A Vindication, Part 2
Having vindicated this Scripture of Rev. 1. 8. The next which follows is to be conſidered of, which is, Joh. 1. 1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
That which he clouds the ſimplicity of this Text (which gives ſuch full witneſs to Chriſts eternal Diety) with, is another Tranſlation, or Reading which he frames, and puts upon the Text, which is this,
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and the Word was a God; And he puts this ſenſe upon them, In the beginning (in the firſt part of time) was the Word, (Jeſus Chriſt) according to the Spirit of holineſs (and he means the ſoul of Chriſt did exiſt) And the Word was with the God (this Jeſus Chriſt was a delight to the moſt high God, and did converſe with him;) And the Word was a God, (this Jeſus Chriſt had power committed to him, whereby he might repreſent the moſt high God. This Tranſlarion he fetcheth from the omiſſion of the Article foreign, Chriſt is called God without the Article foreign put therto, but the Article is annexed to God, referring to the Father; and then he puts his Gloſs upon it, in a ſtrange expoſition of the words.
Rep. I grant his Obſervation to be true, that in this place of John, where (God) refers to the Father, there is an Article affixed; but where God refers to Chriſt, there the Article is not affixed. But is this a ground of ſuch a Tranſlation or Verſion which he hath framed? is foreign, God, with an Article to be taken evermore for the moſt high God? and is foreign, God, without an Article to be taken evermore for one that repreſents the moſt high God, but is not the moſt high God? If this be ſo, then Chriſt is the moſt high God, for he is called foreign, God, with an article in Heb. 1. 7. which is fetched from Pſa. 45. 6. which he hath ſo much diſputed againſt, endeavouring to prove Chriſt in that place to be but a creature God, in the former part of his anſwer, which I in my former Treatiſe of Reply have vindicated againſt him. And the Father, (whom he hath ſtood for, to the derogation of the other two perſons, endeavouring to prove him to be the only high God) is not the high God at all; for in Heb. 1. 6. he is ſpoken of as God without an Article, Let all the Angels of God worſhip him, that is Chriſt, it is foreign; and not foreign, it is without an Article: Do but obſerve how God leaves him to confound himſelf, becauſe though he have parts, yet he abuſeth them, and God takes the wiſe in their own craftineſs.
And it is to be obſerved, that Chriſt is called God with an Article annexed to it, in the ſame verſe where the Father is ſpoken of as his God, and with an Article alſo, Heb. 1. 9, which (according to his collection) makes both the Father and Chriſt to be the God. that is, the moſt high God, and ſo to be coeſſential, becauſe there cannot be the moſt high God, but one moſt high God. Thus Chriſt is juſtified in his Diety by himſelf againſt his will.
Queſt. But the Queſtion may be moved, Why is the Article affixed to God when the Father is ſpoken of, and not affixed to God when Chriſt is ſpoken of?
Anſw. There is great reaſon for it in this place of John; for if it were not ſo, the perſons of the Father and of Chriſt would be confounded; for the words run thus; foreign, And the Word was with God, and the Word was God; had there been an Article prefixed to foreign, God, had it been foreign, it muſt have been tranſlated, and God was the Word, and not the Word was God, and then God & the Word would have been confounded, viz. God the Father of whom it is ſpoken that Chirſt was with him, would have been confounded with Chriſt, for God, with the Article affixed would have been (in right tranſlation) the ſubject, and the Word would have been the predicate, and then it muſt have been rendred, God was the Word, and not the Word was God, as it now runs, according to the intention of the Holy Ghoſt, whoſe deſign is by omiſſion of the Article to manifeſt forth the diſtinction of the perſons of the Father and Son in unity of Eſſence; both are God, yet the one is not the other.
The like omiſſion of the Article we may obſerve in Joh. 4. 24. The words in Greek are foreign, and it is tranſlated, and truly (becauſe the article foreign is left out before foreign) God is a Spirit; whereas had the Article been affixed, it had altered the Tranſlation, and it muſt have been thus rendred, the Spirit is God, or a Spirit is God, and ſo the ſenſe would be changed; other inſtances there might be were they needful. And this he might have obſerved from Beza, had he been willing to have had his eyes opened.
As for the Gloſs that he makes upon the words, I confuted it formerly in part, and have ſhewed in my other Treatiſe, that by beginning the firſt part of time is meant, and that the Verb or Particle (was) ſhews a preexiſtence before the beginning, or before time was, and not that Chriſt had his firſt exiſtence then when the beginning was; for the heavens and the earth had their exiſtence then when time firſt was in the beginning of it, and ſubſiſted together with it, as Moſes records it; but the Word was before it, and ſo was eternal, for nothing was before the beginning but eternity. And whereas he makes this to be the ſenſe of theſe words, The Word was with God; This Jeſus Chriſt was a delight to the moſt high God, and did converſe with him; reſtraining high God to the Father, and excluding Chriſt, it is but the venting of his own conceit in ſtead of Truth; for God there is taken perſonally, and not eſſentially, as I have ſhewed before oftentimes; and the meaning is, the perſon of the Son was with the perſon of the Father from all eternity, and was a delight before the world was founded, as from Pro. 8. appears, He was as one brought up with the Father from everlaſting, and was daily his delight. But the ſenſe that he puts upon the laſt words (viz. and the Word was a God) is the moſt groſs of all, and palpably corrupt, viz. This Jeſus Chriſt had power committed to him, whereby he might repreſent the moſt High God: And the reaſon which he renders doth not make it more tollerable, viz. the name God is common to God and creatures: for I have ſhewed, that never any ſingle perſon was called God abſolutely without limitation and reſtriction. And in this place it is ſaid, that Chriſt was God from the firſt, that he was, and he was when the beginning was; and it is not ſaid that he began to be when the beginning was, therefore he was before, and conſequently he was God before; and it will follow that he was God from eternity, and not in regard of any power committed to him, whereby he might repreſent the moſt high God; for there was neither heaven nor earth when he was God, over whom to exerciſe any power, nor any creature to whom to repreſent God. And I have ſhewed that power which he had, was power in himſelf (as life was in himſelf) and was not, neither could be power committed to him, power in him being ſuch as no creature was capable of, by which he at firſt created, and doth yet uphold the world, Heb. 1. 3.
And whereas he gives reaſons from this text, why Chriſt ſhould not be the moſt high God, viz. Becauſe he is diſtinguiſhed from God, and God cannot be diſtinguiſhed from himſelf, he himſelf anſwers it by the mention which he makes of perſonality, Chriſt is diſtinguiſhed from God taken perſonally, viz. for the Father, from the perſon of the Father is Chriſt diſtinguiſhed, but not from God eſſentially taken, nor from the eſſence of the Father, for ſo he and his Father are one. But he takes not upon him to anſwer us in this diſtinction, and to overthrow it, though he knows that our great ſtrength lies in it, but inſteed of anſwering, chargeth us to ſay that which we ſay not, viz. that we call the Father God by way of eminency, and diſputes againſt this, as inconſiſtent to that coequality which we hold, and ſhelters himſelf under it. But he wrongs us, for we ſay the Son is called God as diſtinct from the Father, but not by way of eminency, they cannot both be eminent one above the other, and yet coequal. That which follows of The God and A God which he flies to, as a reaſon why Chriſt is not the moſt high God, I have anſwered before, and need ſay no more of it.