296 VINDICIiE EVANQELICE.
up into glory ;" the story whereof we have, Acts i. 9-11, " When he had spoken to his disciples, he was taken up, and a cloud received him:" of which Luke says briefly, as Paul here, dvsXyip^rj, Acts i. 2 ; as Mark also doth, chap, xvi, 19, dviXrjfOr] sJg rhv oupavov, — that is, dviXrifQri h do^p, "he was taken up into heaven," or "to glory." 'AuXy](p()y] is as much as avu iXri(p&ri, " he was taken up" Qv for g/'s) " into glory."
This harmony of the description of Christ here, both as to his per- son and office, with what is elsewhere spoken of him (this being evidently a summary collection of what is more largely in the gospel spoken of), makes it evident that he is "God" here intended; which is all that is needful to be evinced from this place.
Let us now hear our catechists pleading for themselves : —
Q. What dost thou answer to 1 Tim. iii. 16?
A. 1. That in many ancient copies, and in the Vulgar Latin itself, the word " God" is not read ; wherefore from that place nothing certain can be concluded. 2. Al- though that word should be read, yet there is no cause why it should not be re- ferred to the Father, seeing these things may be aflSrmed of the Father, that he appeared in Christ and the apostles, who were flesh. And for wliat is afterward read, according to the usual translation, " He was received into glory," in the Greek it is, " He was received in glory," — that is, "with glory," or " gloriously."
Q. What, then, is the sense of this testimony 9
A. That the religion of Christ is fidl of mysteries : for God, — that is, his will for the saving of men, — was perfectly made known by infirm and mortal men; and yet, because of the miracles and various powerful works which were performed by such weak and mortal men, it was acknowledged for true; and it was at length per- ceived by the angels themselves; and was preached not only to the Jews but also to the Gentiles : all believed thereon, and it was received with great glory, after an eminent manner.'
Thus they, merely rather than say nothing, or yield to the truth.
Briefly to remove what they offer in way of exception or assertion, —
1. Though the word " God," be not in the Vulgar Latin,^ yet the
' " Ad tertium vci'oquid respondes ? — Primum quidem, quod in multis exemplaribus vetustis, et in ipsa Vulgata, non legatur vox Deus ; quare ex eo loco ccrtum nihil con- cludi potest. Deinde, etiamsi ea vox Icgeretur, nullam esse causam cur ad Patreni referri uon possit, cum hoBC de Patre aiSrmari possint, euin apparuisse in Christo, et apostolis, qui cai'O f uerunt. Quod autem inferius Icgitur, secundum usitatam versionem, Reccplus est in gloriam, id in Gr^co habetur, Receptus est in gloiia, — id est, cum gloria, aut gloriose.
" Quffi vero futura est hujus testimonii sententia ? — Religionem Christi plenam esse mysteriis : nam Deus, id est, voluntas ipsius de scrvandis hominibus, per homines in- firmos et mortales perfecte patefacta est ; et nihilorainus tamen propter miracula et virtutes varias qure per homines illos infirmos et mortales edita fuei-ant, pro vera est agnita ; eadem ab ipsis angelis fuit demum perspecta ; non solum Judasis, verum etiam Gentibus fuit pra3dicata : omnes ei crediderunt, et insignem in modum, et summa cum gloria reccpta fuit."
2 Griesbach, Lacliman, and Tiscbendorf, have decided for o; as the true reading. Knapp, Tittmann, Scholz, Henderson, Bloomfield, and Moses Stuai't, abide by Bii;. Tischendorf refers to seven manuscripts, — four of them being in uncial characters, — as his authority for o;. Upwai'ds of one hundred and fifty manuscripts have essj. It is a question, however, to be determined not by the number of the manuscripts merely, but by their value and authority ; and the reader is referred on this subject to "Dr Henderson's dissertation, " The Great Mystery of Godliness Incontrovertible," and the second edition of Tischendorf 's New Testament. — Ed.
OF THE INCARNATION OF CHEIST. 297
unanimous, constant consent of all the original copies, confessed to be so both by Beza and Erasmus, is sufficient to evince that the loss of that translation is not of any import to weaken the sense of the place. Of other ancient copies, whereof they boast, they cannot instance one. In the Vulgar also it is evident that by the " mystery " Christ is un- derstood.
2. That what is here spoken may be referred to the Father, is a very sorry shift against the evidence of all those considerations which show that it ought to be referred to the Son.
3. It may not, it cannot with any tolerable sense be, referred to the Father. It is not said that " in Christ and the apostles he appeared," and was " seen of angels," etc. ; but that " God was manifested in the flesh," etc. : nor is any thing that is here spoken of God anywhere ascribed, no not once in the Scripture, to the Father. How was he " manifested in the flesh"? how was he "justified in the Spirit"? how was he " taken up into glory" ?