nity; and the Son is always with, and in the Father, in an indissoluble essence of the Godhead; so that even the incarnation of the Son cannot destroy this union. 'He hath declared him to us,' verse 18. ('Exeivos) He it is and no other. For by this most emphatical word he would transfer our heart, mind, soul, and all our thoughts upon the Son. 'Enyato, declared; this not only signifies, as the German version has it, Er hat es verfundigt, nuntiavit, declared; but as it is rendered in Latin, exposuit, deprompsit, set abroad in view, brought forth; He, as a storekeeper, (viz. from the bosom of the Father, from the most profound and most secret divinity) expounded and brought to light, things which otherwise had remained hidden and obscure. By this word, (declared,) he also shews why Christ is called óyos, (the Word) viz. not only because he is the image of the Father, as speech is the image of the mind; nor therefore only, because from the beginning God spake by Him to the prophets; but for this reason also, because it is he himself who makes known, and manifests to us the mind of God, and sets before us, and grafts into our hearts that grace and truth which himself procured for us. There is a fourth reason why He is called the Word, viz. because he is our Advocate and Intercessor with the Father. (1 John ii. 1. Heb. ix. 24.) In the Greek, (verse 18,) the word ui, nobis, to us, is wanting; it is only said, Enyhoato, he declared: which omission of a word used in other places, and often not without emphasis, ought not to be thought vain, or unadvised.

3. Six Proofs of the Divinity of Christ, which occur in the opening of St. John's Gospel.

I.

He, to whom eternity is so ascribed, as to have no beginning, is together with the Father, the true and essential God. But such an eternity is ascribed unto Christ: therefore Christ together with the Father is the true and essential God.' The major proposition is true beyond all doubt; it being against common reason to attribute to any being that eternity which is without beginning, and yet not acknowledge it to be the true God. Wherefore no man of sense will require a proof of this proposition. But this is to be demonstrated, that that eternity which is without any beginning, belongs to Christ, and then it follows of itself, that Christ is the true and essential God. But this is affirmed by the evangelist in plain and clear words: for he says concerning the same Christ, who walked about among men on the earth, being made visible to men in the flesh, that he is the Word, which was in the beginning,' or then existed, when the beginning of any thing could be said to be. The emphasis of the words of John (especially of the word, was, signifying that that Word had no beginning, but did really exist before the beginning of time, beyond which there is nothing but eternity;) I say, this emphasis, together with the places of scripture wherewith it has been compared, is to be remembered here from the preceding sections. We only add the words of St. Augustine in Epist. LXVI. "It is not said, as in the beginning,

God made heaven and earth, so in the beginning he made the Word; but, In the beginning was the Word." In this place, John was wholly intent to set before our eyes the glory of the Son of God from the very beginning of Genesis, that he might at once give us a key, how we ought rightly to seek and to find Christ, as the substance of the writings of Moses and all the prophets, from the genuine foundation of the secret depths of God's wisdom. Otherwise some other form of speaking might have expressed the eternity of the Son of God, as he uses in other places; when for example, (First Epistle i. 2,) he calls him, that Eternal Life which was with the Father,' (as he also calls him, (First Epist. v. 20) Eternal Life,' whereby he explains the very words which he uses in this place, by an expression of like import: for he here says, In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God.' But in his epistle it is: that Eternal Life (which in the preceding verse, as well as in his gospel, he had called the Word) was with the Father. What can be clearer than that St. John shews it is the same thing with him, whether he says, 'He was in the beginning,' or else says,' He is eternal;' for he is the best interpreter of his own words? Hence it is unreasonable to object, why does he not write expressly, The Word was from eternity; then the thing would be plain, and need no farther proof. For it must be considered, that St. John's design here is to explain the words of Moses, for which we ought to be thankful and since the thing has been delivered thus by Moses, he follows Moses's words, and seems to be delighted with the expression, as appears by his frequent using thereof. And he is not only studious

in interpreting Moses, but also refers us to the testimony of Moses concerning Christ; wherefore he does industriously keep to his words, as the most proper for him to use in writing his gospel, especially against the errors of Ebion and Cerinthus. Moreover, the eternity of Christ is by these words so plainly set before our eyes, that whosoever will calmly consider them, can have no doubt in his mind concerning them. But because the heart of St. John was full of this matter, he explains his own words largely, as he had explained the words of Moses. Why therefore should we not acquiesce in what he sufficiently signifies, that the words,' He was in the beginning,' and 'He is eternal,' have the very same sense and meaning? Nor are there wanting in the Holy Scriptures, other testimonies of the like nature, which can fully satisfy thy desire, or most clearly, as thou couldst wish, set forth the eternity of Christ, so as thou mayest have no longer any room for evading the testimonies for Christ's eternity, from which his true and essential divinity must be acknowledged without any contradiction. For what can be more evident, than that Micah the prophet, foretelling that Christ should be born at Bethlehem, declares him to be the person, 'whose rising or goings forth (ANYIA exitus) have been from of old, (from the beginning) from everlasting.' (Micah v. 2.) Which way of expression is much more emphatic, than if he had only said, that Christ was from eternity. But what else does Micah say, but that He, who at the time appointed by God, should be born at Bethlehem, was not then first to have his beginning, but that He was without any beginning;' which can be attributed to none but the true, the

6

living, and eternal God. If any one be not satisfied with this clear testimony, there are not wanting in the scriptures many others to convince him. But he that will not give his assent to the plain word of God; and though the strongest proofs be laid before him, labours still to call them into question, and to put another sense into the word of God, than that which the Spirit of God has supplied us with, and (as it were) imprinted upon us, (so that we have no occasion to interpret it by our own, but are able to do it by the very words of the Spirit of God),—how can he possibly be convinced? since he makes God a liar, because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son: And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. (1 John v. 10.)

II.

"He whom the Holy Scripture itself calls God, and that without any limitation, and consequently without any difference (as to essence and divine property) from Him who made heaven and earth, or from Him whom we adore as the true, eternal, and living God, He is the true and living God: but Christ is thus called God in the Holy Scripture: therefore he is the true, essential, and living God." The major proposition wants no proof. For if any one should object, that many in the same Holy Scriptures are called gods, who are not the only, true, and living God, and the Creator of heaven and earth; the Word of God is described after so sublime a manner, in the major proposition, that this objection deserves no