Tertullian (in the beginning of the third century, or sooner, within a hundred years, or very nearly, of St. John) observes, that the word God does not, like Lord, signify dominion or power only, but substance; that none but the eternal uncreated substance can justly be called God; that an inferior God is a contradiction in terms. These testimonies are sufficient to show (without adding any more) how the word God was taken and generally understood by the Christian Church, soon after the Apostle's time; and therefore very probably, in the Apostle's time also. Now let us proceed to consider II. What reasons we have to believe that St. John, in his first chapter, calls the WORD God, in the same sense, in conformity to that idea which Scripture hath given us of one that is truly God; and which the primitive writers also appear plainly to have embraced. 1. This alone is a strong presumption, in favour of our interpretation, that the Scriptures before, and the Christian Church after, espouse this notion. Would St. John have called the WORD, God, in the manner that he does, without guard or caution, had he not intended it in the strict sense, which Scripture itself so much favours, and in which the generality, at least, would be most apt to take it? Had he meant it in a lower sense, it might have been very proper to have inserted a qualifying clause to prevent any mistake or misconstruction; which yet he is so far from doing, (as we shall see presently,) that he has put together with it many circumstances, all tending to convince us that he used the word in the strict sense, as Scripture had done before, and the Christian Church did after. For • Deus substantiæ ipsius nomen, id est Divinitatis; Dominus vero non substantiæ, sed potestatis, &c. Tertull. contr. Hermog. p. 234. Deus jam vocari obtinuit substantia cui ascribo. Hanc invenies solam innatam, infectam; solam æternam, et universitatis conditricem――nega Deum quem dicis deteriorem: nega summum magnum, quem credis minorem. Adv. Marc. lib. i. cap. 6, 7. p. 368. 2. It is observable, that the Apostle does not say, in the beginning God created the WORD, (as the style runs in the first chapter of Genesis, and might have been properly used here, had he intended to signify that the WORD was God, in an inferior or improper sense:) but instead of that, he only says that the WORD was f; intimating that he existed before any thing was created, consequently from all eternity: for whatever existed before any thing was created, was no creature, as is manifest of itself; and if no creature, eternal. This is farther confirmed from the Apostle's repeating it in the next verse, "The same was in "the beginning with God." It is not improbable that the Apostle might intend this in opposition to Cerinthus, who believed the Anusoupyès, or Creator, to be separate and estranged from Gods. Nothing can be more directly levelled against that doctrine than this assertion of St. John's, that the WORD, who was Creator of the world, was from the beginning, or always, with God. But to proceed : 3. Another argument of St. John's intending the word God in the strict sense, may be drawn from the time whereof he is speaking. It was before the creation; he was then God. It is not said, that he was appointed God over the things that should be afterwards 'created. No; he was God before the world was. Our adversaries sometimes tell us of a throne, a power of judging, a regal au f Παρὰ δὲ τὸ ἀεὶ συνεῖναι τῷ πατρὶ, λέγεται, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν. οὐ γὰρ ἐγένετο πρὸς τὸν Θεόν. καὶ ταυτὸν ῥῆμα, τὸ ἦν, τοῦ λόγου κατηγορεῖται, ὅτι ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν, καὶ ὅτι πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν ἦν, οὔτε τῆς ἀρχῆς χωριζόμενος, οὔτε τοῦ πατρὸς ἀπολει πόμενος. Καὶ πάλιν οὔτε ἀπὸ τοῦ μὴ εἶναι ἐν ἀρχῇ γινόμενος ἐν ἀρχῇ, οὔτε ἀπὸ τὰ μὴ τυγχάνειν πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν ἐπὶ τῷ πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν εἶναι γινόμενος. πρὸ γὰρ πάντος χρόνου καὶ αἰῶνος, ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν. Orig. in Joh. p. 45. Οὐκ ἦν γὰρ ὅτε ἀρχὴ ἄλογος ἦν. διὸ λέγεται ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος. Ibid. p. 66. Vid. etiam Athanas. p. 526. Hilar. p. 795. Chrysost. in Joh. p. 25. and other testimonies collected in Suicer. Thesaur. under 'Agx, and Petav. 147, 417. Iren. lib. iii. cap. 11. p. 188. lib. i. cap. 26. p. 105. Tertull. de Præscript. Hæret. Append. p. 221. Epiphan. Hæres. xxviii. p. 110. thority belonging to the Son: and that therefore he is God; and they observe h (as they think, shrewdly, but in truth very weakly) that the Holy Ghost has therefore none of that title, as having no regal dominion, &c. And when, in answer to this, we say farther, that the Son was Jehovah, God, and Lord, under the Old Testament; they reply, that he was then v poppy Osoũ, acting in the name and Person of God, and therefore styled God. Admitting all this, (which is mostly fiction,) yet what will they do with this text of St. John? Here it is plain, that the Son was God before any dominion over the creatures commenced; before he acted as representative of the Father, or was vμoppy Osoũ, in that low fictitious sense: how was he God before the creation? Here they have little left to say, but that "he was partaker of divine power and glory with and from the Father." From hence then we see, that dominion alone is not sufficient to account for the Son's being God; not to mention that the Holy Ghost might have been called God in Scripture, as having been "partaker of divine power and glory with and from the "Father," as well as the Son; so that that pretence about the Holy Ghost and this solution hang not well together. To such straits and inconsistencies are men reduced by bringing their hypotheses with them to interpret Scripture by, instead of making Scripture the rule of their faith. But to conclude this article: since then neither dominion, (on account of which princes and magistrates have been sometimes called Gods,) nor vicegerency, nor any thing of like kind, will account for the WORD'S being called God by St. John in this place: and since our adversaries themselves appear to be very sensible that their principles, which serve to help them out at other times, fail them here; and that they are forced rather to say any thing, however slight or trifling, than to be wholly silent: this alone is a strong presumption on our side of h See Script. Doctr. p. 264. 2d edit. i Script. Doctr. p. 240. 2d edit. the question, where the solution is so easy and natural, and entirely consistent with our other principles. 4. Another circumstance, confirming our interpretation of this passage of St. John, is, that "all things" are there said to have been "made by him;" and, to be more emphatical, that "without him was not any thing made that "was made." I shall not here insist upon the dignity of the Son as Creator, (the distinguishing character of the one true God,) designing that for a distinct head of argument another time: all the use I shall make of it at present is to observe, that it is not said, all other things were made by him, but all things absolutely; wherefore he himself cannot, according to the letter, be supposed of the number of the things made, unless he made himself, which is absurd and since nothing was made or created but by and through him, it is but reasonable to infer that every creature whatever is a creature of the Son's as well as of the Father's; and therefore certainly the Son is not a creature at all. 5. A farther circumstance favouring our sense is, that the WORD is called God, in the very same verse, wherein the Father is mentioned as God, and undoubtedly in the strict and proper sense. And how shall any the most judicious reader be ever able to understand language, if in the same verse and same sentence, the same word should stand for two ideas, or bear two senses widely different and scarce akin to each other? and that too, not only without any guard or caution, or any notice given of the change of ideas; but also with such circumstances as give no suspicion of any change, but all tending to confirm us the more that the same idea is still kept up, and applied equally to Father and Son. It has been objected that the Father is Osòs, God with the article, the Son only Oeds, God without the article. But every body knows that the addition or omission of an article is no certain proof of any change at all in the sense of a word; besides that the word sòs, God, is used in the strict sense, though without the article, several times in this chapter. The : sacred penmen were not so critical about articles; neither can we imagine that a point of this moment should have been left so unguarded, with nothing to direct us but I know not what blind and dark conjectures of the use of articles; concerning which we have no certain rules either for Scripture, or for any other writings. The word Oeds, God, is frequently used without the article to signify the true God and it is used with the article (2 Cor. iv. 4.) where it is supposed by most interpreters to be meant of the Devil: so little account is there to be made of articles. But enough of this. It is farther pretended, that i Oeds, God, applied to the Father, may stand for Jehovah, which is the proper name of a Person, and that therefore God and God, in the text, cannot bear the same sense, unless both be one and the same Person Jehovah. But in answer to this, it is sufficient to say, that it can never be proved that Jehovah is a proper name of any Person, but as that Person is considered as having independent or necessary existence: and then the name must be common to as many persons as exist necessarily, or independently; independently on the will or free choice of any. Besides that it is certain that the name belongs equally to Father or Son, (as I shall show presently,) and therefore St. John might intend that the Father is Jehovah, and the Son Jehovah too, and both in the same sense; while at the same time, by his telling us that one was with the other, he has sufficiently signified that they are not the same Person; but that Jehovah is a name proper indeed to one substance, or one Godhead, but common to more Persons than one. I proceed then, 6. To observe, that St. John did look upon God the Son as the true Jehovah; and this alone is an irrefragable argument of St. John's meaning in the text before us. I shall first show the fact, and next make good my inference from it. The fact may be proved first from chapter xii. verse 41. of this very Gospel. The words are: "These "things said Esaias when he saw his glory," (meaning Christ's glory)" and spake of him." Now the place of VOL. II. |