« FöregåendeFortsätt »
Again, St Paul speaketh thus to the elders of the church Acts xx. 23. of Ephesus: Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock
over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. In these words this doctrinal proposition is clearly contained, God hath purchased the Church with his own blood. For there is no other word either in or near the text which can by any grammatical construction be joined with
maketh use of no other text but this to prove the hypostatical union, giving it this gloss or exposition; Ti έστι τό, εφανερώθη εν σαρκί ; τουτέστι, γέγονε σάρξ ο εκ θεού Πατρός Λόγος, &c. The same he urgeth in his Scholion de Unigeniti Incarnatione. So also Theodoret contemporary with St Cyril: θεός γάρ ών και θεού υιός, και αόρατον έχων την φύσιν, δηλος άπασιν ενανθρωπήσας εγένετο, σαφώς δε ημάς τας δύο φύσεις εδίδαξεν, έν σαρκί γάρ την θείαν έφη φανερωθήναι φύσιν. . [comm. in loc. vol. 111. p. 657.] Thirdly, Hincmarus does not say that the Nes. torians put Oeós into the Greek text, but that he which put it in was cast out of his bishoprick for a Nestorian. His words are these: 'Quidam nimirum ipsas Scripturas verbis illicitis imposturaverunt: sicut Macedonius Constantinopolitanus Episcopus, qui ab Anastasio Imperatore ideo a civi. tate expulsus legitur, quoniam falsavit Evangelia, et illum Apostoli locum ubi dicit, quod apparuit in carne, justificatum est in Spiritu, per cognationem Græcarum litterarum, Oin hoc modo mutando falsavit. Ubi enim habuit Qui, hoc est OE monosyllabum Græcum, littera mutata 0 in vertit; et fecit, ex, id est ut esset, Deus apparuit per carnem. Quapropter tanquam Nestorianus fuit expulsus.' Hincm. Opus. lv. c. 18. Now whereas Hincmarus says expulsus legitur, we read not in Euagrius, or the Excerpta of Theodorus, or in Joannes Malala, that Macedonius was cast out of his bishoprick for any such falsation. It is therefore probable that he had it from Liberatus, a deacon of the Church of Carthage, who wrote a
Breviary, collected partly out of the ecclesiastical histories and acts of the Councils, partly out of the relations of 'such men as he thought fit to believe, extant in the fourth Tome of the Councils. In which, chap. xix. we have the same relation, only with this difference, that O is not turned into e, but into , and so 02 becomes not O, but N. So that first the Greek copies are not said to have read it o, but ös, and so not to have relation to the mystery, but to the person of Christ; and therefore this makes nothing for the Vulgar Latin. Secondly, whereas Hincmarus says there was but one letter ch ed, no such mutation can of O make OEOE; it may NE, as we read in Liberatus; and then this is nothing to the Greek text. Thirdly, Macedonius was no Nestorian, but Anastasius an Eutychian, and he ejected him, as he did [The fifth and following editions read, not as he did. Burton.] other Catholic bishops, under the pretence of Nestorianism, but forother reasons. Howsoever, Macedonius could not falsify all the Greek copies, when as well those which were before his time, as those which were written since, all acknowledge Ocos. And if he had been ejected for substituting Oebs, without question Anastasius would have taken care for the restoring os, which we find not in any copy. It remaineth therefore that the Nestorians did not falsify the text by reading Oeos εφανερώθη, but that the ancient Greek fathers read it so; and, consequently, being the Greek is the original, this lection must be acknowledged authentical.
the verb, except the Holy Ghost, to whom the predicate is
repugnant, both in respect of the act, or our redemption, and
purchased the Church; if he hath not blood to shed for our
Την εκκλησίας του θεού. For though the Church be properly the Church of Christ, Matt. xvi. 18. Col. i. 24. and in the plural we read once αι εκκλησίαι του Χριστού, Rom. Xvi. 16. as we do of the Churches of God, 1 Cor. xi. 16.2 Thess, i. 4. and 1 Thess. ii. 14. yet n ekkinoia toll Ocoû is frequently used; as, 1 Cor. i. 2. and x. 32. and xv. 9. and xi. 22. 2 Cor. i. 1. 1 Tim. ii. 5, 15; but → ekkinola Toll XPLOTOù not once named. And therefore we have no reason to alter it in this text, or to fancy it first written you, and then made 000, when
it is so often written θεού, not Χριστού.
* The Sinaitic and Vatican MSS. read coû.
+ In Dr Lee's edition of the Peshito, 27589 (Dei) is rcad on the authority of three MSS. Dr Wright has kindly examined the oldest MSS. of the Peshito in the British Museum, and states that X75x7 is read by Add. MSS. 18,812 (vi or viith cent.), 17,121 (vi) 14,472 (vi or vii]. In Add. 18. 17,120 (vi) xTVnt is read, altered by a much later hand into x7b87. In Add. MSS 14,448 691-700 A.D.) and 7167 (768 A.D.), both Nestorian MSS., XN•Vr7 is read.
the expression of this act, peculiar to the Son, be attributed to the Father, because this blood signifieth death: and though the Father be omnipotent, and can do all things, yet he cannot die. And though it might be said that he purchased us, because he gave his Son to be a ransom for us, yet it cannot be said that he did it by his own blood; for then it would follow, that he gave not his Son, or that the Son and the Father were the same person. Beside, it is very observable, that this particular phrase of his own blood, is in the Scripture put by way of opposition to the blood of another'; and howsoever we may attribute the acts of the Son unto the Father,
because sent by him; yet we cannot but acknowledge that Heb. ix. 12. the blood and death was of another than the Father. Not
by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he Hleb, ix. 25, entered in once into the holy place; and whereas the high-priest
entered every year with the blood of others, Christ appeared once to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. He then which purchased us wrought it by his own blood, as an highpriest opposed to the Aaronical, who made atonement by the blood of others. But the Father taketh no priestly office, neither could he be opposed to the legal priest, as not dying himself, but giving another. Wherefore wheresoever the Father and the Son are described together as working the salvation of man, the blood by which it is wrought is attri
buted to the Son, not to the Father : as when St Paul speakRoin. iii. 24, eth of the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God hath
set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness”; his, that is, his own righteousness, hath reference to God the Father, but his, that is, his own blood, must be referred to Christ the Son. When he glorifieth the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, attributing unto him, that he hath blessed, elected, predestinated, adopted, accepted us, made known unto us the mystery of his will,
1"Ίδιον αίμα is opposed to αίμα αλlótplov. And therefore it is observable, that the author of the Racovian Cate. chism, in his Answer to this place of Scripture, doth never make the least mention of Idcov or proprium, but only affirms that the blood of Christ may be called the blood of God the Father; and totidem verbis did Socinus answer to Wiekus (Vujekius) before, but in
his whole Answer concealed the force of lolov: whereas the strength of our argument lies in those words, Old Toû ιδίου αίματος, or, as the Alexandrian MS. and one mentioned by Beza, did του αίματος του ιδίου. .
2 “Ον προέθετο ο θεός ελαστήριον διά της πίστεως εν τω αυτού αίματι, εις ένδειξιν της δικαιοσύνης αυτού. .
and gathered us together in one; in the midst of this acknowledgment he brings in the Beloved, in whom we have redemp- Eph. i. 6, 7.
tion through his blood, as that which cannot be attributed to 130 the Father. Christ hath blessed us; and the apostle saith
the Father hath blessed us : which is true, because he sent his Acts iii. 26. Son to bless us. Christ hath made known unto us the will of his Father; and the apostle saith, the Father hath made Eph. i. 9. known unto us the mystery of his will; because he sent his Son to reveal it. Christ hath delivered us; and the Father is said to deliver us from the power of darkness : not that we are CoL i 13. twice delivered, but because the Father delivereth us by his Son. And thus these general acts are familiarly attributed to them both; but still a difference must be observed and acknowledged in the means or manner of the performance of these acts. For though it is true, that the Father and the Son revealed to us the will of God; yet it is not true that the Father revealed it by himself to us; but that the Son did so, it is. They both deliver us from sin and death; but the Son gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us ; Gal. i 4. the Father is not, cannot be, said to have given himself, but his Son; and therefore the apostle giveth thanks unto the Father, who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and col. 1. 13, 14. hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son, in whom we have redemption through his blood. Now this blood is not only the blood of the new Covenant, and consequently of the Mediator; but the nature of this Covenant is such, that it is also a Testament, and therefore the blood must be the blood of the testator; for where a testament is, there must also of Heb. ix. 16 necessity be the death of the testator. But the testator which died is not, cannot be, the Father, but the Son; and consequently the blood is the blood of the Son, not of the Father, It remaineth therefore that God, who purchased the Church with his own blood, is not the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, or any other which is called God, but only Jesus Christ the Son of God, and God. And thus have I proved the first of the three assertions, that the name of God absolutely taken and placed subjectively, is sometimes to be understood of Christ.
The second, That the name of God, invested by way of excellency with an article, is attributed in the Scriptures unto Christ, may be thus made good. He which is called Emma
Matt. i. 23.
John i. 14.
nuel is named God by way of excellency; for that name, saith St Matthew, being interpreted, is, God with us : and in
that interpretation the Greek'article is prefixed. But Christ Matt. i. 22,23. is called Emmanuel ; that it might be fulfilled which was
spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel. Therefore he is that God with us, which is expressed by way of excellency, and distinguished from all other who are any way honoured with that name: for it is a vain imagination to think that Christ
is called Emmanuel, but that he is not what he is called : Exod. xvii. 15. as Moses built an altar, and called the name of it JehovahJudg. vi. 24. Nissi, and Gideon another called Jehovah Shalom; and yet Jer. xxxiii. 16. neither altar was Jehovah : as Jerusalem was called the Lord
our righteousness; and yet that city was not the Lord. Because these two notions, which are conjoined in the name Emmanuel, are severally true of Christ. First, he is Em
manu, that is, with us, for he hath dwelt among us: and Matt . xxviii. when he parted from the earth, he said to his disciples, I am
with you alway, even to the end of the world”. Secondly, he is El, and thạt name was given him, as the same prophet testifieth, For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given : and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, the mighty God. He then who is both properly called El, that is, God, and is also really Emmanu, that is, with us, he must infallibly be that Emmanuel who is God with us. Indeed, if the name
Emmanuel were to be interpreted by way of a proposition, Ezek. xlviii. 'God is with us,' as the Lord our righteousness, and the Lord
is there, must be understood where they are the names of
Isai. ix. 6.
אל גבור 3