. ὁ ἀναληφθεὶς ἀφ ̓ ὑμῶν εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν, Acts i. 11. and singly, aveλnpon, Acts i. 2. and, aveλnpon ap' huar, Acts i. 22. As therefore ἀνάληψις τοῦ Μωσέως, in the language of the Jews, was not the reception of Moses by the Israelites, but the assumption of his body; 80 ἀνάληψις του XgoT is the ascension of Christ, Luke ix. 51. Wherefore this being the constant notion of the word, it must so be here likewise understood, ἀνελήφθη ἐν δόξη· as the Vulgar Latin (whose authority is pretended against us), assumptum est in gloria; rendering it here by the same word by which he always translated aveλýçdü.

« AnteriorContinuar »