John xiv. 9, " He that hath seen me hath seen the Father," is next proposed. To which they say, —
Neither can any divine nature be proved from hence, for this " seeing " cannot be spoken of the essence of God, which is invisible, but of the knowledge of the things that Christ did and spake.*
' " Hoc idem dici potest de eo, quod imago Dei inconspicui vocatur."
* " Quod vei'o character hypostaseos ejus dictus sit, hoc iatelligi debet : 'Deus quic-
quid noljis promisit, jam reipsa in eo exliibuisse.' "
■* " Quod vcro attinet ad dictum Domiui Jesu, Qui me videt viclet Patrem, neque
Line naturam diviuam probari certum cuiquc esse potest, cum ea ratio videudi non
TESTIMONIES TO THE DEITY OF CHKIST VINDICATED. o23
Christ so speaks of his and his Father's oneness, whereby he that saw one saw both, as he describes it to be in the verse following, where he says "the Father is in him, aiid he in the Father." Now, that the Father is in him and he in the Father, and that he and the Father are one in nature and essence, hath been before suffi- ciently demonstrated. The seeing here intended is that of faith, whereby both Father and Son are seen unto believers.
Col. ii. 9 is the last in this collection, " In whom dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." To this they say, —
That this word divinitas may signify the will of God. And seeing the apostle opposeth that speech not to persons, but to philosophy and the law, it is manifest that it is to be understood of the doctrine, and not of the person of Christ. Of this word "bodily" thou shalt hear afterward.'
But, — 1. It is not divinity but deity, not '^iiorrig but 'Saorrn, that is here spoken of; and that not simply neither, but 'Tr'kripuiJ.a ^s(Wi^Tog^ "the fulness of the Godhead." 2. That ^soVj^s, or TX^jpoi/jja ^s6Tr,rog, is ever taken for the will of God, they do not, they cannot prove.
3. How can it be said that the will of God xcctoiksT gu/^anxSjg, " doth dwell bodily " in any, or what can be the sense of that expx-ession ? Where they afterward interpret the word " bodily " I do not re- member ; when I meet witii their exposition it shall be considered.
4. That the words are to be referred to the person of Christ, and not to his doctrine, is manifest, not only from the words themselves, that will not bear any such sense as whereunto they are wrested, but also from the context ; for not only the whole order and series of words before and after do speak of the person of Christ (for " In him are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge," verse 3 ; " Him we receive," verse 6 ; " In him we are built up," verse 7 ; "In him we are complete," verse 10; "In him we are circumcised," verse 11; " With him we are buried," verse 12 ; " Together with him are we quickened," verse 1 3 ; and it was he that was crucified for us, verses 14, 15), but also the design of the Holy Ghost enforces this sense, it being to discover a fulness and sufficiency in Christ of all grace and wisdom, that men should not need to seek relief from either law or philosophy. The fulness of the Godhead inhabiting in the person of Christ substantially, he is God by nature. And of these l^laces so far. The three following, of John xvii. 5, 1 Pet. i. 10, 11, John iii. 13, have been in their proper places already vindicated.
Grotius interprets that of Col, ii. 9 according to the analogy of the
faith of our catechists: "Christi doctrina non modo philosophiae sed et
possit dc essentia Dei accipi, qute invisibilis sit prorsus, vcrum de cognitione corum, quaj dixit ct fecit Christus."
' " Nee illisdemque verbis, qiwd 2>lfni(iido divhiitatis in eo habitat corporalitcr, probatur natura divina. rrinium cnim, vox ha;c divinitas designare potest voluntatem Dei. Eaniquc orationcm cum apostolus opponat non pcrsonis, sed philosophite ct legi, liinc perspicuum est, earn de doctrina Domini Jesu nou de persona accipi. De hac vero voce corporalitcr, quid ca notet, inferius sue loco audics."
524t VINDICI^ EVANGELIC^.
Legi Mosis plurimum prsestat." That crai/ rh 'TiXyipoiiJ.a, tyic SsoV?)-©? sboukl be doctrina, and xaro/xs? b xpieru should make it " the doctrine of Christ," and oo^u.arix.uii should be no man knows what, is but a cross way of interpretation. And yet Augustine is quoted, with a saying from him to give countenance unto it; which makes me admire almost as much as at the interpretation itself. The words our anno- tator mentions are taken from his Epist. 57 ad Dardan., though he mentions it not. The reason will quickly appear to any one that shall consult the place ; for notwithstanding the expression, here cropped off from his discourse, he gives an interpretation of the words utterly contrary to what this learned man would here insinuate, and perfectly agreeing with that which we have now proposed !
Our catechists proceed to the consideration of sundry places where Christ is called "The only Lord, the Lord of glory, the King of kings, the Lord of lords," — all which being titles of the one true God, prove him to be so; — and the first proposed is, " To us there is one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him," 1 Cor. viii. 6.