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. 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 i v, or Tò ov, taken from it, or answering to it, has been interpreted to the same sense by Jews, Gentiles, and Christians n. 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. Appen It to enter any farther into the detail of that matter. 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. culars of the argument, that we may the more easily take into one view the whole strength and force of it. The Apostle has here told us, in a very solemn manner, in the very entrance upon his Gospel, that the Aóyos, or WORD, was God; the very mention whereof, according to the Scripture-idea of God, and the prevailing notions of those who lived in and near St. John's time, carries with it, in its first and most natural conception, all that is good, great, or excellent: and so every unprejudiced man, upon the first reading or hearing the Apostle's words, would be apt to understand him. He has inserted no guard or caution to prevent any such construction; but, on the contrary, has hardly omitted any thing that might tend to confirm and enforce it. The WORD was God before he had any dominion, before he had acted as representative of the Father; God, in the beginning, before the world was, before there was any creature; God, by whom the world was made, and to whom every creature owed its existence; who coming into the world, came unto his own, who is Jehovah and Lord of Hosts, the same as Kúpios Tavτongáτwp, the Lord Almighty, and God over all: in such a sense, and with these circumstances, the WORD is called God, in the very same verse where mention also is made of the Father, with whom he was, and who is there called God, in the strict and proper sense: all this put together amounts to a demonstration, that the Apostle intended no nominal or inferior God by the Word, but the true and living God, one with the Father, coessential and coeternal. Thus the first Christians understood it; and thus the Catholic Church has believed: and this is the faith which we ought evermore earnestly to contend for, as being " once delivered to the saints." I entreat your patience but a little farther, just to take notice of a late pretence of an Arian writer o. The Jews, says he, and Gentiles believed in one God, understanding it of one Person only: our Saviour and his • Modest Plea, Postscript, p. 318. Apostles taught that Christ was the Son of that one God: when therefore Christ is also styled God, those among whom he was first so styled, would naturally understand it in the subordinate sense, as the word Elohim in the Hebrew, Oeds in the Greek, and God in the English frequently signifies. This is the argument, and in this, the author says, "the sum of the whole controversy is briefly comprised." If this be really the case, the controversy may be brought to a short and clear issue. By subordinate sense of the word God, the gentleman means such a sense in which creatures may be gods, and have been called gods. I hope I have sufficiently shewn that St. John could never intend any such low sense, nor be so understood by any man of ordinary attention, or common discernment. As to the question, how it would be understood by those who first heard it, it has been already determined by plain evidence of fact. It appears certainly to have been understood in the strict and proper sense, as high as Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Irenæus, Athenagoras, that is, within sixty or seventy years of St. John's writing: and I will venture to add Ignatius P, which brings it up to the very time: for Ignatius had been well acquainted with St. John himself, having been once his 9 disciple. As to Jews or Gentiles, whatever short or imperfect notions they had of God, (though it is a disputable point, whether they did not both admit of some plurality in the Deity,) they are to come to Christians to be more fully instructed; and we are not to be taught by them, how we are to understand a clear and plain Gospel. Hard must be our case indeed, if we are to be sent to Jews or Pagans to learn Christianity. However, Jews and Gentiles both • Ὃς πρὸ αἰώνων παρὰ πατρὶ ἦν, καὶ ἐν τέλει ἐφάνη. Ignat. ad Magn. cap. vi. p. 22. Ὅς ἐστιν αὐτοῦ λόγος αΐδιος, οὐκ ἀπὸ σιγῆς προελθών. cap. viii. p. 23. Εἷς ἰατρός ἐστιν, σαρκικός τε καὶ πνευματικὸς, γενητὸς καὶ ἀγένητος, ἐν σαρκὶ γενόsvos Osos. Ad Ephes. cap. vii. p. 14. a Act. Martyr. S. Ignat. cap. iii. p. 49. |