ὁ Θεός. Exod. xvii. 20. ipar cipi. Εγώ μεθ' ὑμῶν εἰμί. a. ix. 6. call his name Emmanuel. Therefore he is that God with vin ö iç us, which is expreffed by way of excellency, and dif- ebentinguished from all other who are any ways honoured Μεθ ̓ ἡμῶν with that name: for it is a vain imagination to think that Chrift is called Emmanuel, but that he is not Verfe 22, what he is called as Mofes built an altar, and called 23: the name of it Jehovah Nissi, and Gideon another called 15. Jehovah Shalom, and yet neither altar was Jehovah; Judg.vi. 24. as Jerufalem was called, The Lord our righteousness, Jer. xxxiii. and yet that City was not the Lord. Because thefe 16. two notions, which are conjoined in the name Emmanuel, are severally true of Chrift. Firft he is Em- John i. 14. manu, that is, with us, for he hath dwelt among us: and when he parted from the earth, he faid to his Difciples, I am with you alway, even to the end of the Mat. xxviii. world. Secondly, he is El, and that name was given him, as the fame Prophet teftifieth, For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given; and his name fhall 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, God is with us, as the Lord our righteoufnefs, and the Lord is there, muft Ezek. xlviii. be understood where they are the names of Jerufalem; 35. then should it have been the name not of Christ, but of his Church and if we under the Gospel had been called fo, it could have received no other interpretation in reference to us. But being it is not ours, but our Saviour's name, it bears no kind of fimilitude with those objected appellations, and is as properly and directly to be attributed to the Meffias as the name of Jefus. Wherefore it remaineth that Chrift be acknowledged God with us, according to the evangelical interpretation, with an expreffion of that excellency which belongeth to the supreme Deity. Again, He to whom St. Thomas faid, My Lord and my God, or rather, The Lord of me, and the God 28. John xx. ! John v. 20. of me, he is that God before whofe name the Greek article is prefixed, which they require, by way of excellency. But St. Thomas fpake these words (1) to Chrift. For Jefus fpake unto Thomas, and Thomas anfwered and faid unto him, My Lord and my God. And in these (1) words he made confeffion of his Faith; for our Saviour replied, Thomas, because thou haft feen me, thou haft believed. And let him be the Lord of me, and the God of me, who was the Lord and the God of an Apostle. Nor have we only their required teftimony of Christ's fupreme Divinity, but alfo an addition of verity afferting that Supremacy. For he is not only termed the God, but, for a farther certainty, the true God: and the fame Apostle, who faid the Word was God, left any cavil fhould arife by any omiffion of an article, though fo frequently neglected by all, even the most accurate Authors, hath alfo affured us that he is the true God. For, we know, faith he, that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding that we may know him that is true: and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Fefus Chrift. (x) This is the true God, and eternal life. As therefore we read in the Acts Acts x. 36. of the word which God fent unto the children of Ifrael, preaching peace by Jefus Chrift; he is Lord of all: where it is acknowledged that the Lord of all is by the pronoun (y) he joined unto Jefus Chrift, the immediate, not unto God, the remote antecedent: fo likewife here the true God is to be referred unto Chrift, who ftands next unto it, not unto the Father, fpoken of indeed in the text, but at a distance. There is no reafon alledged why these last words fhould not be referred to the Son of God, but only this, that in grammatical conftruction they may be afcribed to the Father. As, when another King arose which knew not Jofeph, the fame dealt fubtilly with our kindred; the fame referreth us not to Jofeph, but to the King of Egypt. Whereas, if nothing elfe can be objected but a poffibility in refpect of the grammatical conftruction, we Acts vii. 18, 19. may may as well fay that Jofeph dealt fubtilly with his kindred as the King of Egypt; for whatsoever the incongruity be in hiftory, it makes no folœcifin in the fyntax. Wherefore being Jefus Christ is the imme-; diate antecedent to which the relative may properly be referred; being the Son of God is he of whom the Apostle chiefly fpeaketh; being this is rendered as a reafon why we are in him that is true, by being in his Son, to wit, because that Son is the true God; being in the language of St. John the conftant title of our Saviour is eternal life; being all these reasons may be drawn out of the text itself, why the title of the true God fhould be attributed to the Son, and no one reafon can be raised from thence why it fhould be referred to the Father; I can conclude no less, than that our Saviour is the true God, fo ftyled in the Scriptures by way of eminency, with an article prefixed, as the (z) firft Chriftian Writers which immediately followed the Apostles did both fpeak and write. But, thirdly, were there no fuch particular place in which the article were expreffed, yet fhall we find fuch adjuncts fixed to the name of God when attributed unto Chrift as will prove equivalent to an article, or whatfoever may exprefs the fupreme Majefty. As when St. Paul doth magnify the Jews, Rom.ix. 5. out of whom, as concerning the flesh, Chrift came, who is over all, God blessed for ever, Amen. Firft, It is evident that Chrift is called (a) God, even he who came of the Jews, though not as he came of them, that is, according to the flesh, which is here (b) diftinguished from his Godhead. Secondly, He is fo called God as not to be any of the many Gods, but the one fupreme or most high God; (c) for he is God over all. Thirdly, He hath alfo added the title of bleffed, which of itself elsewhere fignifieth the (d) fupreme God, and was always ufed by the Jews to express that one God of Ifrael. Wherefore it cannot be conceived St. Paul fhould write unto the Christians, P 4 Christians, most of which then were converted Jews or Profelytes, and give unto our Saviour not only the name of God, but alfo add that title which they always gave unto the one God of Ifrael, and to none but him; except he did intend they should believe him to be the fame God whom they always in that manner, and under that notion had adored. As 2 Cor. xi. therefore the Apostle speaketh of the God and Father of our Lord Jefus Chrift, which is blessed for evermore, Rom. i. 25. of the Creator, who is blessed for ever, Amen; and 31. thereby doth fignify the fupreme Deity, which was fo glorified by the Ifraelites; and doth alfo teftify that we worship the fame God under the Gofpel which they did under the Law: fo doth he speak of Chrift in as fublime a ftyle, who is over all, God bleed for ever, Amen; and thereby doth testify the equality, or rather identity, of his Deity. If we confider the scope of the Apostle, which is to magnify the Ifraelites by the enumeration of fuch privileges as belonged peculiarly to that chofen Nation (the most eminent of which was contained in the Genealogy of our Saviour), we fhall find their glory did not confift in this, that Chrift at firft was born of them a man, and afterwards made a God; for what great honour could accrue to them by the nativity of a man, whofe Godhead is referred not to his birth, but to his death? whereas this is truly honourable, and the peculiar glory of that Nation, that the most high God bleffed for ever should take on him the feed of Abraham, and come out of the Ifraelites as concerning the flesh. Thus every way it doth appear, the Apoftle fpake of Chrift as of the one eternal God. He then who was the Word which in the beginning was with God, and was God; he whofe glory Ifaias faw as the glory of the God of Ifrael; he who is ftyled Alpha and Omega without any reftriction or limitation; he who was truly fubfifting in the form of God, and equal with him before he was in the nature nature of Man; he who being Man is frequently called God, and that in all those ways by which the fupreme Deity is expreffed; he had a being before Christ was conceived by the Virgin Mary, and the being which he had was the one eternal and indi-, visible Divine Effence, by which he always was truly, really, and properly God. But all these are certainly true of him in whom we believe, Jesus Christ, as hath been proved by clear teftimonies of the facred Scriptures. Therefore the being which Chrift had before he was conceived of the Virgin was not any created, but the Divine Effence; nor was he any Creature, but the true eternal God: which was our fecond affertion, particularly oppofed to the (e) Arian Herefy. The third affertion, next to be demonftrated, is, That the Divine Effence which Chrift had as the Word, before he was conceived by the Virgin Mary, he had not of himfelf, but by communication from God the Father. For this is not to be denied, that there can be but one Effence properly Divine, and fo but one God of infinite Wisdom, Power and Majefty; that there can be but (f) one Person originally of himself fubfifting in that infinite Being, because a plurality of more perfons fo fubfifting would neceffarily infer a multiplicity of Gods; that the Father of our Lord Jefus Chrift is originally God, as not receiving his eternal being from any other. Wherefore it neceffarily followeth that Jefus Christ, who is certainly not the Father, cannot be a perfon fubfifting in the Divine Nature originally of himself, and confequently, being we have already proved that he is truly and properly the eternal God, he must be understood to have the Godhead communicated to him by the Father, who is not only eternally, but originally God. (g) All things whatfoever the Father bath are mine, faith Chrift; because 15. in him is the fame fulness of the Godhead, and more than that the Father cannot have: but yet in that perfect Johr xvi. |