« PreviousContinue »
6 be afraid: for the Lord Jehovah is my strength,” &c. Isa. xii. 2.
6 h Behold, your God will come with vengeance, even “God with a recompence; he will come and save you,” Isa. xxxv. 4. .
«i That stretcheth out the heavens like a curtain,” &c. Isa. xl. 22.
“k Thus saith the Lord that created thee, O Jacob, " and he that formed thee, O Israel,” Isa. xliii. 1.
“? Thus saith the Lord the King of Israel, and his re56 deemer the Lord of hosts; I am the first, and I am the “ last; and beside me there is no God,” Isa. xliv. 6.
“m I am the Lord that maketh all things; thant stretch“eth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the “ earth by myself," Isa. xliv. 24.
"n Surely God is in thee; and there is none else, there “is no God. Verily thou art a God,” &c. Isa. xlv. 14, 15.
«o I will save them by the Lord their.God, and will “not save them by bow, nor by sword,” Hosea i. 7.
“p The Lord also shall roar out of Zion, and utter his “ voice from Jerusalem,” Joel iii. 16. Amos i. 2.
“9 Who is a God like unto thee, that pardoneth ini“ quity- "Mic. vii. 18.
"I God came from Teman, and the Holy One from “mount Ephraim,” Habakkuk iii. 3.
b Irenæus, l. c. 20. p. 214. Novat. c. 12. Epist. Synod. Antioch. Labb. tom. i. p. 845. Tertull. adv. Jud. c. 9, 14. i Hippolyt. contr. Noet. c. xviii. p. 19. rúžus ás napágas tòy égavóv. k Eusebius in loc. 1 Lact. Inst. I. iv. c. 9. p. 405. m Euseb. in loc.
N. B. I cite Eusebius, only as agreeing with the rest, in his application of such texts to God the Son : not determining any thing as to his other principles.
n Tertull. Prax. c. 13. Cyprian. ad. Jud. 1. ii. c. 6. p. 34. Euseb. Dem. Ev. I. v. c. 4. p. 224. Lactan. Epitom. c. xliv. p. 116. edit. Dav. Inst. p. 404. edit. Ox. Epist. Synod. Antioch. Labb. tom. i. p. 845.
• Novat. Trin. c. 12.
::"$. I am God, and not man," Hosea xi. 9.
«t I will strengthen them in the Lord saith the “ Lord,” Zech. x. 12.
“u This is our God, and there shall none other be 56 accounted of in comparison of him,” Baruch iii. 35.
These several texts, besides others of like nature, the Ante-Nicene writers, in general, understood of Christ. And therefore it is exceeding clear, that, according to the doctrine of that time, the second Person of the Trinity is the “ Lord;" the “ Lord God;" the “ Almighty God;" the “ Lord God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob;" the “ Je“ hovah,” the “ Lord of hosts ;" the “ Mighty God;" the “ Only God; and besides whom there is no God;" the “ God of Israel,” &c. All this, I say, Christ is, according to the doctrine of those early times: not exclusive of the Father, any more than the Father is such, exclusive of the Son; but together with the Father: that is, Father and Son both are the one Supreme God: not one in Person, as you frequently and groundlessly insinuate, but in substance, power, and perfection. I know you have an evasion, by which you hope to elude the force of all that has been urged. But when I have shown you how weak and insufficient your pretence is, I hope I shall hear no more of it.
* In another part of your book, (p. 20.) you pretend that Christ spake only in the Person of the Father; and that when he said, for instance, “I am the God of Bethel,” (Gen. xxxi. 13.) the meaning is no more than this; Jehovah whom I represent and in whose name I speak, is the God of Bethel. Had you given it only as your own interpretation of this and the like texts, it might be very excusable: but having told us what you mean by speaking“ in the Person of God the Father,” you afterwards add,
• Cypr. Testim. I. ii. c. 6. p. 35. Euseb. Dem. Ev. I. v. c. 22. p. 249. · Epist. Synod. Antioch. Labb. tom. i. p. 845.
+ Cyprian. Test. 1. ii. c. 6. p. 35. Eus. Dem. Ev. I. v. c. 26. p. 251.
that it was the “unanimous opinion of all antiquity,” that Christ appeared and spake “in the person of God the Fa“ther,” (p. 22.) leaving your English reader to believe, that your novel explication was the current doctrine of all antiquity. The thing may be true in some sense, such as is foreign to your purpose : but in your sense, it is notoriously false, as all that have looked into antiquity very well know. However, for the benefit of the common reader, I will show that the good Fathers applied these texts to Christ considered in his own Person, and not in the Father's only. This shall be made clear, to a demonstration, both from particular testimonies of the same Fathers; and from the general scope, drift, and design of those writers, in quoting the texts before mentioned..
y Clement of Alexandria, citing Exod. xx. 2. “I am the “ Lord thy God,” &c. and understanding it of Christ, observes particularly, that Christ said this of himself, “in his “ own Person.”
z Tertullian, interpreting Isa. i. 18. and Mic. vii. 18. of Christ, makes the like remark.
a Irenæus, having cited Exod. iii. 6. (“ I am the God of “ Abraham, and the God of Isaac,” &c.) which he understands as spoken by Christ, goes on thus. “ From hence “ (Christ) made it plain, that he who spake to Moses out “ of the bush, and manifested himself to be the God of “ the Fathers, is the God of the living.” And after a deal more in that chapter to show that the Father and Son are one and the same God, he concludes to this effect. “ Christ himself therefore, with the Father, is the God
Υ Πάλιν δή όταν λίγη δια του ιδίου προσώπου, εαυτόν ομολογεί παιδαγωγών. εγώ Kúgios ó Osós onu, é iguga jar os ix yño Aigúrtov. Clem. Alex. Pæd. l. i. c. 7. p. 131. edit. Oxon.
2 Ex ipsius Domini persona &c. Tert. contr. Marc. 1. iv. c. 10.
* Per hæc utique manifestum fecit quoniam is qui de Rubo locutus est Moysi, et manifestavit se esse Deum Patrum, hic est viventium Deus Ipse igitur Christus cum Patre vivorum est Deus, qui locutus est Moysi, qui et Patribus manifestatus est. Iren. I. iv. c. 5. p. 232. See l. ij. c. 6. 1. iv. c. 12.
“ of the living, who spake to Moses, and was manifested « to the Fathers.”
Novatian, having observed that the angel which appeared to b Agar, Sarah's maid, was represented in Holy Scripture as Lord and God, after some reasoning upon it, suitable to the prevailing principles of his own times, as well as of the times preceding, sums up the whole in this manner. 6c Wherefore if the present passage cannot suit 5 with the Person of the Father, whom it would not be pro« per to call an angel, nor to the person of an angel, which “ it would not be proper to call God; but it may comport 6 with the Person of Christ to be God, as the Son of « God, and to be an angel too, as sent to reveal his Fa" ther's will: the heretics ought to consider that they s run counter to the sacred writ, while they admit that “ Christ is an angel, and yet refuse to acknowledge that « he is God also.” Here you will observe, that, according to Novatian, it was to the Person of Christ, not to the Person of God the Father, that the title of God and Lord, in this or the like instances, belonged; and that therefore they are given to him in his own Person, in his own right, as God's Son, and consubstantial with him; than which nothing can be more diametrically opposite to yours, or to Dr. Clarke's hypothesis. It is not said, God, only as having true dominion and authority, but as God's Son; and that implies, with Novatian, substantiæ communionem, real and essential divinity d.
b See Genesis xvi.
© Ergo si hic locus neque Personæ Patris congruit ne angelus dictus sit, neque Persona angeli, ne Deus pronuntiatus sit: Personæ autem Christi convenit, ut et Deus sit, quia Dei Filius est, et angelus sit, quoniam paternæ dispositionis adnuntiator est; intelligere debent contra Scripturas se agere heretici, qui Christum quum dicant se et angelum credere, nolint etiam illum Deum pronuntiare . Novat. c. xxvi. p. 724.
O di ayyos Toũ tarpós o vios isiv, autós Kúrios xai Osos üv. Synod. Antioch. Ep.
Cap. 31. compare chap. 11. Ut enim prescripsit ipsa natura hominem credendum esse, qui ex homine sit: ita eadem natura præscribit, et Deum credendum esse, qui ex Deo sit.
I shall next show you the same of Justin Martyr; and then beg your pardon for the impertinence of insisting so long upon what none, one might think, that has ever seen the ancients, could make the least question of. “ Permit “ me,” says he, “ to show you also out of the book of " Exodus, how the very same Person, who appeared to “ Abraham and Jacob, as an angel, and God, and Lord, “ and man, appeared to Moses in a flame of fire ont of “ the bush, and talked with him.” A little after, he adds these remarkable words. 6e You have seen, gen5 tlemen, that the same Person whom Moses calls an sangel, and who conversed with him in the flame of fire; “ that very Person being God, signifies to Moses that “ himself is the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of “ Jacob.” I will not so far distrust your judgment, as to add any farther comment to so plain words. I need but just hint to any who know Justin Martyr, that he, as well as Novatian, resolves the divinity of Christ into his f sonship; and sonship into 8 communication of the same divine substance: which I remark chiefly against Dr. Clarke, who seems to admit that those titles belonged to the Person of Christ; which is more than I apprehend you do. It were very easy to add particular passages to the same purpose from other Fathers; but it was, in a manner, needless to have mentioned these. For the general scope, drift, and design of the primitive writers, in this case, shows sufficiently what I contend for. Their design was to prove Christ's Divinity; to show that there was another Person, besides the Father, who was really Lord and God; and that this person was Christ. This
• Ω άνδρες, νενοήκατε--- ότι όν λέγει Μωσής άγγελον, εν πυρί φλογος λελαληκέναι αυτώ, ούτος αυτός Θεός ών σημαίνει το Μωσει ότι αυτός έσιν ο Θεός 'Αβραάμ και 'loaàu xaè'lerál. Just. Mart. Dial. p. 220.
Compare Apol. i. p. 123, Tò di riemprévor ix Bárou tã Mwarī izja sipeo ó ôx, . Osòs 'aegadep xaù ó Osòs 'loaàu xaà ó sòs 'lax"6, xaà Osos tão garágwv cov, ona μαντικών του και αποθανόντας εκείνους μένειν και είναι αυτού του Χρισού ανθρώπους. See my Answer to Dr. Whitby, p. 53.
f Page 183, 75, 278, 280, Sylb. ed. Page 183, 373, ed. Jeh.