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 sòs, God with the article, the Son only eos, 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 eòs, 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 eòs, 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 ỏ Oeos, 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.

Esaias referred to is chapter the sixth, which begins thus:

"I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and "lifted up, and his train filled the temple. Above it "stood the Seraphims--And one cried unto another "and said, Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of Hosts, the “whole earth is full of his glory." Here we are to observe, that the Lord, which Esaias saw in his vision, was the Jehovah, and Lord of Hosts, which is of the same signification with Lord God Almighty. Him it was, and his glory, which the Prophet saw. And that this was Christ, and that glory Christ's glory, St. John has before testified; and therefore certain it is that God the Son is, in St. John's account, the Jehovah, and Lord God Almighty. This reasoning is in itself plain and strong; and is besides farther confirmed by the concurring sentiments of many Catholic writers.

A late writer endeavouring to elude the force of this text, devises this construction, that the Prophet, in beholding the glory of God the Father, revealing the coming of Christ, he then saw (that is foresaw) the glory of Christ. But admitting that saw may signify foresaw, (which however is a very needless supposition, since it is certain that our blessed Lord had as much glory with the Father before the world was, as ever he had after, Joh. xvii. 5.) yet what occasion is there to suppose the Father's glory to have been principally spoken of, when St. John says plainly it was Christ's glory, and that the Prophet spake of him, viz. Christ? It is indeed said, that Christ shall come " in the glory of his Father." (Matt. xvi. 27.) But it is also said, that "he shall come in his own glory;" (Matth. xxv. 31. Luke ix. 26.) " and sit in the throne of

* Eusebius in loc. Athanasius, p. 877, 889. Hilar. Trin. lib. v. cap. 33. p. 873. Basil. contr. Eunom. lib. v. p. 115. Hieronymus in loc. Epiphan. Ancorat. p. 15, 13. Jobius apud Phot. p. 605. Cyril. Hierosol. Catech. xiv. p. 202. Ambros. de Fid. lib. i. c. 12. p. 141. ed. Bened. Greg. Nyss. contr. Eunom. 1. ii. p. 488.

1 Script. Doctr. p. 93. 2d edit.

his own glory." (Matt. xix. 28.) If then the Prophet saw indeed the glory of the Father also, it is because the glory of both is one; and if the Father be the Lord of Hosts, whom the Prophet saw, it is because the Father and Son are one Lord of Hosts: for it is as certain as words can make it, from what St. John says, that the Son's glory was seen; and that he was the Jehovah of whom the Prophet spake. If the Father was so too, we have a full and strong proof, not only of the Son's being Jehovah, but of the Father and Son both being comprehended under the same one Jehovah: and so indeed m several of the ancient Fathers have interpreted it. But that is not what I insist upon now, my argument not requiring it. It is sufficient for me, that the Prophet saw, or foresaw (no great matter which) the glory of Jehovah, or Lord of Hosts; and it was the Jehovah, or Lord of Hosts, that the Prophet spake of. That is, as St. John interprets it, he saw the glory of Christ, and spake of him: Christ therefore is Jehovah and Lord of Hosts; which was to be proved.

66

There is a second passage in this very Gospel, which proves the same thing. It is John xix. 37. "Another Scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they "have pierced." The Scripture referred to is Zech. xii. 10. where the Lord (Jehovah) is introduced saying, "They "shall look upon ME, whom they have pierced." The Person pierced is Jehovah, and the same Person is Christ: wherefore, by necessary construction and implication, Christ is Jehovah. The fact being thus plain and clear, we are next to consider the inference from it. The import of the name Jehovah (according to the best critics, ancient and modern) is eternal, immutable, necessary existence. The Greek ó v, or rò v, taken from it, or answering to it, has been interpreted to the same sense by Jews, Gentiles, and Christians ". It would be tedious here

m Athanasius, Basil, Gregory Nyssen, Ambrose, Jerome, Epiphanius, before referred to.

Vid. Petav. Dogm. Theolog. vol. i. lib. 1. c. 6.

to enter any farther into the detail of that matter. It shall suffice to observe how the one true God insists upon his being Jehovah, in opposition to all other gods, glorying, in a manner, and triumphing in it, as the distinguishing character by which he would be known to be infinitely superior to all the gods of the nations.

"I am the Lord, (Jehovah,) that is my name, and my "glory will I not give to another," Isa. xlii. 8. "Against "all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am "the Lord, (Jehovah,)" Exod. xii. 12. "Who hath told "it from time to time? have not I the Lord, (Jehovah ?) " and there is no God else besides me; a just God, and a "Saviour; there is none besides me," Isa. xlv. 21. " I

am the Lord, (Jehovah,) the God of all flesh: is there "any thing too hard for me?" Jer. xxxii. 27. "I am the "Lord, (Jehovah,) I change not," Mal. iii. 6. "I am the "Lord, (Jehovah,) and there is none else: I form the "light and create darkness-I the Lord (Jehovah) do "all these things," Isa. xlv. 6, 7. I forbear to add more texts. These are enough for a specimen. There is no giving a full and complete idea of this matter, without transcribing a great part of the Old Testament. Now since the title of Jehovah is, in Scripture, a principal note of distinction by which the true God was pleased to manifest himself, and to set forth his own superior excellency in opposition to all pretended deities; and since St. John has given us to understand, that Christ is Jehovah, or Lord of Hosts, and consequently possessed of all those distinguishing powers and perfections which go along with that title; the consequence is evident and undeniable, that when the same St. John tells us that the WORD was God, he intended no nominal or inferior Deity, but God in the true, strict, and proper sense, eternal and immutable, of the same power, nature, and perfections with God the Father. I shall now briefly sum up the parti

Appendix to the Considerations on Mr. Whiston's Histor. Pref. p. 101. and part ii. p. 2, 3, &c.