"the

itself, so consonant to the notion of the Word and the apprehension of the Jews, it is infinitely to be preferred before any such interpretation as shall restrain the most universals to a few particulars, change the plainest expressions into figurative phrases, and make of a sublime truth, a weak, useless, false discourse. For who will grant that "in the beginning" must be the same with that in St. John's Epistle, "from the beginning," especially when the very interpretation involves in itself a contradiction? For "the beginning" in St. John's Epistle is that in which the apostles saw, and heard, and touched the Word," 1 John i. 1: beginning" in his gospel was that in which "the Word was with God," that is, not seen nor heard by the apostles, but known as yet to God alone, as the new exposition will have it. Who will conceive it worthy of the Apostle's assertion, to teach that the Word had a being in the beginning of the gospel, at what time John the Baptist began to preach, when we know the Baptist taught as much, who therefore "came baptizing with water, that he might be made manifest unto Israel??? when we are sure that St. Matthew and St. Luke, who wrote before him, taught us more than this, that he had a being thirty years before? when we are assured, it was as true of any other then living as of the Word, even of Judas who betrayed him, even of Pilate who condemned him?

Again, who can imagine the apostle should assert that the Word was, that is, had an actual being, when as yet he was not actually the Word? For if "the beginning" be, when John the Baptist began to preach, and the Word, as they say, be nothing else but he who speaketh, and so revealeth the will of God; Christ had not then revealed the will of God, and consequently was not then actually the Word, but only potentially or by designa

tion.

Secondly; it is a strange figurative speech, "the Word was with God," that is, was known to God, especially in this apostle's method. "In the beginning was the Word;" there "was" must signify an actual existence; and if so, why in the next sentence, “the

Word was with God" shall the same verb signify an objective being only? Certainly though to be in the beginning be one thing, and to be with God another; yet "to be" in either of them is the same. But if we should imagine this being understood of the knowledge of God, why we should grant that thereby is signified, was' known to God alone, I cannot conceive. For the proposition of itself is plainly affirmative, and the exclusive particle only added to the exposition, maketh it clearly negative. Nay more, the affirmative sense is certainly true, the negative as certainly false; For except Gabriel be God who came to the Virgin; except every one of the heavenly_host who appeared to the shepherds be God; except Zachary and Elizabeth, except Simeon and Anna, except Joseph and Mary, be God; it cannot be true that he was known to God only, for to all these he was certainly known.

Thirdly; to pass by the third attribute, "and the Word was God," as having occasion suddenly after to handle it; seeing the apostle hath again repeated the circumstance of time as most material, "the same was in the beginning with God," and immediately subjoined those words, "all things were made by him, and without him was not any thing made that was made;" how can we receive any exposition which referreth not the making of all these things to him in the beginning? But if we understand the latter part of the apostles, who after the ascension of our Saviour did nothing but what they were commanded and impowered to do by Christ, it will bear no relation to the beginning. If we interpret the former, of all which Jesus said and did in the promulgation of the Gospel, we cannot yet reach to the beginning assigned by the new expositors; for while John the Baptist only preached, while in their sense the Word was with God, they will not affirm that Jesus did any of these things that are here spoken of. And consequently, according to their grounds, it will be true to say, "In the beginning was the Word, and that Word in the beginning was with God, insomuch as in the beginning nothing was done by him, but without him were all things done which were done in the beginning." Wherefore

in all reason we should stick to the known interpretation, in which every word receiveth its own proper signification without any figurative distortion, and is preserved in its due latitude and extension without any curtailing restriction. And therefore I conclude from the undeniable testimony of St. John, that in the beginning, when the heavens and the earth and all the host of them were created, all things were made by the Word, who is Christ Jesus being made flesh; and consequently, by the.method of argument, as the apostle antecedently by the method of nature, that in the beginning Christ was. He then who was in heaven and descended from thence, before that which was begotten of the virgin ascended thither, he who was before John the Baptist and before Abraham, he who was at the end of the first world, and at the beginning of the same; he had a real being and existence before Christ was conceived by the virgin Mary. But all these we have already showed belong unto the Son of God. Therefore we must acknowledge, that Jesus Christ had a real being and existence before he was begotten by the Holy Ghost: which is our first assertion, properly opposed to the Photinians.

The second assertion next to be made good, is, that the being which Christ had before he was conceived by the virgin, was not any created, but the divine essence, by which he always was truly, really, and properly God. This will evidently and necessarily follow from the last demonstration of the first assertion, the creating all things by the Son of God; from whence we inferred his preexistence, "in the beginning," assuring us as much that he was God, as that he was, "For he that built all things was God." And the same apostle who assures us, "All things were made by him," at the same time tells us, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the word was God." Where "in the beginning" must not be denied unto the third proposition, because it cannot be denied unto the second. Therefore “in the beginning, or ever the earth was, the Word was God," the same God with whom he was, Prov. viii. 23. For we cannot with any show of reason either imagine that he was with one God, and was another, because

there can be no more supreme Gods than one; or conceive that the apostle should speak of one kind of God in the second, and of another in the third proposition; in the second, of a God eternal and independent, in the third, of a made and depending God. Especially, first considering that the eternal God was so constantly among the Jews called the Word, the only reason which we can conceive why the apostle should thus use this phrase: and then observing the manner of St. John's writing, who rises strangely by degrees, making the last word of the former sentence the first of that which followeth: As, In him was life, and the life was the light of men; and the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not" so, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word, which so was in the beginning, was with God, and the Word was God," that is, the same God with whom the Word was in the beginning. But he could not be the same God with him any other way, than by having the same divine essence. Therefore the being which Christ had before he was conceived by the virgin, was the divine nature, by which he was properly and really God.

66

Secondly; he who was subsisting in the form of God, and thought himself to be equal with God (in which thought he could not be deceived, nor be injurious to God), must of necessity be truly and essentially God; because there can be no equality between the divine essence, which is infinite, and any other whatsoever, which must be finite. But this is true of Christ, and that antecedently to his conception in the virgin's womb, and existence in his human nature; For "being," or rather, "subsisting in the form of God, he thought it not robbery to be equal with God but emptied himself, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men," Phil. ii. 6, 7. Out of which words naturally result three propositions fully demonstrating our assertion; first, that Christ was in the form of a servant as soon as he was made man; secondly, that he was in the form of God before he was in the form of a servant; thirdly, that he was in the form of God, that is, did as truly and really subsist in the divine nature, as in the form of a servant, or

in the nature of man. It is a vain imagination, that our Saviour then first appeared as a servant when he was apprehended, bound, scourged, crucified. For they were not all slaves who ever suffered such indignities, or died that death; and when they did, their death did not make, but find, them, or suppose them servants. Beside, our Saviour in all the degrees of his humiliation never lived as a servant unto any master on earth. It is true, at first he was subject, but as a son, to his reputed father and undoubted mother. When he appeared in public he lived after the manner of a prophet and a doctor sent from God, accompanied with a family, as it were, of his apostles, whose master he professed himself, subject to the commands of no man in that office, and obedient only unto God. The form then of a servant which he took upon him, must consist in something distinct from his sufferings, or submission unto men; as the condition in which he was when he so submitted and so suffered: in that he was "made flesh," sent "in the likeness of sinful flesh," subject unto all infirmities and miseries of this life, attending on the sons of men fallen by the sin of Adam: in that he was "made of a woman, made under the law," and so obliged to perform the same; which law did so handle the children of God, as that they differed nothing from servants: in that he was born, bred, and lived in a mean, low, and abject condition; "as a root out of a dry ground, he had no form nor comeliness, and when they saw him, there was no beauty that they should desire him; but was despised and rejected of men, a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief," Isa. lii. 2: in that he was thus made man, he took upon him the form of a servant." Which is not mine, but the apostle's explication; as adding it not by way of conjunction, in which there might be some diversity, but by way of apposition, which signifieth a clear identity. And therefore it is necessary to observe, that our translation of that verse is not only not exact, but very disadvantageous to that truth which is contained in it. For we read it thus; "He made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men." Where we have two copulative conjunctions, neither of which is in the original

66