Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadJohn Bengel Commentary - John 1:1 - 1:1
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Joh 1:1. Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος· In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God) This is the thunder brought down to us by a “Son of Thunder;”[2] this is a voice from heaven, which man’s conjecturing in vain starts objections against. By no reasoning of his could any orthodox believer better establish the truth of this palmary [capital] text, or more effectually refute Artemonism, than has Artemon’s[3] modern follower himself, i.e. Samuel Crellius, whilst maintaining throughout the whole of his book, which he has entitled, “The Beginning of the Gospel of John restored according to ecclesiastical antiquity,” that, instead of Θεός, there ought to be written Θεοῦ. His whole system, both in the foundation and the superstructure, is mere conjecture: and the more I call to mind the contexture of his reasonings, the more I feel confirmed in the truth, which has been assailed by this foremost veteran of Unitarianism on such trifling grounds. To avow this again and again, I regard as the part of piety. In my Introduction [‘Apparatus’], page 559, line 11, there has crept in by mistake, “if you read Θεοῦ” [si Θεοῦ legas], whereas the thing speaks for itself, that it ought to have been written, “if you read Θεός” [si Θεός legas]. The easier such a lapse is, the more ought we to follow the steady agreement of all the transcribers, who happily retain the reading Θεός. The book of Artemonius contains two parts, the first of which is more of a critical character; the second, which is furnished with four Dissertations, more refers to the subject itself. The former we have of course examined in the Critical Introduction; whereas the second is a subject for the Gnomon, in which, as we stated in the Introduction, we would discuss Artemonius’ views, independently of the mere critical point of view. For in truth the divine honour of our God and Saviour is at stake; and this citadel of the Christian faith is every day more and more assailed; and this book of Artemonius (which is pronounced in the Biblioth. Angl., T. xv., p. 539, to be one of the weightiest of this class ever published) finds more numerous readers than is desirable. We shall therefore take the five or six first verses of John 1, and we shall make on them such remarks as are applicable, not merely for the refutation of Artemonius, but also for the explanation of John.-ἐν ἀρχῇ in principio) John’s style, especially in this passage, is pre-eminent for its simplicity, nicety [acute refinement, ‘subtilitas’], and sublimity. The Beginning here means that time, when all things began to be and were created by the Word, Joh 1:3. Ἐν ἀρχῇ, he says; that is, In the beginning, as the Septuagint Greek version of Gen 1:1, and Pro 8:23. That by The Beginning in this passage no more recent time is meant, is proved by the whole series of things in the context; for the beginning of the Gospel [which some allege is meant here] was made, when John the Baptist went forth preaching, Mar 1:1 : but the ‘Beginning,’ which is here spoken of, is more ancient than the Incarnation of the Word. In like manner, none is higher [goes further back]. In the beginning of the heaven and the earth, God created the heaven and the earth: in the same beginning of the heaven and the earth, and of the world, Joh 1:10, already, the Word was in existence, without any beginning or commencement of itself. The Word itself is purely eternal; for it is in the same manner that the eternity of the Word and of the Father is described. He was, at the time when first were made whatsoever things began to be. Artemonius maintained that it is the beginning of the Gospel which is meant by John; and he thus explains the verse: in the beginning of the Gospel was the Word; and the Word, through His first ascension to heaven, was, in the same beginning, with God, etc. [Socinians have invented the figment of Jesus having ascended, to heaven for instruction before entering on His prophetic office.] This explanation he attempts to give colour to, by the authority of some of the ancients, Photinus, and such like. We shall examine his arguments. He lays it down, that the first epistle of John was written before his Gospel; and that the beginning of his Epistle is vindicated from the perversions of Cerinthus, by the beginning of his Gospel. Thence he infers, that the ‘Beginning,’ 1Jn 2:13, etc., is the beginning of Gospel-preaching; and accordingly, that in ch. Joh 1:1 of the same Ep., and in ch. Joh 1:1 of his Gospel, ‘beginning’ is used in the same sense.-Part ii. c. 13. First [in answer we observe], John certainly wrote the Gospel before the destruction of Jerusalem, as we show at ch. Joh 5:2. Even Artemonius cannot assert this of the Epistle. The Gospel teaches the truth, ch. Joh 20:31. The Epistle goes further and refutes errors, and indicates that a great turn in affairs had taken place. John wrote the Gospel, according to the testimony of Irenæu[4] [PROVIDENS blasphemas regulas quæ dividunt Dominum], FORESEEING the blasphemous systems which rend the Lord’s body.-B. iii. c. 18. Such at least was the system even of Cerinthus, which Irenæu[5] pronounces to be not older than the Gospel of John, when, B. iii. c. 11, he says, that in the Gospel of John is refuted THE ERROR WHICH WAS DISSEMINATED [“inseminatus erat”] AMONG MEN BY CERINTHUS, AND MUCH EARLIER BY THE NICOLAITANS [errorem, qui a Cerintho et MULTO PRIUS a Nicolaitis inseminatus erat hominibus]. For the translator, whose authority otherwise is justly entitled to support, readily made a pluperfect “inseminatus erat” out of the Greek past participle, which is found in the fragments of Irenæu[6] collected out of Greek fathers of later ages. A comparison of chapter 11 with chapter 18, both of which we have here quoted in the author’s very words, will import the force of the tense to be perfect, rather than pluperfect. Certainly Irenæu[7] has not a word as to any perversion [alleged by Artemonius] of John’s Epistle by Cerinthus: and he himself, B. iii. c. 18, has so woven together quotations of the Gospel and of the Epistle, as to imply no obscure recognition of the fact, that the Gospel was written before the Epistle. Accordingly, as Peter condemned mockers, and Paul apostates, so John in his Gospel has condemned the false teachers about to arise; and in his Epistle, when they had actually come, he more openly stigmatized them. Thus we have shown that at least the foundation on which Artemonius builds so much, viz. the theory of the Epistle having been written before the Gospel, is uncertain conjecture; though it does not much concern our side of the question which of the two works was first in point of time. Not even in the Epistle itself is ‘Beginning’ always used in one signification: nay, in the opening of the Epistle, ‘Beginning’ is used absolutely, the beginning of all things, of heaven and earth; and so also in the opening of the Gospel. This is the only difference, that in the latter it is expressed, “In the beginning;” in the former, “From the beginning.” Artemonius, P. ii. c. 18, supposes that Cerinthus, who had perverted the words, “From the beginning,” is more expressly refuted by the words, “In the beginning;” but the Valentinians perverted the words, “In the beginning,” in just the same manner. It would be a more simple explanation to say, that “In the beginning” is rather used absolutely; “From the beginning” relatively, in this sense, In the beginning and thenceforward. In that beginning was the Word, in such a way, as that also before the beginning the Word was. See Pro 8:22, etc., “The Lord possessed me In the beginning of His way, before His works of old: I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was;” where mem, set down [occurring] four times in the Heb., the Septuagint render, at least in the second and fourth place of its occurrence, πρό, and rightly so (although Artem. Diss. i. stoutly denies it): for in the passage there follow in parallel correspondence, באין πρό, בטרם πρό, לפני πρό, עד לא. See below, Joh 1:30, ch. Joh 3:13, Joh 6:62, Joh 8:58, Joh 17:5; Joh 17:24 [all proving His pre-existence with the Father]. Artemonius, page 76, and everywhere throughout his book, urges that Justin Martyr was the first who taught that Jesus was the Son of God, before that the world was made. But the truth is, Justin praises that doctrine as new, not that it was recently invented, but because it was unknown to Trypho, and such like persons. We will bring forward in this place the single testimony of Ignatius, who, in his Ep. to the Magnesians, § 8, says, εἷς Θεός ἐστιν ὁ φανερώσας ἑαυτὸν διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ Υἰοῦ αὐτοῦ, ὅς ἐστιν αὐτοῦ ΛΟΓΟΣ ΑΙΔΙΟΣ, οὖκ ἀπὸ σιγῆς προελθών. “There is one God, who manifested Himself by Jesus Christ His Son, Who is the Eternal Word of Himself, not having come forth from silence” [i.e. Always having been The Word]. The objections, by which Artemonius tries to turn aside the force of this passage, P. ii. ch. 36, etc., are so far-fetched, that their effect ought to be, not to carry away the reader with them, but to confirm him in the truth.-ἦν, was) Not, was made. See the difference of the words marked, Joh 1:10; Joh 1:14-15, ch. Joh 8:58. The Father also is called ὁ ὤν, κ.τ.λ., Rev 1:4. The Word was before the world was made, in which He afterwards was, Joh 1:10.-Ὁ ΛΌΓΟς) Speech [sermo], Word [Verbum]; it is also found written in Latin, Logos: see notes on Gregor. Thaum. Paneg., § 50.[8] That Logos, of whom Joh 1:14 speaks. Whence is it that John calls Him The Word? From the beginning of his first Epistle, says Artemonius, P. ii. ch. 14 and 19. More rightly, as is plain from what was said above, the expression may be regarded as derived [copied] from the Gospel into the Epistle. In both writings he uses the term Logos before he comes to the appellation of Jesus Christ. But he so terms Him, not copying Philo, much less Plato; but by the same Spirit which taught the inspired authors of the Old Testament so to express themselves. See Gen 1:3; Psa 33:6, “By the Word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth,” where the Septuagint has τῷ λόγῳ Κυρίου οἱ οὐρανοὶ ἐστερεώθησαν: Psa 107:20, “He sent His word,” ἀπέστειλε τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ. Hence the very frequent appellation, The Word of God, in the Chaldaic Paraphrase: also Wis 16:12; Wis 18:15. The one and the same mystery in the Old and in the New Testament is expressed in similar terms. God is a Spirit, or eternal Mind: the Son of God is the Logos, the inmost, and yet at the same time the most fully manifested [exsertissimum, the most fully put forth] Word of the eternal Mind. He who spiritually knows the spiritual nature of God, knows also the spiritual nature of His Word: and understands why He is also called the Word, before He is called the Light and the Life; see 1Jn 1:1, etc. Hence just as often the apostles, speaking of Christ, contradistinguish flesh and spirit; So He, whom John terms Logos, the same is termed by Clemens Romanus, a father of the Apostolic age, Spirit, εἷς Χριστὸς ὁ Κύριος ὁ σώσας ἡμᾶς, ὢν μὲν τὸ πρῶτον πνεῦμα, ἐγένετο σὰρξ, κ.τ.λ.: that is, The one Lord Christ, who hath saved us, although previously He was Spirit, yet was made flesh, etc.; which passage the objections of Artemonius, P. ii. ch. 44, etc., cannot rob us of. The Logos is He, whom the Father has begotten, or spoken, as His only-begotten Son, by Whom the Father speaking makes all things; who speaks of the things of the Father to us. The reason why He is called Logos, and the actual Description of what is the Logos, is given, Joh 1:18. He is the only-begotten Son of God, who was in the bosom of the Father, and acted most expressively the part of His Exponent [exegetam egit, the Declarer of Him, Joh 1:18, ἐξηγήσατο]. The idea in this clause receives additional emphasis and clearness from the two clauses that follow in this verse.-πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, with God) Therefore distinct [in personality] from the Father. Πρός for παρά [Latin apud, French chez], as εἰς for ἐν, Joh 1:18, denotes a perpetual, as it were, tendency of the Son to the Father in the unity of essence. He was with God in a peculiar and unique sense [singly and exclusively, ‘unicè’], because there was then nothing outside of God. Again, John speaks in this place more absolutely than in 1 Ep. ch. Joh 1:2, where he says, The Eternal Life was with the FATHER, in antithesis to the manifestation of Him made to believers, in order that they might become Sons. Thus we dispose of the difference, which Artemonius, P. ii. c. 18, tries to establish between the expression in the Epistle, and that in the Gospel: He also in Diss. ii., and elsewhere throughout his book, interprets the words, to be with God, of an ascension of Christ to heaven before His baptism. But this interpretation, when once the phrase, “In the beginning,” is rightly explained, forthwith falls to the ground. If Christ, before His passion, had trodden the way to life by an ascension of this kind, He would not have had it in His power subsequently to say, “THOU HAST MADE KNOWN to Me the ways of life;” and His whole journey, from His birth to that ascension, would have been of no benefit to us: but the plans, on which our salvation rests, would only begin to come into effect simultaneously with the descent, subsequent on the supposed ascension: whereby the first two chapters of Matthew and Luke would lose all their point. The words of Ignatius, in the Ep. already quoted, § 6, are clear: Jesus Christ before all ages, πρὸ αἰώνων, was with the Father, and in the end, ἐν τέλει, appeared: also the words of Hermas, The Son of God is elder than all creation, so that He TOOK PART IN His Father’s counsels for founding creation. These words Artemonius quotes, p. 404, etc., and cannot weaken their force.-Θεός, God) Not only was He with God, but also was God. The absence of the Greek article, especially in the predicate, does not weaken its signification, as meaning the true God. The Septuagint, 1Ki 18:24, Βασιλ. Γ. ἔσται ὁ Θεὸς, ὃς ἂν ἐπακούσῃ ἐν πυρὶ, οὗτος Θεός. Moreover, when the predicate is placed before the subject, there is an emphasis on the word, ch. Joh 4:24, Πνεῦμα ὁ Θεός. Further, in this passage the same signification is confirmed from the fact, that there was then no creature, in relation to which the Word could be called God [in a lower sense]; it must therefore be here meant in an absolute sense. This fact presses hard against Artemonius; and on that account the more precious in our esteem ought this reading to be, which we have defended in our Critical Introduction. In this stronghold of the faith, in this most sure centre, we stand unmoved, and we fortify ourselves against all enticements which try to draw us off in a quite contrary direction [to other and irrelevant arguments]. There is no expedient to which Artemonius docs not resort, that he may prove Christ in Scripture is nowhere called or regarded as God; and, that we may take a cursory view of the second part of his book, especially in this passage, in Chap. I. he attacks the words, Joh 5:17, etc., Joh 10:29, etc., Php 2:6, etc.: in all which passages, the sentiment [sense] is not only vindicated as worthy of the Divine majesty of Jesus Christ, by the pious zeal of competent [able] interpreters, but even is shown to be so by the weakness of the Artemonian objections. Chap. II. denies that Christ was accounted as God by His disciples before His passion. But see Joh 1:14, “We beheld His glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father;” 2Pe 1:16, “We were eye-witnesses of His majesty,” etc. He denies that Jesus was accounted God after the Resurrection: but see Joh 20:28, “My Lord, and my God” [Thomas]; Act 20:28, “The Church of God, which He hath purchased with His own blood;”[9] Rom 9:15, “Christ, who is over all, God blessed for ever;” 1Ti 3:16, “God manifest in the flesh;”[10] Tit 2:13, “The glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:” comp. notes, Eph 5:5, “The kingdom of Christ and of God;” Heb 1:10; Heb 3:4 [comp. with Joh 1:6, “Christ, a Son over His own house”], “He that built all things is God.” Even this one passage, Joh 1:1, would be enough for a soul hungering and thirsting, simple and candid. In Chap. III. he objects, that Christ is always contradistinguished from God. We reply: Not always, but for the most part, and that without compromising the Deity of the Son. The instance, 1Ti 1:1, “The commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ,”[11] Artemonius felt to be irresistible; for in that passage even God the Father is called Saviour, and yet the Son is not by that fact excluded. So also when the Father is called God, that is not done in contradistinction to Jesus. See the writer himself, how frigid is his reply on the passage! Chap. IV. extends too far the parallelism, Joh 1:1; Joh 20:31. Chap. V. discusses why Christ is not called God, when He is really God, inferior to the Father alone; but he produces such reasons as prove unanswerably, since Christ is really also called God, that Christ is called God, not in the sense in which the name is assigned to creatures, but in the sense in which it is assigned to the Father. Chap. VI., in order to escape the argument from the passage, Isa 9:5, when Christ is called by one name, compounded of twice four words, Wonderful, Counsellor, [the] Mighty GOD, [the] everlasting Father, [the] Prince [of] Peace, does open violence to the parallel passage, Isa 10:21, as to the Father, disguises the agreeing soundness [the sound agreement] of old versions in the appellation, the Mighty God, and exaggerates the variations of these same versions, which are quite alien to the subject. In Chap. VII. the passage, Eze 28:2; Eze 28:9, is transferred from the King of Tyre to the God-man [τὸν Θεάνθρωπον].
[2] Boanerges, the title given to John and James.-E. and T.
[3] A heretic of 3d cent. A.D., who, with his friend Theodotus, denied the divinity of Christ.-Euseb. H. E. v. 28.-E. and T.
[4] renæus (of Lyons, in Gaul: born about 130 A.D., and died about the end of the second century). The Editio Renati Massueti, Parisinæ, a. 1710.
[5] renæus (of Lyons, in Gaul: born about 130 A.D., and died about the end of the second century). The Editio Renati Massueti, Parisinæ, a. 1710.
[6] renæus (of Lyons, in Gaul: born about 130 A.D., and died about the end of the second century). The Editio Renati Massueti, Parisinæ, a. 1710.
[7] renæus (of Lyons, in Gaul: born about 130 A.D., and died about the end of the second century). The Editio Renati Massueti, Parisinæ, a. 1710.
[8] A little volume, edited A.D. 1722; and as it may not be ready at hand to [within reach of] most of our readers, we may be permitted here to subjoin the passage, which we beg may be compared with the notes of Semler, to be found in the paraphrase of the Gospel of John:-“Gregory is not without some allusion to (an observation made by Bengel) that ancient passage, ὁ δὲ γὲ τʼ ἀνθρώπον λόγος πέφυκʼ ἀπὸ Θείου λόγου. Moreover, when also our author (the same Gregory) employs the term λόγος in divine things, we interpret it, as the passage suggests, Reason [ratio], or more willingly [by a better term], Speech [sermo], or most willingly [as the best term], Word [verbum]. Petavius says, That mental word, that is inner and that has its existence in the soul, approaches nearer to the likeness of the Divine Word, and is therefore adopted more freely by learned Fathers. For it is a term presenting more advantages, and having more points of likeness: since it is both spiritual, and least of itself falls under the cognizance of the senses; and remains in the mind, from which it proceeds, and is not parted from it; and without it the mind can have no existence even for a moment of time. All these notions, and even others besides, of the term λόγος, other Greek fathers have brought together on this mystery, nay, often have joined several in one: whence it has happened that the Latins also have preferred the Greek term to any Latin one, as being fuller in meaning, and have even set down the Greek itself. We too have done so at times, after the example of Rhodomanus; and have used Logos rather than Verbum or Ratio,-See as to the significations of the Divine appellation, λόγος, if you desire energetic writing, Witsius, vol. ii. Miscell. Exodus 3, as to God the Word, § 20: but if it is copiousness also you desire, Petavius, vol. ii. Theol. dogm. B. vi. on the Trin. ch. 1, etc. Franc. Junius, vol. ii. Opp. f. 145, comes to this wise conclusion, Christ, in various relations, and in a manifold sense, is called The Word of God. Thus one relation, or aspect, has presented itself to one commentator, another to another. This has the effect of showing forth the more the wonderfulness of that manifold wisdom of God.-ERN. BENG. [son of J. Alb. Beng.]
[9] The Codex Vatic. B, the oldest of MSS., reads Θεοῦ, and so also the oldest MS. of the Vulgate, viz. Amiatinus. However Tischendorf, Lachmann, etc., read Κυρίου, with A cod. Alexandr. C* cod. Ephræmi rescript. corrected, and D cod. Bezæ.-E. and T.
[10] Tisch. however reads ὅς for Θεός, with A* C* Memph. Theb. Versions.
[11] Tisch., with AD*, omits Κυρίου.-E. and T. [The marks a more recent correction of a MS.]
In Chap. VIII. and the following, Artemonius has many discussions as to Cerinthus, as to the Nicolaitans, and as to the design of John in opposition to both. But first, to such a degree it is now proved that the book of Artemonius has but little accordance with truth, that what the book approves must deservedly be postponed meantime as doubtful, whilst the case is being decided by arguments: next, a knowledge, no doubt, of the errors which the apostles refute, ought to be obtained from ecclesiastical history, as far as is possible; but the question of sound interpretation does not depend on such knowledge, much less does the genuine reading: nor ought any fallacies, forged out of the dark mass of most ancient heresies, turn off the eyes of simple-minded believers from the rays of Scripture, which are most clear of themselves. Let those who despise the short way, the King’s highway, wander at large into labyrinths, since such is their pleasure, and let them lie there. As regards the design of John in opposition to Cerinthus, B. Buddeus has refuted Artemonius in his Ecclesia Apostolica, p. 425, etc.; comp. p. 378 as to the Nicolaitans. We make one observation: That the question is not, in what particular sense Cerinthus himself may have allowed the Word to be called God [see Artemon. p. 340], but in what sense the whole section of John, in spite of Cerinthus, so frequently calls the Word God. Cerinthus, I fancy, had no higher idea of Christ than Artemonius shows he has: why, then, should not the words of John, so hateful to Artemonius, not strike Cerinthus? I have thought of several reasons; but these words of Artemonius, p. 381, set me at my ease on this head: It was not necessary that John should follow Cerinthus through all his absurdities; for even those in which he does follow him [refuting them], he does so only incidentally, and whilst engaged in a different object. By this one erasure, Artemonius declares his whole treatise about Cerinthus to be useless [lost labour]. For, since John did not set down that assertion, And the Word was God, for the sake of refuting Cerinthus, he must have set it down for other reasons: no doubt in order that he might refute Socinians and Artemonius, and that he might fortify believers in their faith. If you have the time to spare, let there be formed out of all the sentiments which John puts forth, contradictory sentiments, such as perverted reasoning has either produced among ancient heretics, or can produce among any heretics whatever, what will be gained by it?
In Chap. XXIV. and the following ones, he brings up the Alogi, and in their character [on their part] discusses, in what way this Gospel, which the Alogi alleged was not John’s writing but that of Cerinthus, could, or could not, have been by them forced into accordance with the mind of Cerinthus. We reply: The Alogi either thought this very assertion, And the Word was God, came from Cerinthus, or they did not. If they did not think it, to dispute, in the name of the Alogi, as to the Cerinthic character of the assertion, is useless; but if they did think it, then the sense [sentiment] which they attributed to Cerinthus, they must have either considered to be true or false: If true, they must for other reasons have ascribed the Gospel to Cerinthus; but if false, then they regarded Cerinthus as entertaining unworthy sentiments as to the Logos under specious words, as Artemonius acknowledges, p. 426, etc. What prejudice to John do these particulars produce? What use moreover does it serve, to turn the eye aside, with such obliquity of vision, and to look at John’s assertion through the glass of the Alogi and Cerinthus, when one can look at it directly? In Chap. XXXVI. and the following, he examines a passage of Ignatius against Cerinthus, on which see above, on the words, “In the Beginning.” In Chap. XL., he attempts to steal away [get rid of, set aside] all the passages of Ignatius wherein Christ is called God, by comparing Ignatius himself and his interpolator with one another, as also [he tries to set aside] the passage of Clemens Romanus, where the παθήματα Θεοῦ are mentioned. We reply: 1. As Artemonius treats the apostles, so he treats apostolic fathers. 2. John is quite enough for us, even though we had not the additional testimony of Ignatius and Clemens. 3. Interpolators might have as readily in some passages of Ignatius erased the name of God, as in others (for this is what Artemonius contends to have happened) inserted it. Already, p. 131, etc., he had attacked [unsettled] the passage of his Epistle to the Ephesians, where he says, that Christ is called by Ignatius, ἐν σαρκὶ γενόμενον Θεόν, not before He took our flesh, but after He was made God in the flesh. But Ignatius’ construction is not, after He was made God, but, after He was made in the flesh, i.e. having become incarnate [Constr. γενόμενον with ἐν σαρκί, not with Θεόν].
In Chap. XLI. and the following ones, he guards against it being supposed, that John wrote with the view of opposing the Ebionites, And the Word was God. We reply: That John wrote his Gospel against the Ebionites, Epiphanius and Jerome have laid down as a fact: no doubt he wrote against all, who either then denied, or were afterwards about to deny, that the Word is God. Buddeus has several remarks about the Ebionites in opposition to Artemonius, B. quot., pp. 501, etc., 518, etc. In Chap. XLIV. and the following, he discusses the passage of Clemens Romanus, as to which, see above at the first mention made by John of the Word. Lastly, in Chap. XLVII., he gives a paraphrase of the whole passage, Joh 1:1-18, which corresponds to what had gone before, as a conclusion to premisses; and as the premisses have been refuted, so is the conclusion. At the same time he expresses admiration at the sagacity of Lælius Socinus, who had already explained the introduction of John, as referring to the beginning of the Gospel History; and adds, that Andr. Osiander may have supplied him with the first suggestion of the idea, as that writer, in his Gospel Harmony, has joined together the Baptism of Christ and the “Word in the beginning.” If this supplied the suggestion, then Socinus took in a heterodox sense, what Osiander had laid down in an orthodox sense. So Ammonius had previously laid it down. So G. Kohlreiffius, in Chronol., p. 90, laid it down not long ago. So also D. Hauber in his Gospel Harmony, not to speak of my own. See also the remarks which we make below at Joh 1:6.
There are added four Dissertations; the two first of which we have touched upon above; the two remaining ones are elsewhere examined at Hebrews 1, and at Joh 8:58. The whole work of Artemonius is on the whole ingenious and learned; but it is also insidious, strained, full of conjectural suspicions, sometimes even ludicrously so; and owing to the vivid colours in which the inner divine economy is painted, a point in which the common herd of Socinians are quite strangers, it speaks fair; but withal it remains bound in death-like iciness. By means of the answers we have given to his arguments, the rest of the latter may be easily answered. We the less regret our brevity in this respect, since, besides Wesseling, who is noticed favourably in our Introduction, several other distinguished writers have refuted Artemonius. D. Weismann has given to the world, in A.D. 1731, “Specimens of the exegetic brawlings of the Socinian party continued and augmented by L. M. Artemonius:” next the celebrated Wolf pounded at the same anvil in vol. ii. at the end of Cur. in N. T., and in vol. iii. and iv. everywhere. And in the year 1735, John Phil. Baraterius, when hardly more than fourteen years old, published Antiartemonius.-ἦν, erat) Was, not made God, but the true God. The Word was God, and that in the beginning.-ὁ λόγος, the Word) This is set down a third time, with the greatest force. The three clauses are arranged in a gradation [an ascending climax: The Word was in the beginning; the Word was with God; the Word was God]: the Article here is the distinguishing mark of the Subject. The Godhead of the Saviour had been openly declared in the Old Testament: Jer 23:6, “The Lord our righteousness,” Jehovah-Tsidkenu; Hos 1:7, “I will save them by the Lord their God;” Psa 23:1, “The Lord, Jehovah, is my Shepherd;” and the proofs of it are taken for granted in the New Testament, for instance, Hebrews 1. Accordingly Matthew, Mark, and Luke make their aim, rather to prove that Jesus, who is real man, is the Christ. And when in consequence some began at last to doubt as to the Godhead of Christ, John asserted it, and wrote in this book a kind of supplement to the Gospels, as in the Apocalypse he wrote one supplementary to the prophets.