Sermon 2: Concerning the Divinity of Christ

*John 1:14.* The Word was made flesh.

I proceed now to prosecute the third corollary or conclusion which does necessarily follow from the description which Saint John in the beginning of his Gospel gives of the Word, and which I have so largely explained in the foregoing discourse: And it was this,

That the Word, here described by the Evangelist, had an existence before his incarnation and his being born of the B. Virgin.

This assertion, I told you, is levelled directly against the Socinians, who affirm our B. Savior to be a mere man, and deny that he had any existence before he was born of the Virgin Mary his Mother: Which position of theirs does perfectly contradict all the former conclusions which have been so evidently drawn from the description here given of the Word. And not only so, but has forced them to interpret this whole passage in the beginning of Saint John's Gospel in a very different sense from that which was constantly received, not only by the ancient Fathers, but by the general consent of all Christians for 1500 years together: For to establish this their opinion of our Savior's being a mere man and having no existence before his birth, they have found it necessary to expound this whole passage quite to another sense, and such as by their own confession was never mentioned, nor I believe thought of, by any Christian writer whatever before Socinus.

For this reason I shall very particularly consider the interpretation which Socinus gives of this passage of Saint John; and besides the novelty of it, which they themselves acknowledge, I make no doubt very plainly to manifest the great violence and unreasonableness, and likewise the inconsistency of it with other plain texts of the New Testament.

It is very evident what it was that forced Socinus to so strained and violent an interpretation of this passage of the Evangelist, namely, that he plainly saw how much the obvious, and natural, and generally received interpretation of this passage, in all ages of the Christian Church down to his time, stood in the way of his opinion, of Christ's being a mere man, which he was so fond of, and must of necessity have quitted, unless he would either have denied the divine authority of Saint John's Gospel, or else could supplant the common interpretation of this passage by putting a quite different sense upon it. Which sense he could find no way to support without such pitiful and wretched shifts, such precarious and arbitrary suppositions, as a man of so sharp a reason and judgment as Socinus, could not, I thought, have ever been driven to. But necessity has no laws either of reason or modesty, and he who is resolved to maintain an opinion which he has once taken up must stick at nothing, but must break through all difficulties that stand in his way: And so the Socinians have here done, as will, I hope, manifestly appear in the following discourse.

They grant that by the Word is here meant Christ, by whom God spake and declared his mind and will to the World; which they make to be the whole reason of that name or title of the Word which is here given him, and not because by him God made the World. For the Word by which God made the World, they tell us, was nothing but the powerful command of God, and not a person who was designed to be the Messias. And because, as I have showed before, the ancient Jews do make frequent mention of this title of the Word of God by whom they say God made the World, and do likewise apply this title to the Messias; therefore to avoid this, Schlictingius says that the Chaldee Paraphrasts, Jonathan and Onkelos, do sometimes put the Word of God for God, by a metonymy of the effect for the cause; but then he confidently denies that they do any where distinguish the Word of God from the person of God, as they acknowledge that Saint John here does; nor do they, says he, understand by the Word of God the Messias, but on the contrary do oppose the Word of God to the Messias. All which is most evidently confuted by that passage which I cited before out of the Targum of Jonathan, who renders those words concerning the Messias, The Lord said to my Lord, &c. thus, The Lord said to his Word, sit you on my right hand, &c. where you see both that the Word of God is plainly distinguished from God, and that it is the title given to the Messias: Which are the two things which Schlictingius does so confidently deny.

This then being agreed on all hands, that by the Word Saint John means the Messias, I shall in the next place, show by what strained and forced arts of interpretation the Socinians endeavour to avoid the plain and necessary consequence from this passage of Saint John, namely that the Word had an existence before he was made flesh and born of the B. Virgin his Mother.

This then in short is the interpretation which they give of this passage, than which I think nothing can be more unnatural and violent.

In the beginning — This they will by no means have to refer to the creation of the World, but to the beginning of the Gospel, that is, when the Gospel first began to be published then was Christ, and not before. And he was with God, that is says Socinus, Christ as he was the Word of God, that is, the Gospel of Christ which was afterwards by him revealed to the World was first only known to God. But all this being somewhat hard, first to understand by the beginning not the beginning of the World but of the Gospel; and then by the Word which was with God to understand the Gospel which before it was revealed was only known to God; they have upon second thoughts found out another meaning of those words, And the Word was with God, that is says Schlictingius, Christ was taken up by God into Heaven, and there instructed in the mind and will of God, and from there sent down into the World again to declare it to Mankind.

And the Word was God — that is say they, Christ had the honor and title of God conferred upon him, as Magistrates also have, who in the Scripture are called Gods: He was God, not by nature but by office and by divine constitution and appointment.

All things were made by him — This they will needs have to be meant of the renovation and reformation of the World by Jesus Christ, which is several times in Scripture called a new creation.

This in short is the sum of their interpretation of this passage, which I shall now examine, and to which I shall oppose three things as so many invincible prejudices against it.

First, that not only all the ancient Fathers of the Christian Church, but so far as I can find, all interpreters whatever for fifteen hundred years together did understand this passage of Saint John in a quite different sense, namely, of the creation of the material, and not of the renovation of the moral world: and I add further, that the generality of Christians did so understand this passage, as to collect from it as an undoubted point of Christianity, that the Word had a real existence before he was born of the B. Virgin.

And thus not only the orthodox Christians, but even the Arians, and Amelius the Platonist, who was a more indifferent judge than either of them, did understand this passage of Saint John, without any thought of this invention that he spoke not of the old, but of the new creation of the world by Jesus Christ, and the reformation of mankind by the preaching of the Gospel: which I dare say no indifferent reader of Saint John, that had not been prepossess'd and biass'd by some violent prejudice would ever have thought of.

And surely it ought to be very considerable in this case, that the most ancient Christian writers, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and even Origen himself who is called the Father of Interpreters, are most express and positive in this matter. For Ignatius was the scholar of Polycarp, who was a disciple of Saint John; and Justin Martyr lived in the next age to that of the Apostles; and Origen was a man of infinite learning and reading, and in his comments upon Scripture seems to have considered all the interpretations of those that were before him: so that if this, which Socinus is so confident is the true sense of Saint John, had been any where extant, he would not probably have omitted it; no, rather would certainly have mentioned it, if for no other reason, yet for the surprising novelty and strangeness of it, with which he was apt to be over-much delighted.

So that if this interpretation of Socinus be true, here are two things very wonderful, and almost incredible: first, that those who lived so very near Saint John's time, and were most likely to know his meaning, as Ignatius, Justin Martyr, &c. should so widely mistake it; and then, that the whole Christian world should for so many ages together be deceived in the ground and foundation of so important an article of faith, if it were true; or if it were not, should be led into so gross and dangerous an error as this must needs be, if Christ had no real existence before he was born into the world: and which would be necessarily consequent upon this, that no man did understand this passage of Saint John aright before Socinus. This very consideration alone, if there were no other, were sufficient to stagger any prudent man's belief of this interpretation.

And as to the novelty of it, Socinus himself makes no difficulty to own it; yes, he seems rather to rejoice and to applaud himself in it. Unhappy man! that was so wedded to his own opinion that no objection, no difficulty could divorce him from it.

And for this I refer myself to his preface to his explication of this first chapter of Saint John's Gospel; where you shall find these words concerning the passage now in controversy, quorum verus sensus omnium prorsus, qui quidem extarent, explanatores latuisse videtur, the true sense of which words, says he, seems to have been hid from all the expositors that ever were extant: and upon those words, v. 10. He was in the World, and the World was made by him, he has this expression, quid autem hoc loco sibi velit Johannes, à nemine quod sciam adhuc rectè expositum fuit, but what Saint John means in this place was never yet, that I know of, by any man rightly explain'd: and Schlictingius after him, with more confidence but much less decency, tells us, that concerning the meaning of those expressions, in the beginning, and of those which follow concerning the Word, the ancient interpreters did ab Apostoli mente delirare, went so far from the Apostle's meaning as if they had rav'd and been out of their wits: which is so extravagantly said, and with so much contempt of those great and venerable names, who were the chief propagators of Christianity in the world, and to whom all ages do so justly pay a reverence, that nothing can be said in excuse of him but only that it is not usual with him to fall into such rash and rude expressions. But the man was really pinch'd by so plain and pressing a text, and where reason is weak and blunt passion must be whetted, the only weapon that is left when reason fails: and I always take it for granted, that no man is ever angry with his adversary but for want of a better argument to support his cause.

And yet to do right to the writers on that side, I must own that generally they are a pattern of the fair way of disputing, and of debating matters of religion without heat and unseemly reflections upon their adversaries, in the number of whom I did not expect that the primitive Fathers of the Christian Church would have been reckoned by them. They generally argue matters with that temper and gravity, and with that freedom from passion and transport which becomes a serious and weighty argument: and for the most part they reason closely and clearly, with extraordinary guard and caution, with great dexterity and decency, and yet with smartness and subtlety enough; with a very gentle heat, and few hard words: virtues to be praised wherever they are found, yes even in an enemy, and very worthy our imitation: in a word, they are the strongest managers of a weak cause and which is ill founded at the bottom, that perhaps ever yet meddled with controversy: insomuch that some of the Protestants and the generality of the Popish writers, and even of the Jesuits themselves who pretend to all the reason and subtlety in the world, are in comparison of them but mere scolds and bunglers: upon the whole matter, they have but this one great defect that they want a good cause and truth on their side; which if they had, they have reason, and wit, and temper enough to defend it.

But to return to the business. That which I urge them withal, and that from their own confession, is this, that this interpretation of theirs is perfectly new, and unknown to the whole Christian World before Socinus; and for that reason, in my opinion, not to be bragged of: because it is in effect to say that the Christian Religion, in a point pretended on both sides to be of the greatest moment, was never rightly understood by any since the Apostles' days, for fifteen hundred years together. And which makes the matter yet worse, that the Religion which was particularly designed to overthrow Polytheism and the belief of more God, has, according to them, been so ill taught and understood by Christians for so many ages together, and almost from the very beginning of Christianity, as does necessarily infer a plurality of Gods: an inconvenience so great as no cause, how plausible soever it may otherwise appear, is able to stand under and to sustain the weight of it.

For this the Socinians object to us at every turn, as the unavoidable consequence of our interpretation of this passage of Saint John, and of all other texts of Scripture produced by us to the same purpose, notwithstanding that this interpretation has obtained in the Christian Church for so many ages. Now whoever can believe that the Christian Religion has done the work for which it was principally designed so ineffectually, must have very little reverence for it, no it must be a marvellous civility in him if he believe it at all. All that can be said in this case is, that it pleases God many times to permit men to hold very inconsistent things, and which do in truth, though they themselves discern it not, most effectually overthrow one another.

Secondly, another mighty prejudice against this interpretation is this, that according to this rate of liberty in interpreting Scripture, it will signify very little or nothing, when any person or party is concerned to oppose any doctrine contained in it; and the plainest texts for any article of faith, how fundamental and necessary soever, may by the same arts and ways of interpretation be eluded and rendered utterly ineffectual for the establishing of it. For example, if any man had a mind to call in question that article of the Creed concerning the creation of the World, why might he not, according to Socinus his way of interpreting Saint John, understand the first chapter of Genesis concerning the beginning of the Mosaical dispensation, and interpret the creation of the heaven and the earth to be the institution of the Jewish polity and religion, as by the new heavens and the new earth they pretend is to be understood the new state of things under the Gospel? And why may not the chaos signify that state of darkness and ignorance in which the World was before the giving of the Law by Moses? And so on; as a very learned divine of our own has ingeniously shown more at large.

There is no end of wit and fancy, which can turn any thing any way, and can make whatever they please to be the meaning of any book, though never so contrary to the plain design of it, and to that sense which at the first hearing and reading of it is obvious to every man of common sense.

And this, in my opinion, Socinus has done in the case now before us, by imposing a new and odd and violent sense upon this passage of Saint John, directly contrary to what any man would imagine to be the plain and obvious meaning of it, and contrary likewise to the sense of the Christian Church in all ages down to his time; who yet had as great or greater advantage of understanding Saint John aright, and as much integrity as any man can now modestly pretend to. And all this only to serve and support an opinion which he had entertained before, and therefore was resolved one way or other to bring the Scripture to comply with it. And if he could not have done it, it is greatly to be feared that he would at last have called in question the divine authority of Saint John's Gospel rather than have quitted his opinion.

And to speak freely, I must needs say that it seems to me a much fairer way to reject the divine authority of a book, than to use it so disingenuously and to wrest the plain expressions of it with so much straining and violence from their most natural and obvious sense. For no doctrine whatever can have any certain foundation in any book, if this liberty be once admitted, without regard to the plain scope and occasion of it to play upon the words and phrases with all the arts of criticism and with all the variety of allegory which a brisk and lively imagination can devise: which I am so far from admiring in the expounding of the Holy Scriptures, that I am always jealous of an over-labored and far-fetched interpretation of any author whatever.

I do readily grant that the Socinian writers have managed the cause of the Reformation against the innovations and corruptions of the Church of Rome both in doctrine and practice, with great acuteness and advantage in many respects. But I am sorry to have cause to say that they have likewise put into their hands better and sharper weapons than ever they had before for the weakening and undermining of the authority of the Holy Scriptures, which Socinus indeed has in the general strongly asserted, had he not by a dangerous liberty of imposing a foreign and forced sense upon particular texts brought the whole into uncertainty.

Thirdly, which is as considerable a prejudice against this new interpretation of this passage of Saint John as either of the former, I shall endeavour to show that this point, of the existence of the Word before his Incarnation, does not rely only upon this single passage of Saint John, but is likewise confirmed by many other texts of the New Testament conspiring in the same sense and utterly incapable of the interpretation which Socinus gives of it.

I find he would be glad to have it taken for granted that this is the only text in the New Testament to this purpose. And therefore he says very cunningly, that this doctrine of the existence of the Son of God before his Incarnation is too great a doctrine to be established upon one single text. And this is something, if it were true that there is no other text in the New Testament that does plainly deliver the same sense. And yet this were not sufficient to bring in question the doctrine delivered in this passage of Saint John.

That God is a Spirit will I hope be acknowledged to be a very weighty and fundamental point of religion, and yet I am very much mistaken if there be any more than one text in the whole Bible that says so, and that text is only in Saint John's Gospel. I know it may be said, that from the light of natural reason it may be sufficiently proved that God is a Spirit: but surely Socinus of all men, cannot say this with a good grace; because he denies that the existence of a God can be known by natural light without Divine Revelation: and if it cannot be known by natural light that there is a God, much less can it be known by natural light what God is, whether a Spirit or a Body.

And yet after all it is very far from being true that there is but one text to this purpose; which yet he thought fit to insinuate by way of excuse for the novelty and boldness of his interpretation; of which any one that reads him may see that he was sufficiently conscious to himself, and therefore was so wise as to endeavour by this sly insinuation to provide and lay in against it. I have likewise another reason which very much inclines me to believe that Socinus was the first author of this interpretation, because it seems to me next to impossible that a man, of so good an understanding as he was, could ever have been so fond of so ill-favoured a child if it had not been his own. And yet I do not at all wonder that his followers came in to it so readily, since they had him in so great a veneration, it being natural to all sects to admire their master; besides that I doubt not but they were very glad to have so great an authority as they thought him to be, to vouch for an interpretation which was so seasonably devised for the relief of their cause in so much danger to be overthrown by a text that was so plain and full against them.

And how little ground there is for this insinuation, that this is the only text in the New Testament to this purpose, I shall now show from a multitude of other texts to the same sense and purpose with this passage of Saint John. And I shall rank them under two heads.

First, those which expressly assert the Son of God to have been, and to have been in Heaven with God, and partaker with him in his glory, before his Incarnation and appearance in the world.

Secondly, those which affirm that the world and all creatures whatever were made by him.

1. Those texts which expressly assert the Son of God to have been, and to have been in Heaven with God, and partaker with him in his glory, before his Incarnation and appearance in the world.

No man has ascended into Heaven, but he that came down from Heaven, the Son of man who is in Heaven: where the Son is said to have come down from Heaven, in respect of the union of his Divinity with human nature and his special residence in it here below: and yet he is said to have come down from Heaven as still to be in Heaven: He that came down from Heaven, the Son of man who is in Heaven, that is, in respect of his Divinity by which he is every-where present: and he that came down from Heaven is here called the Son of man, by the same figure that his blood is elsewhere called the blood of God, the Apostle ascribing that to one nature which is proper to the other: this we take to be the most natural and easy sense of this text, and most agreeable to the tenor of the New Testament.

Again; What and if you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? So that if he really ascended up into Heaven after his Resurrection, he was really there before his Incarnation.

Before Abraham was, says our blessed Savior, I am; the obvious sense of which words is, that he had a real existence before Abraham was actually in being.

Again it is said, that Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he was come from God, and went to God, &c.

And again; For the Father himself loves you, because you loved me, and have believed that I came out from God. I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world; again, I leave the world, and go to the Father: this was so very plain, that his disciples who were slow enough of apprehension in other things, did understand this so well that upon this declaration of his they were convinced of his omniscience, which is an incommunicable property of the Divinity: for so it immediately follows, His disciples said to him, Lord, now speak you plainly and speak no parable: now are we sure that you know all things, and need not that any man should ask you: by this we believe that you came forth from God. So that either this which I have all along declared must be the meaning of our Savior's words, or else his disciples were grossly mistaken and did not understand him at all: and if so, then surely our Savior before he had proceeded any further would have corrected their mistake and have set them right in this matter: but so far is he from doing that, that he allows them to have understood him aright: for thus it follows, Jesus answered them, Do you now believe? As if he had said, I am glad that you are at last convinced and do believe that I came from God, and must return to him; and that I know all things, which none but God can do. Is it now possible for any man to read this passage and yet not to be convinced that the disciples understood our Savior to speak literally? But if his meaning was as the Socinians would make us believe, then the disciples did perfectly mistake his words; the contrary whereof is I think very plain and evident beyond all contradiction.

Again, And now, O Father, glorify me with your own self, with the glory which I had with you, before the world was: this surely is not spoken of his being with God after his Incarnation, and before his entrance upon his public ministry: they have not I think the face to understand this expression, before the world was, of the new creation, but do endeavour to avoid it another way, which I shall consider by and by.

And a little after, I have given them the words which you gave me, and they have received them, and known assuredly that I came from you, and that you did send me.

Again, That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon and our hands have handled of the Word of life: For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness and show to you that eternal life, for so he calls the Son of God, which was with the Father, and was manifested to us.

And that he was not only with God before he assumed human nature, but also was really God, Saint Paul tells us: Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus, who being in the form of God [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], did not arrogate to himself to be equal with God, that is, he made no ostentation of his divinity: For this I take to be the true meaning of that phrase, both because it is so used by Plutarch, and because it makes the sense much more easy and current, thus, who being in the form of God, did not assume an equality with God, that is, he did not appear in the glory of his divinity, which was hid under a veil of human flesh and infirmity; But he emptied himself, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men, and being found in fashion as a man, or in the habit of a man, he became obedient to the death, &c. So that if his being made in the likeness and fashion of a man does signify that he was really Man by his Incarnation, then surely his being in the form of God when he took upon him the fashion and likeness of man and the form of a servant or slave, must in all reason signify that he was really God before he became Man: For which reason the same Apostle did not doubt to say, that God was manifested in the flesh.

And now I hope that I have made it fully appear that the beginning of Saint John's Gospel is not the single and only text upon which we ground this great doctrine as Socinus calls it, and as we really esteem it to be: For you see that I have produced a great many more; to avoid the force and dint whereof the Socinians do chiefly make use of these two answers.

First, to those texts which say that he was in Heaven and came down from Heaven, they give this answer; that our Savior some time before his entrance upon his public ministry, they cannot agree precisely when, was taken up into Heaven, and then and there had the will of God revealed to him, and was sent down from Heaven again to make it known to the world.

This is so very arbitrary and precarious a supposition that I must confess myself not a little out of countenance for them, that men of so much wit and reason should ever be put to so sorry and pitiful a shift. For can any man imagine that in so exact a history of our Savior's life, written by several persons, the relation of so important a matter as this, and of the circumstances of it, should be wholly omitted? That we should have a particular account of his being carried into Egypt in his infancy, and of the time when he was brought back from there: of his disputing in the Temple with the Jewish doctors, and putting them to silence, when he was but twelve years of age: a punctual relation of his being baptized by John; and how after that he was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the Devil, and was carried by that evil spirit from one place to another: but not one word of his being taken up by God into Heaven, and of his coming down again from there; not the least intimation given either of the time or any other circumstance of so memorable a thing, upon which, according to the Socinians, the authority of his mission and the divinity of his doctrine did so much depend. When so many things of so much less moment are so minutely and exactly reported, what can be the reason of this deep silence in all the Evangelists concerning this matter? But above all, it is to be wondered that Saint John, who wrote his Gospel last, and as Eusebius tells us on purpose to supply the omissions of the other Evangelists, should give no account of this thing, and yet, as the Socinians suppose, should so often take it for granted and refer to it; as when it is said that he came forth from God, and was sent from God, and came down from Heaven, besides several other expressions to this purpose.

Who can believe this? And can it then be reasonable to suppose such a thing? And this without any ground from the history of the Gospel, only to serve a hypothesis which they had taken up, and which they cannot maintain, unless they may have leave to make a supposition for which they have nothing in truth to say, but only that it is necessary to defend an opinion which they are resolved not to part with upon any terms.

This is so inartificial, not to say absurd a way of avoiding a difficulty, to take for granted whatever is necessary to that purpose, that no man of common ingenuity would make use of it: and there is no surer sign that a cause is greatly distressed than to be driven to such a shift. For do but give a man leave to suppose what he pleases and he may prove what he will, and avoid any difficulty whatever that can be objected to him.

Besides, that according to this device the Son of God did not first come from Heaven into the world, as the Scripture seems every where to say, but first was in the world, and then went to Heaven, and from there came back into the world again: and he was not in the beginning with God, but was first in the world and afterwards with God; whereas Saint John says that the Word was in the beginning, and then was made flesh and dwelt among us: but they say, that he first was made flesh, and then a great while after was in the beginning with God: a supposition which is quite contrary to all the texts which I have mentioned.

Nor do the several parts of this interpretation of theirs agree very well together. In the beginning, that is, say they, when the Gospel first began to be publish'd, was the Word; and then, that is, in the beginning, he was with God, that is in Heaven to receive from God that Doctrine which he was to deliver to the World: But if by the beginning be meant the first publication of the Gospel, he was not then with God, but had been with him and was come back from him before he entered upon his public Ministry, which they make to be the meaning of the beginning. And in the beginning he was God, that is say they, not God by Nature but by Office and Divine constitution: And yet in this again they fall foul upon themselves, for they say he was not declared to be God till after his Resurrection and his being advanced to the right hand of God. So that he was not God in their sense of the beginning, that is when he entered upon his public Ministry and began to preach the Gospel.

Secondly, as to some other Texts which speak of his existence before his Incarnation, as that he was glorified with his Father before the World was, and before Abraham was, I am: these they interpret thus, that he was glorified with his Father before the World was, and that he was before Abraham was, namely, in the Divine foreknowledge and Decree. But then surely they do not consider that this is nothing but what might have been said of any other man and even of Abraham himself, that before he was, that is, before he had a real and actual existence he was in the purpose and Decree of God, that is, before he was, God did intend he should be: which is a sense so very flat, that I can hardly abstain from saying it is ridiculous. For certainly our Savior did intend by saying this of himself to give himself some preference and advantage above Abraham, which this sense and interpretation does not in the least do: because of any other man, as well as of our B. Savior, it may as truly be said that he was in the foreknowledge and Decree of God before Abraham was born.

And I cannot but observe further, that our Savior does not say before Abraham was, I was; but before Abraham was, I AM: which is the proper Name of God, whereby is signified the eternal duration and permanency of his Being. In which sense he is said by the Apostle to the Hebrews to be the same yesterday, to day, and for ever; and so likewise he describes himself in Saint John's Vision, I am [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩] and [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩], the beginning and the ending, says the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. And that this is spoken of the Son you may see in the same Chapter, where he says of himself, I am the first and the last: and so likewise he describes himself again, I am [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩] and [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩], the beginning and the end, the first and the last. And that we may not doubt who it is that thus describes his own Eternity, he continuing still to speak in the same Person says, I Jesus have sent mine Angel, &c. After this I shall only observe that all these expressions are the common description which the Scripture gives of the Eternity of God, whose Being is commensurate to all the several respects of Duration, past, present, and to come: besides that the Attribute of Almighty is also a part of this description, which is so peculiar a property of God, I mean of Him who is God by Nature, that the Scripture never gives it to any other.

2. I shall in the next place produce those Texts which do expressly affirm that the World and all Creatures whatever were made by him: and this will not only infer his existence before his Incarnation, but from all Eternity.

And for this, besides this Passage of Saint John, we have the Apostle to the Hebrews most express, who says that by him God made the Worlds: and Saint Paul likewise says the same more fully and particularly, calling Jesus Christ, who was the Son of God, the first born of every Creature, that is, as I have shown in my former Discourse, the Heir and Lord of the whole Creation. For by him, says he, were all things created, that are in Heaven and that are in Earth, visible and invisible; whether they be Thrones or Dominions, Principalities or Powers, for so he calls the several Orders of Angels: all things were created by him and for him, and he is before all things. Or, as he is described in Saint John's Vision, he is the beginning of the Creation of God, that is, the Principle and Efficient Cause of the Creation; or else, he was when all things began to be made, and therefore must be before any thing was created, and for that reason could not be a Creature himself; and consequently, must of necessity have been from all Eternity.

Now these Texts must necessarily be understood of the old Creation and of the natural World, and not of the moral World, and the Renovation and Reformation of the minds and manners of men by the Gospel: for that was only the World here below which was reformed by him, and not things in Heaven; not the invisible World, not the several Orders of good Angels, which kept their first station and have no need to be reformed and made anew. Nor the Devil and his evil Angels; for though since the preaching of the Gospel they have been under greater restraint and kept more within bounds, yet we have no reason to think that they are at all reformed, but are Devils still, and have the same malice and mind to do all the mischief to Mankind that God will suffer them to do.

So that these Texts seem at first view to be very plain and pressing of themselves, but they appear to be much more convincing when we consider the groundless interpretations whereby they endeavour to evade the dint and force of them. For can any man that seriously attends to the perpetual style and phrase of the New Testament, and to the plain scope and drift of the Apostle's reasoning in these Texts, be induced to believe that when Saint Paul tells us that all things were created by him, that are in Heaven and that are in Earth, visible and invisible; whether they be Thrones, or Dominions, or Principalities, or Powers: I say, can any man of good sense persuade himself that by all this the Apostle means no more than the moral Renovation of the World here below, and the Reformation of Mankind by Jesus Christ, and his Gospel which was preached to them?

But there is yet one text more to this purpose, which I have reserv'd to the last place; because I find Schlictingius and Crellius, in their joint comment upon it, to be put to their last shifts to avoid the force of it. It is in the Epistle to the Hebrews, at the beginning of it: Where the Apostle thus describes the Son of God; God, says he, has in these last days spoken to us by his Son, whom he has constituted heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds: From where he argues the excellency of the Gospel above the law: For the law was given by angels, but the Gospel by the Son of God; whose preheminence above the angels he shows at large in the two first chapters of this Epistle.

And to this end he proves the two parts of the description which had been given of him, namely, that God had constituted him heir of all things, and that by him he made the worlds.

First, that God had constituted him heir of all things, which is nowhere said of the angels: But of him it is said that was made so much better than the angels, as he has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they: The angels are only called God's ministers, for which the Apostle cites the words of the Psalmist; but to Christ he gives the title of his Son, and his first begotten, by virtue whereof he is heir of all things: For to which of the angels said he at any time, you are my Son, this day have I begotten you? And this I will agree with them to be spoken of Christ with respect to his Resurrection, by which, as Saint Paul tells us, he was powerfully declared to be the Son of God. This is the first prerogative of Christ above the angels: But there is a far greater yet behind; for he proves,

Secondly, that he had not only the title of God given him; but that he was truly and really God, because he made the world. That the title of God was given him he proves by a citation out of the Psalmist, But to the Son he says, Your Throne, O God, is for ever and ever, &c. And that he was truly and really God because he made the world, he proves by a citation out of another Psalm, where it is said of him, You, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundations of the Earth, and the Heavens are the works of they hands: They shall perish, &c.

Let us now see how Schlictingius and Crellius interpret this text cited out of the Psalmist by the Apostle as spoken of Christ. They say, that the author of this Epistle could not have referr'd to Christ the former words of this citation, which speak of the creation of heaven and earth, unless he had taken it for granted that Christ is the most high God; especially if they be understood, as they must necessarily be by those who take this for granted, to be spoken in the first place and directly to, or concerning, Christ. For since all the words of the Psalm are manifestly spoken of the most high God, but that Christ is that God is not signified no not so much as by one word in that Psalm, it is necessary that if you will have these words to be directed to Christ, you must take it for granted that Christ is that most high God of whom the Psalmist there speaks.

Now we will join issue with these interpreters upon this concession, namely, that the author of this Epistle could not have referr'd these words, which speak of the creation of heaven and earth, to Christ, without taking it for granted that Christ is truly that God who made the world. And if the author of this Epistle does affirm these words of the Psalmist to be spoken of Christ, then they must acknowledge Christ to be the true God who made heaven and earth. But the author of this Epistle does as evidently affirm these words to be spoken to or of Christ, as he does the words of any other text cited in this chapter: And for this I appeal to the common sense of every man that reads them.

These interpreters indeed are contented that the latter part of this citation should be spoken of Christ, but not the former: But why not the former as well as the latter? When they have so expresly told us that all the words of this Psalm are manifestly spoken of God. What is the mystery of this? Could they not as easily have interpreted the former part which speaks of the creation of heaven and earth, concerning the moral world, and the new creation or reformation of mankind by Jesus Christ and his Gospel, as well as so many other plain texts to the same purpose? No doubt they could as well have done it, and have set as good a face upon it when they had done it. But why then did they not do it? It was for a reason which they had no mind to tell, but yet is not hard to be guessed at, namely, that if they had admitted the former words to have been spoken of Christ they knew not what to do with the latter part of this citation, They shall perish, but you remainest; they shall wax old as a garment, and as a vesture shall you fold them up, and they shall be changed. What shall perish, and wax old, and be changed? Why, the earth and the heavens which the Son had made, that is, the moral world, the reformation of mankind, and the new creation of things by the Gospel: All these must have undergone the same fate with the natural world, and must not only have been defaced, but utterly destroy'd and brought to nothing. This they would not say, but they did see it, though they would not seem to see it: And we may plainly see by this, that they can interpret a text right when necessity forceth them to it, and they cannot without great inconvenience to their cause avoid it. But when men have once resolv'd to hold fast an opinion they have taken up, it then becomes not only convenient but necessary to understand nothing that makes against it: And this is truly the present case. But in the mean time where is ingenuity and love of truth?

And thus I have, with all the clearness and brevity I could, searched to the very foundations of this new interpretation of this passage of the Evangelist, upon which the divinity of the Son of God is so firmly established; and likewise of the gross misinterpretations of several other texts to the same purpose in this Evangelist, and in other books of the New Testament: all which interpretations I have endeavoured to show to be not only contrary to the sense of all antiquity, of which as Socinus had but little knowledge, so he seems to have made but little account; but to be also evidently contrary to the perpetual tenor and style of the Holy Scripture.

Before I go off from this argument, I cannot but take notice of one thing wherein our adversaries in this cause do perpetually glory as a mighty advantage which they think they have over us in this point of the divinity of the Son of God, and consequently in that other point of the Blessed Trinity: namely, that they have reason clearly on their side in this controversy, and that the difficulties and absurdities are much greater and plainer on our part than on theirs.

Here they are pleased to triumph without modesty, and without measure. And yet notwithstanding this, I am not afraid here likewise to join issue with them, and am contented to have this matter brought to a fair trial at the bar of reason, as well as of Scripture expounded by the general tradition of the Christian Church: I say by general tradition, which next to Scripture is the best and surest confirmation of this great point now in question between us, and that which gives us the greatest and truest light for the right understanding of the true sense and meaning of Scripture not only in this, but in most other important doctrines of the Christian religion.

I am not without some good hopes, I will not say confidence, for I never thought that to be so great an advantage to any cause as some men would be glad to make others believe it is, hoping to help and support a weak argument by a strong and mighty confidence: but surely modesty never hurt any cause, and the confidence of man seems to me to be much like the wrath of man, which Saint James tells us works not the righteousness of God, that is, it never does any good, it never serves any wise and real purpose of religion.

I say, I am not without some good hopes, that I have in the foregoing discourses clearly shown that the tenor of Scripture and general tradition are on our side in this argument, and therefore I shall not need to give myself the trouble to examine this matter over again.

Now as to the point of reason, the great difficulty and absurdity, which they object to our doctrine concerning this mystery, amounts to thus much, that it is not only above reason, but plainly contrary to it.

As to its being above reason, which they are loath to admit any thing to be; this I think will bear no great dispute: because if they would be pleased to speak out, they can mean no more by this, but that our reason is not able fully to comprehend it. But what then? Are there no mysteries in religion? That I am sure they will not say, because God whose infinite nature and perfections are the very foundation of all religion is certainly the greatest mystery of all other, and the most incomprehensible: but we must not, no, they will not for this reason deny, that there is such a being as God. And therefore if there be mysteries in religion, it is no reasonable objection against them that we cannot fully comprehend them: because all mysteries in what kind soever, whether in religion or in nature, so long, and so far as they are mysteries, are for that very reason incomprehensible.

But they urge the matter much further, that this particular mystery now under debate is plainly contrary to reason: and if they can make this good, I will confess that they have gained a great point upon us. But then they are to be put in mind, that to make this good against us they must clearly show some plain contradiction in this doctrine, which I could never yet see done by any. Great difficulty I acknowledge there is in the explication of it, in which the further we go, beyond what God has thought fit to reveal to us in Scripture concerning it, the more we are entangled, and that which men are pleased to call an explaining of it, does in my apprehension often make it more obscure, that is, less plain than it was before; which does not so very well agree with a pretence of explication.

Here then I fix my foot: that there are three differences in the Deity, which the Scripture speaks of by the names of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and every where speaks of them as we use to do of three distinct persons: and therefore I see no reason why in this argument we should nicely abstain from using the word Person; though I remember that Saint Jerome does somewhere desire to be excused from it.

Now concerning these three I might in the first place urge that plain and express text, There are three that bear record in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one: but upon this I will not now insist, because it is pretended that in some copies of greatest antiquity this verse is omitted; the contrary whereof is I think capable of being made out very clearly: but this matter would be too long to be debated at present.

However that be, thus much is certain and cannot be denied, that our Savior commanded his Apostles to baptize all nations in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost: and that the Apostles in their Epistles do in their most usual form of benediction join these three together: and it is yet further certain, that not only the name and title of God, but the most incommunicable properties and perfections of the Deity, are in Scripture frequently ascribed to the Son and the Holy Ghost; one property only excepted, which is peculiar to the Father as he is the principle and fountain of the Deity, that he is of himself and of no other; which is not, nor can be said of the Son and Holy Ghost.

Now let any man shew any plain and downright contradiction in all this; or any other difficulty besides this, that the particular manner of the existence of these three differences or persons in the divine nature, expressed in Scripture by the names of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is incomprehensible by our finite understandings, and inexplicable by us: in which I do not see what absurdity there is, since our adversaries cannot deny that many things certainly are, the particular manner of whose existence we can neither comprehend, nor explain.

Let us now see, whether the opinion of our adversaries has not greater difficulties in it, and more palpable absurdities following from it. They say, that the Son of God is a mere creature; not God by nature, and yet truly and really God by office and by divine appointment and constitution; to whom the very same honor and worship is to be given which we give to him who is God by nature.

And can they discern no difficulty, no absurdity in this? What? no absurdity in bringing idolatry by a backdoor into the Christian religion, one main design whereof was to banish idolatry out of the world? And will they in good earnest contest this matter with us, that the giving divine worship to a mere creature is not idolatry? And can they vindicate themselves in this point any other way, than what will in a great measure acquit both the Pagans and the Papists from the charge of idolatry?

What? no absurdity in a God as it were but of yesterday? In a creature God, in a God merely by positive institution; and this in opposition to a plain moral precept of eternal obligation, and to the fixed and immutable nature and reason of things?

So that to avoid the shadow and appearance of a plurality of deities they run really into it, and for any thing I can see into downright idolatry, by worshipping a creature besides the Creator, who is blessed for ever.

They can by no means allow two Gods by nature; no more can we: but they can willingly admit of two Gods; the one by nature, and the other by office, to whom they are content to pay the same honor which is due to him who is God by nature. Provided Christ will be contented to be but a creature, they will deal more liberally with him in another way than in reason is fit.

And do they see no absurdity in all this? Nothing that is contrary to reason and good sense? Nothing that feels like inconsistency and contradiction? Do they consider how often God has declared that he will not give his glory to another? And that the Apostle describes idolatry to be, the giving service, or worship, to things which by nature are no Gods?

Surely if reason guided by divine revelation were to choose a God, it would make choice of one who is declared in Scripture to be the only begotten of the Father, the first and the last, the beginning and the end, the same yesterday, today, and for ever: much rather than a mere creature, who did not begin to be till about seventeen hundred years ago.

I only propose these things, without any artificial aggravation, to their most serious and impartial consideration; after which I cannot think that these great masters of reason can think it so easy a matter to extricate themselves out of these difficulties. The God of Truth lead us into all truth, and enlighten the minds of those who are in error, and give them repentance to the acknowledgment of the truth: for his sake who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

And thus much may suffice to have said upon this argument, which I am sensible is mere controversy: a thing which I seldom meddle with, and do not delight to dwell upon. But my text which is so very proper for this season has almost necessarily engaged me in it: besides, that I think it a point of that concernment, that all Christians ought to be well instructed in it. And I have chosen rather once for all to handle it fully and to go to the bottom of it, than in every sermon to be flurting at it, without saying any thing to the purpose against it: a way which in my opinion is neither proper to establish men in the truth nor to convince them of their error.

I shall only at present make this short reflection upon the whole: that we ought to treat the Holy Scriptures as the oracles of God, with all reverence and submission of mind to the doctrine therein revealed: and to interpret them with that candor and simplicity which is due to the sincere declarations of God intended for the instruction and not for the deception and delusion of men. I say, we should treat them as the oracles of God, and not like the doubtful oracles of the heathen deities, that is, in truth of the Devil; which were contrived and calculated on purpose to deceive, containing and for the most part intending a sense directly contrary to the appearing and most obvious meaning of the words: for the Devil was the first author of equivocation; though the Jesuits have since made it a lawful way of lying, which their father of whom they learned it had not credit and authority enough to do.

And it deserves likewise to be very well considered by us, that nothing has given a greater force to the exceptions of the Church of Rome against the Holy Scripture's being a sufficient and certain rule of faith, than the uncertainty into which they have brought the plainest texts imaginable for the establishing of doctrines of greatest moment in the Christian religion, by their remote and wrested interpretation of them: which way of dealing with them seems to be really more contumelious to those Holy Oracles, than the downright rejecting of their authority: because this is a fair and open way of attacking them, whereas the other is an insidious, and therefore more dangerous way of undermining them.

But as for us who do in good earnest believe the divine authority of the Holy Scriptures, let us take all our doctrines and opinions from those clear fountains of truth, not disturbed and darkened by searching anxiously into all the possible senses that the several words and expressions of Scripture can bear, and by forcing that sense upon them which is most remote and unnatural, and in the mean time wilfully overlooking and passing by that sense which is most obvious and easy to the common apprehension of any unbiased and impartial reader. This is to use the Holy Scriptures as the Church of Rome have done many holy and good men whom they are pleased to brand with the odious name of heretics, to torture them till they speak the mind of their tormentors though never so contrary to their own.

I will now conclude this whole Discourse with a Saying which I heard from a great and judicious Man, Non amo nimis argutam Theologiam, I love no Doctrines in Divinity which stand so very much upon quirk and subtilty. And I cannot upon this occasion forbear to say, that those Doctrines of Religion and those Interpretations of Scripture have ever been to me the most suspected, which need abundance of Wit and a great many Criticisms to make them out. And considering the Wisdom and Goodness of Almighty God, I cannot possibly believe but that all things necessary to be believed and practiced by Christians in order to their eternal Salvation are plainly contained in the H. Scriptures. God surely has not dealt so hardly with Mankind as to make any thing necessary to be believed or practiced by us which he has not made sufficiently plain to the capacity of the unlearned as well as of the learned. God forbid that it should be impossible for any man to be saved and to get to Heaven without a great deal of learning to direct and carry him there, when the far greatest part of Mankind have no learning at all. It was well said by Erasmus, That it was never well with the Christian World since it began to be a matter of so much Subtilty and Wit for a man to be a true Christian.