Page images
PDF
EPUB

made known unto them; which Interpretation is likewife favoured by the Arabick Verfion. This, at least, we may fay; that from a Paffage fo obfcure, and capable of feveral Conftructions, no certain Argument can be drawn, for the special import of the Word Jehovah, in oppofition to the beft Criticks in the Language, whether Antient or Modern. Now, to refume the Thread of our Argument; fince it appears that Chrift is, in his own proper Perfon, called Jehovah, a Word of abfolute Signification, expreffing the divine Nature or Ef fence; it must follow that He is God, ftrictly fo called; and not in the relative or improper Senfe, as is pretended.

This will appear farther, if it be confider'd that Jehovah is the incommunicable Name of the one true God. This may be proved from *feveral Texts, which I fhall only point to in the Margin; referring you to † a learned Author, who has abundantly made good the Affertion. I may remark that this and the foregoing Observation serve to fupport and confirm each other: For, if Jehovah fignify the eternal immutable God, it is manifeft that the Name is incommunicable, fince there is but one God; and if the Name be incommunicable, then Jehovah can fignify nothing but that one God to whom, and to whom only, it is applied. And

Exod. 3. 14, 15. Deut. 26. 17, 18. Pfal. 83. 18. If. 42.8. Hofea 12. 5.

† 2d Letter to the Author of the History of Montanism. p. 5. &c.

if both these Parts be true, and it be true likewife, that this Name is applied to Chrift; the Confequence is irrefiftible, that Chrift is the fame one God; not the fame Person with the Father, to whom alfo the Name Jehovah is attributed, but the fame Subftance, the fame Being, in a Word, the fame Jehovah; thus revealed to be more Perfons than one. Sa much for my firft Argument to prove that the Word, God, when applied to the Father and Son, in Scripture, does not bear a double Meaning, one proper, and the other improper; but is to be understood in one and the fame true and proper Senfe, in refpect of Both.

2. My fecond Argument for it fhall be from Joh. 1. 1. pursuant to the Words of the Query. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God, v. 1. All Things were made by Him, &c. v. 3. Here, we find the Son exprefly called God: and the only question is, whether in a proper, or improper Senfe. The Circumstances of the place muft determine us in this Enquiry. Here are Three Marks to direct us how to form a Judginent. 1. The word ees, God, is ufed in a proper Senfe in the very fame Verfe. 2. The word was God in the Beginning, that is, before the Creation. 3. The Work of Creation is attributed to Him,

I fay, first, the word eos, God, is once ufed, in a proper Senfe, in the very fame Verfe. I have before shown, that the pretended rela

tive Senfe is only an improper and figurative Senfe of the word God, according to the Scripture Notion of it; and therefore, certainly, That cannot be the meaning of it here, being applied to the Father, who, without dispute, is properly God. Befides, that fince eos in the Septuagint is frequently the rendering of Jehovah, as you may readily fee by turning to Trommius's Concordance; and fince St. John Himself follows that rendering, as you may observe by comparing, Joh. 6.45. with If. 54. 13. we may reasonably think that ads, in the Text, is of the fame Signification with Jebovah: which is a farther proof that it is to be understood abfolutely, and not relatively, as you term it, or as I, improperly. If therefore the words, God, be once ufed by St. John in the ftrict and proper Senfe; How can we imagine that immediately after, in the very fame Verfe, He fhould use the fame Word in a Senfe very different from that of the former? You remark, that the Article is prefixed before Oeòs, in an abfolute Conftruction, when spoken of the Father; but omitted when predicated of the Aoyos. But if the want of the Article be fufficient to prove that es, God, when applied to the Word, is of a different meaning; by the fame Argument you might prove that the fame word, ds, without an Article, in no less than four places more of this Chapter (v. 6, 12, 13. 18.) is not to be understood of the one true God. I cannot help thinking a remark Trifling, which fignifies

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

fignifies fo little, as either to prove too much, or to prove nothing. Could you fhow that

eos without the Article, was always taken in a relative, or improper Senfe, you would do fomething. All that you attempt to fhow, is, thats is no where, in the new Teftament, predicated of the Word, in an abfolute Conftruction: And what if it is not? Then, it is not: For, that is all you can make of it. Θεός without the Article in many Places, confessedly, means as much as Oes with the Article; which is enough for our purpose. Or, admitting that there is fome reafon and fignificancy in it, that the Son is not ftiledes in an abfolute Construction, but that the Title is generally referved to the Father, as the Title, Пamp; all that it fignifies, is, that the first Person of the Holy Trinity is eminently distinguish'd by an Article; but not that the Addition, or the Omiffion, of an Article makes any Alteration in the Sense of the word eds. You fay, that three of the most learned Ante-Nicene Greek Fathers infift upon this Remark, about the Article. *Clemens of Alexandria,

*Clem. Alex. Strom. 3. p. 548. Ed. Ox. Clemens does not make bis Remark on Joh. 1. 1. nor does He mention, that the Article is put to diftinguish the Father's Supereminent dignity of Nature above the Son; As your Reader, or perhaps your Self, might imagine. His defign was only to prove, against Tatian, that the True God (and not the Devil) was the Author of Conjugal Procreation; for which He cites Gen. 4. 25, obferving, that is in that Place has the Article à before it: and therefore must be underflood of the True God, the mavrongTap. By the very fame Rule, Christ must be True God, in the fame Sense, according to Clemens. He iss. See p. 72. 132. 251. 273Origen

*

*Origen, and † Eufebius. But what do they gather from it, or what do they mean by it? Do they mean that the Son is not God in the proper Senfe? nothing like it. Do they mean that the Article can never be properly applied when the Son is spoken of, or that the Scripture obferves it as an invariable Rule? That does not appear, but rather the Contrary: For, they understood many Texts of the Old Teftament, where Oos occurs with the Article, of Christ, as may appear, in fome measure, from the Texts before laid down; and might be more amply fet forth by other Evidence, were any needful in fo clear a Cafe.

The Truth of the whole Matter is, the Title ofos, being understood in the fame Sense with Autóeos, was, as it ought to be, generally referved to the Father, as the distinguishing perfonal Character of the first Person of the Holy Trinity. And this amounts to no more than the Acknowledgement of the Father's Prerogative, as Father. But as it might also fignify any Person who is truly and effentially God, it might properly be applied to the Son too: and it is fo applied fometimes, tho' not so often as it is to the Father. However, it is hardly

436. 832. and likewife & narroxáτwp, p. 277. See also p. 148. 647.

In Joh. p. 46. Origen means no more than that the Father is AUTÓ, God unoriginated; the Son, God of God.

Eccl. Theol. 1. 2. c. 17. Eufebius makes no farther use of the Obfervation than to prove, against Marcellus, that the Xoy is a diftinét real Perfon; and not the Father Himself.

worth

« PreviousContinue »