There is scarce any place in returning an answer whereunto the adversaries of the deity of Christ do less agree among themselves than about this. 1. Some say the name of God is not here taken ab- solutely, but with relation to office, and so Christ is spoken of, and called " God by office :" so Socin. ad Bellar. et Weik. p. 200, etc. Some say that the words are thus to be read, "Feed the church of God, which Christ hath purchased by his own blood :" so Ochinus and Lse- lius Socinus, whom Zanchius answers, " De Tribus Elohim," lib. iii. cap. vi. p. 456. Some flee to the Syriac translation, contrary to the constant consenting testimony of all famous copies of the original, all agreeing in the word ©sou, some adding rov Kvpiov.'^ So Grotius would have it, affirming that the manuscript he used had rou Kvpiov, not tell- ing them that it added Gso\J, which is the same with what we affirm; and therefore he ventures at asserting the text to be corrupted, and, in short writing, 3oD to be crept in for x^v [manuscript contrac- tions for Qso\J and Xp/irroD], 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 re- ferred 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 one's blood was shed when it was not shed, but another's? and there is no mention that that other's blood was shed. 3. If the Father's blood was shed, or said truly to be shed, because Christ's blood was shed, then you may say that God the Father died,
' " Quid ad septimum respondes ? — Ecspondeo, nomen Dei hoc loco non referri ad Christum necessario, sed ad ipsum Deum Patrem referri posse, cujus apostolus euni sanguinem, quena Christus fudit, sanguinem Tocat, eo genera loquendi, et earn ob causam, quo gcnere loquendi, et quam ob causam propheta ait, JEum qui tangit popiilum Dei, tangere piipillam oculi Dei ipsius. Etenim summa quae est inter Deum Patrem et Chris- tum conjunctio, etsi essentia sint prorsus diversi, in causa est, cur Christi sanguis, sanguis ipsius Dei Patris dicatur, prtesertim si quis expendat quatenus is est pro nobis fusus : etenim Christus est Agnus Dei, qui tollit peccata mundi. Unde sanguis in eum finera fusus, ipsius Dei sanguis jure vocari potest. Nee vero prsetereundum est silentio, quod in cditione Syriaca loco Dei legatur Christi."
' It is necessary to state that this is far from being correct. Eminent critics, such as Bengel, Matthiii, and Scholz, it is true, decide for eir,Z, but Griesbacb, Lachman, and Tischendorf, give toZ Kupiov as the proper reading. The leading manuscripts A, C, D, E, are in favour of the latter ; but Tischendorf has now proved that manuscript B, com- monly known as the Vatican manuscript, and formerly supposed to agree with them, on the contrary, has @iov, aprima manu. All the evidence cannot be weighed and dis- cussed in this note, but the authority for Qiou is, on the whole, sufficient to establish it as the true reading. — En.
DEITY OF CHRIST PROVED, ETC. 263
and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and that God the Father rose from the dead; that he was dead, and is alive ; that that blood that was shed was not Christ's, but somebody's else that he loved, and was near unto him. 4. There is no analogy between that of the prophet, of the " apple of God's eye," and this here spoken of. Uncontrol- lably a metaphor must there be allowed ; — here is no metaphor in- sisted on ; Ijut that which is the blood of Christ is called the blood of God, and Christ not to be that God is their interpretation. There, divers persons are spoken of, God and believers; here, one only, that did that which is expressed. And all the force of this exposition lies ill 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?" The work 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, be- cause of the conjunction that is between God the Father 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 again, may be called the hunger and thirst of God the Father, his sweating, dying, and rising. And he is a strange natural and proper Son 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 fulfilling 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 the man that appointed it to be shed, yea, of God, who ordained it. The Avords are, 'ExxXriglav Tov &10U, r,v '^repiBiroiyjaaro bia rou ib'iou ciiiMarog. If any words in the world can properly express that it is one and the same person who is 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.