' Bereschith Eab. ad Gen xxv. 28.
2 " Quid rcspondes ad tcrtium ?_Tn hoc testimoiiio, Scimus Filuim Dei venisse, etc. haec verba, Jlic est verm Dens, nego referri ad Dei Filium. Xon quod negem Christum esse verum Dcum, sed quod is locus ea de Christo accipi non admittat. Etenim hie agitur non solum de vero Deo, scd de illo \mo vero Deo, ut articulus in Grseco additus indicat. Christus vero, etsi verus Deus sit, non est tamen illo ex so unus Deus, qui per se et perfectissima ratione Deus est, cum is Deus ttintum sit I'atcr. Nee vero quic- quam juvat adversaries, tjui propterca lirec ad Christum rcfcrri volunt, quod verba, Ilic est i^erus Deus, et Ciiristi mcntio proximo antcccsserit ; etenim pronomina rolativa, ut hie et similia, non semper ad proxime antccedentia, verum saspcnumcro ad id de quo potissimum scrmo est referuutur, ut patct ex his locis, Act. vii. 19, 20, et x. G, Joh. ii. 7 ; e quibus locis apf aret pronomen relativum Lie non ad proxime antecedcntcs personas, sed ad remotioi'es referri."
2o6 VINDICl^ EVANGELIC^.
2. In what sense these men grant Christ to be a true God we know ; — a made God, a God by office, not nature ; a man deified with authority : so making two true Gods, contrary to innumerable express texts of Scripture and the nature of the Deity.
3. That these words are not meant of Christ they prove, because " he is not the only true God, but only the Father." But, friends, these words are produced to prove the contrary, as expressly affirm- ing 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, there- fore he is the only true God ?"
4. Their instances prove that in some cases a relative may relate to the more remote antecedent, but that in this place that mentioned ought to do so they pretend not once to urge ; yea, the reason they give is against themselves, namely, that " it refers to him chiefly spoken of," which here is eminently and indisputably Jesus 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 strain them into an incoherence, and transgress all rules of construction (nothing enforcing to such a procedure), is not proved.
5. In the beginning of the 20th verse it is said, " The Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding;" and we are said to be "in him," even "in Jesus Christ;" on which it immediately follows, OvTog, "This," this Jesus Christ, " is the true God, and eter- nal life."
6. That Jesus Christ is by John peculiarly called " life," and " eternal life," is evident both from his Gospel and this Epistle ; and without doubt, by the same term, in his usual manner, he expresses here the same person. Chap. i. 2, v. 12, 20, " The Son of God is life, eternal life : he that hath the Son hath life : we are in him, in his Sou Jesus Christ : this is the true God, and eternal life." So he began, and so he ends his Epistle.
And this is all our adversaries have to say against this most ex- press testimony of the divine nature of Jesus Christ ; in their en- trance whereunto they cry, " Hail, master!" as one before them did (" He is a true God"), but in the close betray him, as far as lies in them, by denying his divine nature.
Even at the light of this most evident testimony, the eyes of Grotius dazzled that he could not see the truth. His note is, " oSrog kenv 6 dy.riOnog Qsog, Is nempe quern lesus monstravit colendumque docuit, non alius. Oirog saepe refertur ad aliquid praecedens non aiissug, Act. viii. 19, x. 6." The very same plea with the former; only Acts viii. 19 is mistaken for Acts vii. 19, the place urged by our catechistSj
J
DEITY OF CHRIST PROVED, ETC. 257
and before them by Socinus against Weik, to whom not only they but Grotius is beholden. That citation of Acts s. 6 helps not the business at all. oSrog is twice used, once immediately at the begin- ning 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 these words of Jude, " Deny- ing the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ," verse 4 (not to increase words), this is the sum : There being but one article prefixed to all the words, it seems to carry the sense that it is wholly spoken of Christ. The catechists reckon some places where one article serves to sundry things, as Matt. xxi. 12; but it is evident that they are utterly things of another kind and another manner of speaking than what is here : but the judgment hereof is left to the reader, it being not indeed clear to me whether Christ be called AsctoV?;? any- where in the New Testament, though he be [called] Lord, and God, and the true God, full often.