ceed to show, by the testimony of the same apostle, confirmed by that of Paul, that the nature of the difference between them is not such as to involve the idea of inferiority upon the part of Christ, or to imply that he is merely similar in substance to the Father, or even equal in dignity and perfection, but not numerically identical with God. I think it clear, that John designed to represent the Xoyos as partaking of the very essence of the Deity, and as being God in the very highest sense. For he is not content with saying that the λoyos was with God in the beginning; that is, before the creation of the world, or at the very time of its creation,* but clearly intimates in the succeeding words, that the terms, employed in describing this intimate association, are equivalent to an expression of identity, for the Word was God. I presume, that the genuineness of this latter clause will not be questioned. Crellius and Bahrdt have proposed emendations of the text; but founded merely on conjecture and in the face of all authority.t It has been, said that sos here means, not the Supreme God, but an inferior Deity. As the former sense, however, is that which it uniformly has in the New Testament, it is scarcely credible, that the apostle would, without admonishing the reader, employ it in another and a lower sense. A Jew and an apostle, he would never have used language in relation to the Deity, so ambiguous and obscure, and consequently, so well fitted to mislead the Gentile convert into error and idolatry. But whatever doubt might possibly arise upon the point, it is wholly dissipated by the words of the apostle in the third verse: "All things were made by * See Grotius' remark on the meaning of the phrase εv agx?, in his commentary, also Semler's paraphrase of the Gospel of John, and Storr über den Zweck &c. p. 432; See also note Q, at the end of the article. † See note R. ♦ See pote S. See Storr über den Zweck. him, and without him was not any thing made that was made; and again, in the tenth, the world was made by him. That these expressions indicate the consubstan tiality of Christ with the Father, I shall attempt to prove, by showing, first, that both John and Paul do actually as cribe the creation of the world to ('hrist; and, secondly, that, he must in consequence be God, identical with the Father; and that not specifically merely, or as one of the same species, but numerically, that is, one and the same being. To begin with John, I maintain that he ascribes the creation of the Universe to Christ, in the third and tenth verses of his Gospel. This interpretation of the passage is required by the import of the terms employed, by the context and by the design of the apostle. That avra, in the third verse, is used in its largest sense, and signifies literally all things, is clear from the latter clause of the same sentence, where the apostle, as if on purpose to obviate any difficulty on that point, agreeably to the Hebrew idiom, explains his affirmative by a negative, denying the opposite of what he had asserted.* It is no less evident, that eyevero must mean were made, or were created, in the proper sense of those expres sions, and cannot possibly be made to signify any new creation, physicalt or moral. It may be proved, in the clearest manner by induction, that the term is never used by the Seventy, or the apostles, or contemporary writers, in the sense of moral reformation. § To Faustus Sdcinus' hypothesis, that wavra means the gospel dispensation, and syɛvsso that new creation of a moral nature, which it wrought,|| there is this additional objection, that Christ is said to have made. the world, a term which is admitted to be never used in * See Grotius' remarks upon the passage. See note U. || See note W. † See note T. § See note V. the New Testament, to designate the gospel, or the gospel dispensation, or the renovated hearts and minds of men. But it may be said, that the true sense of the words xodμos di' aux sysvero, is, that the moral condition of the human race, or of its major part, was meliorated by Christ. But how shall this be reconciled with facts, or with the very words of the apostle in the very same sentence ? ὁ κόσμος αυτον εκ έγνω, the world knew him not.* If, then, any regard is to be had to the true import of language, and to the testimony of the context, it must be admitted, that, at least in John's opinion, the world was made by Christ; and that all things excepting God the Father, owed their origin to him. The pertinence of such a doctrine to the design of the apostle, as explained above, is evident at once. What indeed, could be better fitted to exhibit, in its true light, the dignity of Christ; and what more at variance with the Cerinthian notion of a Demiurgus, or Creator distinct from thh Supreme God as well as from his Son? For proof of Paul's concurrence with John in these opinions, I would refer, in the first place, to the first chapter of his Epistle to the Hebrews. His design appears to have been this to show the excellence of Christianity from the exalted rank of its founder, by correcting the grovelling notions of the Jewish converts, in regard to the Messiah, and at the same time, their extravagant opinions with respect to the dignity of angels. With this view, having proved the superiority of Christ to the angels, he goes farther in the tenth verse, and declares, that he was as truly the Creator of the world as Jehovah himself. This I believe to be the genuine import of the words Συ κατ' αρχας κύριε την γην εθεμε λειωσας, και έργα των χειρών σε εισιν οι ουρανοι. Το justify my inference, however, two things must be proved :-fiust, that * See note X. † See note Z. † See note Y. See note AA. the words are addressed to Christ; and secondly, that they are addressed to him as the Creator of the world. As to the former point, I think the supposition, that ougavos means angels, and that what is said respecting them, (v. 10— 12.) is to be taken in connexion with what follows-clearly repugnant to the words themselves, as well as to the context.* But even admitting that ougavo might possibly mean angels, and that those to whom the epistle was addressed, imagined like the Jews of later times,† that some of the angels were every day annihilated and their place supplied by others can we suppose, that a doctrine, in itself so absurd, and so inconsistent with the word of God, would have been received and sanctioned by an inspired apostle ? Nay conceding even this, and admitting, for the sake of argument, what is utterly untrue-namely, that his interpretation of the words, is, in itself, legitimate; still, the tenor of the context will not suffer us to sever these three verses (10, 11, 12,) from the eighth and ninth, and connect them with what follows. If the apostle had designed these three verses to be understood of angels, he would certainly have instituted in the tenth, some new comparison between them and the Son, which is not the case. Besides, what is said of the Son in the thirteenth verse, is evidently said by way of contrast, not with what had just before been said (as Wetstein supposes) of the angels, but with that which follows, in the fourteenth verse. The inference then is, that the comparison of Christ with the angels is resumed in the thirteenth verse, and that the tenth, eleventh, and twelfth verses are to be taken in close connexion with the eighth and ninth. Assuming this as proved, the question still arises, whether the words κατ' xas' agxas &c. are addressed to Christ himself, or to God the αρχας * Wetstein interprets the 10, 11, and 12 verses as having reference to angels. + See Wetstein's notes upon v. 12. See note BB. Father, exclusively of Christ. The latter supposition is at variance with the context, and destroys the force of the apostle's reasoning. The passage is totally obscured, unless the words gos rov Uov, prefixed to the eighth verse, are also understood before the tenth. And there is another cogent reason for rejecting all interpretations, which apply the words in question to the Father, exclusively of Christ. It is, that they must either forcibly sever the natural connexion between the tenth, eleventh, and twelfth verses,* or else unitethem to what goes before by some unmeaning nexus which makes the apostle's reasoning illogical and inconclusive. On every principle of sound interpretation, therefore, these words, whatever be their import, must be considered as addressed to Christ. Nor can this conclusion be invalidated by asserting, that the supposed allusion to Messiah, in the Psalm from which the words are taken, cannot be positively proved. It will scarcely be disputed, that the apostle was at liberty to point out, in explicit terms, those covert allusions in the books of the Old Testament, which he knew by inspiration. And it will not be denied, that in the sixth, eighth, and ninth verses, the apostle speaks of Christ; and yet the language of those verses is derived from the Old Testament, and from passages in which the reference to the Messiah is not a whit more susceptible of proof. I conclude, therefore, that the words of the tenth verse, are addressed to the same being whose dignity is represented in the eighth and ninth-in a word, to the Son of God.§ But the question now arises, how are these words to be understood of Christ? Do they represent him as an agent or an instrument? Do they imply that he did, of himself, lay the foundations of the earth, or merely that the Father did it by him? The latter interpretation is by no means in * See note CC. See note EE. See note DD.; E |