' " In quibus scripturis Christus vocatur Deus? — .Johan. i. 1, Ui Verbttm fuit Deus, et cap. XX. 28, Tho?nas ad Christum ait, Domimis metis et Deus mcus; et Eom. Lx. 5, apos- tolus scribit Christum Deum (esse) supra omnes beiiecHcluin in secida.
" Quid his tcstimoniis effici potest ? — Naturani divinam in Christo ex lis demonstrari non posse, prieter ea quae superius allata sunt, hinc manifcstum est, quod in prime tes- timonio agatur de Yerbo, quod Joliannes testatur apud ilium Dcum fuisse; in sccundo, Thomas cum appellat Dcum, in cujus pedibus et nianibus, clavorum, in latere lanccoe vestigia deprehcndit ; et Paulus cum qui secundum carnem a patribus crat, Dcum supra omnia benedictum vocat. Quaj omnia dici do co qui natura Deus sit, nullo mode pos.sc, planum est, etenim ex illo scquerctur duos esse Decs, quorum alter apud alterum fuerit. Ha;c vcro, vestigia vulncrum habere, cquc patribus esse, hominis simt prorsus, quoe ei, qui natura Deus sit, ascribi nimis absonum cssct. Quod si illud distinctionis naturarum velum quis prastendat, jam superius illud amovimus, et docuimus banc dis- tinctionem nullo modo posse sustineri."
VOL. XII. 20
306 VINDICI^ EVANGELIC^.
blood, aud had the print of the nails in his hands and feet. Of this confession of Thomas I have spoken before, and therefore I shall not now farther insist upon it. He whom Thomas, in the confession of his faith as a believer, owned for his Lord and God, he is the true God, God by nature. Of a made god, a god by office, to be con- fessed and believed in, the Scripture is utterly silent. 5. The same is affirmed of Rom, ix. 5. The apostle distinguishes of Christ as to his flesh and as to his deity : as to his flesh or human nature, he says he was of the fathers; but in the other regard he is " over all, God blessed for ever." And as this is a signal expression of the true God, " God over all, blessed for ever," so there is no occasion of that expression, rh xara (sdpxa, " as to the flesh," but to assert something in Christ, which he afterward affirms to be his everlasting deity, in regard whereof he is not of the fathers. He is, then, of the fathers, TO Kartc ffdpxa, 6 cSjv g<r/ irdvTuv Qsog svXoyTjrog sig roiig diuvog, df/jiiv. The words are most emphatically expressive of the eternal deity of Christ, in contradistinction to what he received of the fathers. 'O cji/, even then when he took flesh of the fathers, then was he, and now he is, and ever will he, " God over all," that is, the Most High God, " blessed for ever." It is evident that the apostle intends to as- cribe to Christ here two most solemn attributes of God, — the Most High, and the Blessed One. Nor is this testimony to be parted with for their begging or with their importunity. 6. It is our adversaries who say there are two Gods, as hath been showed, not we; and the prints of wounds are proper to him who is God by nature, though not in that regard on the account whereof he is so. 7. What they have said to oppose the distinction of two natures in the one per- son of Christ hath already been considered, and manifested to be false and frivolous.
I could wish to these testimonies they had added one or two more, as that of Isa. liv. 5, " Thy Maker is thine husband ; the Lord of hosts is his name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; The God of the whole earth shall he be called." That Jesus Christ is the husband and spouse of the church will not be denied, Eph. v. 25, Rev. xxi. 9 ; but he who is so is " The Lord of hosts, the Holy One of Israel, the God of the whole earth." And Heb. iii. 4, the apostle says, " He that made all things is God,"— that is, his church, for of that he treats. He that created all things, — that is, " the church, as well as all other things," — he is God, none could do it but God; but Christ built this house, verse S. But this is not my present employment.
The learned Grotius is pitifully entangled about the last two places urged by our catechists. Of his sleight in dealing with that of John XX. 28, I have spoken before, and discovered the vanity of his insinuations. Here he tells you, that after Christ's resurrection, it
TESTIMONIES TO THE DEITY OF CHRIST VINDICATED. 307
grew common with the Christians to call him God, and urges Rom. ix. 5 ; but coming to expound that place, he finds that shift will not serve the turn, it being not any Christians calling him God that there is mentioned, but the blessed apostle plainly affirming that he is " God over all, blessed for ever ;" and therefore, forgetting what he had said before, he falls upon a worse and more desperate evasion, affirming that the word Gee's ought not to be in the text, because Erasmus had observed that Cyprian and Hilary, citing this text, did not name the word ! And this he rests upon, although he knew that all original copies whatever, constantly, without any exception, do read it, and that Beza had manifested, against Erasmus, that Cyprian adver. Judeeos, lib. ii. cap. vi., and Hilary ad Ps. xii., do both cite this place to prove that Christ is called God, though they do not express the text to the full ; and it is known how Athanasius used it against the Arians, without any hesitation as to the corruption of the text. This way of shifting indeed is very wretched, and not to be pardoned. I am well contented with all who, from what he writes on John i. 1 (the first place mentioned), do apprehend that when he wrote his annotations on that place he was no opposer of the deity of Christ ; but I must take leave to say, that, for mine own part, I am not able to collect from all there spoken in his own words that he doth at all assert the assuming of the human nature into personal subsistence with the Son of God. I speak as to the thing itself, and not to the expressions which he disallows. But we must proceed with our catechists : —