The Mystery of the Gospel Vindicated and Socinianism Examined, Commentary on text · Chapter 8

The Mystery of the Gospel Vindicated and Socinianism Examined · Commentary on text · Chapter 8

p. 192CHAP. VIII.

An entrance into the examination of the R…covian Catechisme, in the businesse of the Deity of Christ: their Arguments against it Answered: and testimonys of the Eternity of Christ vindicated.

ALthough the Testimonies & Arguments for the Deity of §. 1.Christ might be urged, and handled to a better advantage, if liberty might be used to insist upon them, in the method that seemes most naturall for the clearing and confirmation of this important Truth, yet that I may do two workes at once, I shall insist chiefely, if not only, on those texts of Scripture, which are proposed to be handled, and answered by the Author, or Authors of the Racovian Catechisme, which worke takes up neare one fourth part of their Book, and (and as it is well known) there is no part of it, wherein so much dilligence, paines, sophistry, and cunning are imployed, as in that Chapter of the Person of Christ, which by Gods assistance we are entring upon the consideration of.

Those who have considered their writings know, that the very §. 2.substance of al they have to say, for the evading of the force of our Testimonys, for the Eternall Deity of Christ, is comprized in that Chapter, there being not any thing materiall, that any of them have elswhere written, there omitted. And those who are acquainted with them, their Persons, and Abili…ys, doe also know, that their great strength and ability for disputation, lys in giving plausible Answers, and making exceptions against Testimonys, caveling at every word and letter, being in proofe and Argument for the most part weake and contemptible. And therefore in this long Chapter of neare an 100^d pages, all that themselves propose by way of Argument, against the Deity of Christ, is contained in two or three at the most; the residue being wholy taken up with exceptions to so many of the Texts of Scripture, wherein the Deity of Christ is asserted, as they have been pleased to take notice of. A course which themselves p. 193are forced to **Interpres Lect. Prefat. ad Catech. Raco.Apollogize for, as unbecoming Catechists.

I shall then, the Lord assisting, consider that whole Chapter of theirs, in both parts of it; as to what they have to say for themselves, or to plead against the Deity of Christ; as also what they bring forth for their defence against the evidence of §. 3.the light that shineth from the Texts, whose consideration they propose to themselves, to which many of like sort may be added.

I shall only informe the Reader, that this is a businesse quite §. 4.beyond my first intention in this Treatise, to whose undertaking I have been prevailed on, by the desires and intreaties of some, who knew that I had this other worke imposed on me.

Their first Question and Answer are,§. 5.

aaRogatum te velim, ut …i…i ea de Jesu Christo exponas, quae me scire oporteat?Declare now to me, what I ought to know concerning Jesus Christ?

A. Thou must know, that of the things which thou Sciondum tibi est, quaedam ad essentiam Jesu Christi, quaedam ad illius munus referri, quae te scire oportet.oughtest to know, some belong to the Essence of Christ, and some to his office.

Q. 2. What are they which relate to his Person?Quaenam ea sunt, quae ad personam ipsius referuntur…

A. That only, that by nature he is a true man, even as the Scriptures doe often witnesse: amongst others, Id selum, quod natura sit hom… verus, quemadmodum ea de re crebro Scripturae sacrae testantur: inter alias 1 Tim. 2. 5. & 1 Cor. 15. 21 qualemolim Deus per Prophetas promiserat, & qualem etiam esse testatur fidei Symbolum, quod vulgo Apostolicum vocant, quod nobiscum universi Christiani amplectuntur.1 Tim 2:51 Cor 15:211 Tim. 2. 5. 1 Cor. 15. 21. Such an one as God of old promised by the Prophets, and such as the …reed, commonly called the Apostles, witnesseth him to be, which with us all Christians imbrace.

Ans. That Jesus Christ was a true man, in his nature like §. 6.unto us, sinne only excepted, we believe: and doe abhorre the abominations of Paracelsus, Wig…lius, &c. and the Pamelists amongst our selves, who destroy the verity of his humane Nature. But that the Socinians believe the same, that he is a man in Heaven, whatever he was upon the Earth, I presume the Reader will judge, that it may be justly questioned, from what I have to offer (and shall doe it in its place) on that account. But that this is all that we ought to know concerning the Person of Christ, is a thing of whose …olly and vanity our p. 194Catechists will be one day convinced. The present tryall of it between us depends in part, on the consideration of the Scriptures, which shall afterward be produced to evince the contrary: our plea from whence shall not here be Anticipated. The places of Scripture they mention prove him to be a true man: that as man he dyed and rose: but that he who was man, was not also in one person God, (The name of man there expressing the person, not the nature of man only,) they prove not. The Prophets foretold that Christ should be such a man, as should also be the Sonne of God, begotten of him Psal. 2. 7. the mighty God, Isa. 9. 6, 7. Jehovah Jerem. 23. 6. The Lord of Hosts, Zech. 2 8, 9. And the Apostles Creed also (as it is unjustly called) confesseth him to be the only Son of God, our Lord, and requires us to believe in him, as we doe in God the Father; which if he were not God, were an accursed thing, Jerem. 17. 5.§. 7.

Q. 3. Is therefore the Lord Jesus a pure (or meere) man?Ergo Dominus Iesus est purus homo?

A. By no meanes! for he was conceived Nullo pacto: etenim est conceptus e Spiritu Sancto, natus ex Maria Virgine, co…; ab ipsa conceptione & ortu Filius Dei est, ut ea de re Luk. 1. 35. legimus ubi Angelus Ma…iam ita alloquitur: Spiritus Sanctus superveniet in te, &c. Ʋt alias causas non afferam, quas post modum in Iesu Christi persona deprehendes, quae evidentissime ostendunt, dominum Iesum pro puro homine nullo modo accipi posse.Luke 1:35of the Holy Ghost, borne of the Virgin Mary, and therefore from his very conception and birth was the Son of God: as we read Luk. 1. 35. that I may not bring other causes, which thou wilt afterward find in the person of Christ, which most evidently declare, that the Lord Jesus can by no meanes be esteemed a pure (or meer) man.

1. Ans. But 1. I have abundantly demonstrated, that Christ neither was, nor was called the Son of God, upon the account here mentioned, nor any other intimated in the close of the Answer whatever; but meerely and solely, on that of his Eternall Generation of the Essence of his Father.

2. The inquiry is after the Essence of Christ, which receives not any Alteration by any kind of eminency, or dignity that belongs to his Person. If Christ be by Essence only man, let him have what Dignity or Honour he can have possibly conferred, upon him, let him be borne by what meanes soever, as to his Essence and nature, he is a man still; but a man, and not more then a man; that is, purus hom…, A meere man, and not foreign p. 195God by nature; but such a God as the Gentiles worshipped Gal: 4. 8. His being made God, and the Son of God, afterward, which our Catechists pretend, relating to Office and Dignity, not to his Nature; exempts him not at all from being a meere man. This then is but a flourish to delude poor simple soules, into a beliefe of their honourable thoughts of Christ, whom yet they think no otherwise of, then the Turkes do of Mahomet; nor believe he was otherwise indeed, or is to Christians, then as Moses to the Jewes. That which Paul speaks of the Idolls of the heathen, that they were not Gods by nature, may according to the apprehension of these Catechists be spoken of Christ; notwithstanding any Exaltation or Deification that he hath received; He is by nature no God. Yea the apprehensions of these Gentlemen concerning Christ, and his Diety, are the same upon the matter with those of the Heathen, concerning their Worthies and Heroes, who by an foreign were translated into the number of their Gods; as Jupiter, Hercules, and others. They called them Gods indeed; but put them close to it, they acknowledged that properly there was but one God, but that these men were honoured, as being upon their great Worth, and Noble Atchievements, taken up to blessednesse and power. Such an Hero, an Hermes, or Mercury, do they make of Jesus Christ; who for his faithfull declaring the will of God, was Deifyed; But, in respect of Essence and nature, which here is inquired after, if he be any thing according to their principles, (of making which supposall I shall give the Reader a faire account) he was, he is, and will be a meer man to all Eternity, and no more. They allow him no more, as to his Essence, then that, wherein he was like us in all things, sin only excepted. Heb. 2.§. 8.

Q. ccDixeras paulo superius Dominum Jesum natura esse hominem, an idem habet naturam divinam?You said a little above, that the Lord Jesus is by nature man, hath he also a divine nature?

A. No: for that is not only repugnant to sound reason, Nequaquam: nam id non solum rationi sanae, verum etiā Divinis literis repugnat.but also to the Scriptures.

But this is that which is now to be put to the triall; whether the Asserting of the Diety of Christ be repugnant to the Scriptures or no? and as we shall see in, the issue, that as these Catechists have not been able to answer, or evade the evidence of any one p. 196Testimony of Scripture, of more then an hundred, that are produced for the confirmation of the Truth of his Eternall Deity, so notwithstanding the pretended flourish here at the entrance, that they are not able to produce any one place of Scripture, so much as in appearance, rising up against it. For that Right Reason, which in this matter of meer divine Revelation they boast of, and give it the preheminence in their disputes against the Person of Christ, above the Scripture, unlesse they discover the consonancy of it to the Word, to the Law, and Testimonies, what ever they propose on that account, may be rejected with as much facility, as it is proposed. But yet! if by Right Reason, they understand Reason, so farre captivated to the obedience of Faith, as to acquiesse in what ever God hath revealed, and to receive it as Truth, then which duty, there is not any more eminent dictate of Right Reason indeed: We for ever deny the first part of this Assertion, and shall now attend to the proofe of it; nor do we here plead, that Reason is blind and corrupted, and that the naturall man cannot disceone the things of God, and so require that men do prove themselves regenerate, before we admit them to judge of the Truth of the propositions under debate, which though necessary for them, who would know the Gospell for their own good, so as to be wise unto salvation, yet it being the Grammaticall and literall sence of Propositions, as laid downe in the Word of the Scripture, that we are to judge of in this case, we require no more of men to the purpose in hand, but an assent to this Proposition (which if they will not give, we can by undeniable demonstration compell them to) what ever God, who is Prima veritas, hath revealed, is true, whether we can comprehend the things revealed or no: which being granted, we proceed with our Catechists in their Attempt.§. 9.

Q. 1. ddCedo quî rationi sanae repugnat? Primo, ad eum modum, quod duae substantiae, proprietatibus adversae, coire in unam personam nequeant, ut sunt, mortalem & immortalem esse, principium habere, & principio carere: mutabilem & immutabilem existere.Declare how it is contrary to Right Reason.

A. First in this regard, that two substances having contrary properties cannot meet in one person; such as are, to be mortall and immortall, to have a beginning, and to want a beginning, to be changeable and unchangeable.

p. 1972. Because two natures, each of them constituting Deinde, quod duae natu…a… personam singulae constituentes, in unam personam convenire itidem nequeant; nam loco unius duas personas esse oporteret, at{que} ita duos Christos existere, quem unum esse, & unam ipsius personā omnes citra omnem controversiam agnoscunt.a Person, cannot likewise agree, or meet in one Person: for insteed of one, there must (then) be two Persons, and so also two Christs would exist: whom all without controversy acknowledge to be one, and his person one.

And this is all which these Gentlemen offer to make good their Assertion, that the Diety of Christ is repugnant to Right Reason; which therefore upon what small pretence they have done, will quickly appeare.

1. It is true, that there cannot be such a personall uniting of two substances with such diverse Properties, so as by that Union to make an Exequation, or an equalling of those diverse properties; but that there may not be such a concurrence, and meeting of such different substances in one Person, both of them preserving entire to themselves their essentiall Properties, which are so diverse, there is nothing pleaded nor pretended. And to suppose that there cannot be such an union, is to begge the thing in Question, against evidence of many expresse Testimonies of Scripture, without tendering the least inducement for any to grant their Requests.

2. In calling these Properties of the severall natures in Christ, adverse or contrary, they would insinuate a consideration of them as of Qualities in a subject, whose mutuall contrariety should prove destructive to the one, if not both; or by amixture cause an Exurgency of Qualities of another temperature. But neither are these properties such Qualities, nor are they inherent in any common sub…ect, but inseparable Adjuncts of the different natures of Christ, never mixed with one another, nor capable of any such thing to Eternity, nor ever becoming properties of the other nature, which they belong not unto, though all of them do denominate the Person, wherein both the natures do subsist. So that insteed of pleading Reason, which they pretended they would, they do nothing in this first part of their Answer, but begge the thing in Question; which being of so much importance, and concernment to our Soules, is never like to be granted them on any such termes. Will, Christ on their entreaties, cease to be God?

p. 198Neither is their Second pretended Argument of any other kind. We deny, that the Humane Nature of Christ had any §. 10.such subsistence of its own, as to give it a proper personality, being from the time of its Conception, assumed into subsistence with the Son of God. This we prove by expresse Texts of Scripture, Isa: 7. 14. Chap: 9. 6. Ioh. 1. 14. Rom: 1. 3. Chap. 9. 5. Heb. 2. 15. Luk. 1. 35. Heb. 9. 14. Act. 3. 15. Act. 20. 28. Phil. 2. 7. 1 Cor. 2. 8. &c. And by Arguments taken from the assigning of all the diverse Properties by them mentioned before, and sundry others, to the same person of Christ, &c. That we would take it for granted, that this cannot be, is the modest Request of these Gentlemen with whom we have to do.

2. If by natures constituting Persons, they meane those, who §. 11.antecedently to their union, have actually done so, we grant they cannot meet in one Person; so that upon this union they should cease to be two Persons. The personality of either of them being destroyed, their different Beings could not be preserved. But if by constituting, they understand only that which is so in potentia, or a next possibility of constituting a Person; then, as before, they only begge of us, that we would not believe, that the Person of the Word did assume the humane nature of Christ, that holy thing, that was borne of the Virgin, into subsistence with it selfe; which for the Reasons before mentioned, and others like to them, we cannot grant.

And this is the substance of all that these men plead, and §. 12.make a noyse with in the world, in an opposition to the Eternall Deity of the Sonne of God. This Pretence of Reason, (which evidently comes short of being any thing else) is their shield & buckler in the cause they have unhappily undertaken. When they tell us of Christs being hungry, and dying, we say, it was in the humane nature, wherein he was obnoxious to such things no lesse then we, being therein made like unto us in all things, sinne only excepted. When of his submission and subjection to his Father, we tell them it is in respect of the Office of Mediatour, which he willingly undertook; and that his Inequality unto him, as to that Office, doth noe way prejudice his Equality with him, in respect of his nature and Being. But when with Scriptures, and Arguments from thence, as cleare and convincing, as if they were written with the beames of the Sunne, p. 199we prove our deare Lord Jesus in respect of a divine nature whereof he was partaker from Eternity, to be God blessed for ever: they tell us it cannot be, that two such diverse natures, as those of God and man, should be united in one person: and it cannot be so, because it cannot be so, there is no such union among other things. And these things must be, that those who are approved may be tryed: but let us heare them out.§. 13.

eeCum vero illi ostendunt, Christum sic ex natura divina & humana constare, quemadmodum homo ex animo & corpore constat, quid illis respondendum?But whereas they shew, that Christ consisteth of a Divine and humane nature, as a man consisteth of soule and body, what is to be answered them?

A. That here is a very great difference. For they say, that the two natures Permagnum hic esse discrimen: illi enim aiunt, duas naturas in Christo ita unitas esse, ut Christus fit Deus & homo; anima vero & corpus ad eum modum in homine conjuncta sunt, ut nec anima, nec corpus ipse homo sit, nec enim anima, nec corpus sigillatim personam constituunt. At ut natura divina per se constituit personam, ita humana constituat perse, necesse est.in Christ are so united, that Christ is both God and Man. But the soule and body are in that manner conjoyned in man, that a man is neither soule nor body, nor neither soule nor body do singly of themselves constitute a person. But as the divine nature by its selfe constitutes a person, so it is necessary that the humane nature should do.

1. R. In what sence it may be said, that Christ, that is, the Person of Christ, consisteth of a divine & humane nature, was before declared. The Person of the Sonne of God assumed the Humane Nature into subsistence with it selfe, and both, in that one Person are Christ.

2. If our Catechists have no more to say to the illustration given to the Union of the two Natures in the Person of Christ, by that of the soule and body in one humane person, but that there is a great difference in something btween them, they doe but filch away the graines that are allowed to every similitude; and shew wherein the compara…s differ, but answer not to that wherein they do agree.

3. All that is intended by this similitude, is to shew, that besides the change of things, one into another, either by the losse of one, as of water into wine by Christ, and besides the Ʋnion that is in Physicall Generation by mixture, whereby, and from whence, some third thing ariseth, that also there is a substantiall union, p. 200whereby one thing is not turned into another, nor mixed with it. And the end of using this similitude, (which to please our Catechists we can forbeare, acknowledging, that there is not among created beings any thing that can fully represent this, which we confesse without controversy to be a great mystery) is only to manifest the folly of that assertion of their Master on Joh. 1. that if the word be made flesh in our sence, it must be turned into flesh; for saith he, one thing cannot be made another, but by change, conversion, and mutation into it. The Absurdity of which assertion is sufficiently evinced, by the substantiall union of soule and body, made one person, without that alteration and change of their natures which is pleaded for. Neither is the word made flesh by Alteration, but by Union.

4. It is confessed, that the soule is not said to be made the body, nor the body said to be made the soule, as the word is said to be made flesh; for the union of soule and body, is not an union of distinct substances, subsisting in one common subsistence, but a union of two parts of one nature, wherereof the one is the forme of the other. And herein is the dissimilitude of that similitude. Hence will that predication be justified in Christ; the word was made flesh, without any change or alteration, because of that subsistence whereunto the flesh, or humane nature of Christ was assumed, which is common to them both. And so it is in accidentall predications. When we say a man is made white, black, or pale, we do not intend that He is, as to his substance, changed into whitenesse &c. but that he who is a man, is also become white.

5. It is true that the soule is not a person, nor the body; but a Person is the Exurgency of their conjunction; and therefore we do not say, that herein the similitude is urged; for the divine nature of Christ had its own personality antecedent to this union: nor is the union of his Person, the union of severall parts of the same nature, but the Concurrence of severall natures in one subsistence.

6. That 'tis of necessity that Christs humane nature should of its selfe constitute a person, is urged upon the old account of begging the thing in question. This is that which in the case of Christ we deny; & produce all the proofes before mentioned to make evident the Reason of our deny all. But our great Masters p. 201here, say the contrary; and our under-Catechists are resolved to believe them. Christ was a true man, because he had the true Essence of a man, soule and body, with all their essentiall properties. A peculiar personality belongeth not to the essence of a man, but to his existence in such a manner. Neither do we deny Christ to have a person, as a Man, but an humane Person. For the humane nature of Christ subsisteth in that, which thought it be in it selfe divine, yet as to that act of sustentation, which it gives the humane nature, it is the subsistence of a man. On which account the subsistence of the humane nature of Christ is made more noble and excellent, then that of any other man whatever. And this is the whole plea of our Catechists from Reason, that whereto they so much pretend, and which they give the preheminence unto, in their attempts against the Deity of Christ, as the chiefe, if not the only, engine they have to work by. And if they be thus weake in the maine body of their forces, certainly that reserve which they pretend from Scripture, whereof indeed they have the meanest pretence and shew, that ever any of the sonnes of men had, who were necessitated to make a plea from them, in a matter of so great concernment, as that now under consideration, will quickly disappeare. Thus then they proceed.

Q. ffDoce etiam, qui id repugn… Scripturae, Christum haber… divinam uaturam. Primum, eâ ratione, quod Scriptura nobis unum tantum naturâ Deum proponat, quem superius demonstravimus esse Christi patrem. Secundo, cadem Scriptura testatur, JesumChristum naturâ esse hominem, ut superius ostensum est; quo ipso, illi naturam adimit divinam. Tertio, quod quicquid divinum Christus habeat, Scriptura eum patris dono habere aperté doceat, Math. 28. 18. Phil. 2. 9. 1 Cor. 15. 27. Iohn. 5. 19. 10. 25. Deni{que} cum eadem Scriptura atertiss…mé offendat, Jesum Christum omnia suafacta divina non sibi, nec alicui naturae divinae su…; sed patri suo vindicare solitum fuisse, planum facit, cam divinam in Christo naturam prorsus otiosam, ac sine omni causâ suturam fuisse.Matt 28:18Phil 2:91 Cor 15:27John 5:19John 5:10John 5:25Declare also how it is repugnant to Scripture, that Christ hath a divine nature.

A. First, because that the Scripture proposeth to us, one only God by nature, whom we have above declared to be the Father of Christ. Secondly, the same Scripture testifieth, that Jesus Christ was by nature a man, whereby it taketh from him any divine nature. 3. Because what ever divine thing Christ hath, the Scripture plainly teacheth that he had it by a gift of the Father; Mat: 28. 18. Phil: 2. 9. 1 Cor: 15. 27. Ioh. 5. 19. 10. 25. Lastly, because the same Scripture most evidently shewing, that Jesus Christ did not vindicate and ascribe all his divine works to himselfe, or to any divine nature of his own, but to his Father, makes it plaine, that p. 202that divine nature in Christ was altogether in vaine, and would have been without any cause.

And this is that which our Catechists have to pretend from Scripture against the Diety of Christ, concluding, that any such divine nature in him would be superfluous and needlesse, themselves being Judges. In the strength of what here they have urged, they set themselves to evade the Evidence of neare fifty expresse Texts of Scripture, by themselves produced, and insisted on, giving undeniable Testimony to the truth they oppose. Let then what they have brought forth be briefly considered.

1. The Scripture doth indeed propose unto us one only God by §. 15.nature, and we confesse, that that only true God, is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ; but we say, that the Sonne is partaker of the Fathers nature, of the same nature with him, as being his proper Sonne, and by his own Testimony one with him. He is such a Son, (as hath been declared) as is begotten of the Essence of his Father, and is therefore God blessed for ever. If the Father be God by nature, so is the Sonne, for he is of the same nature with the Father.

2. To conclude that Christ is not God, because he is man, is plainly and evidently to begge the thing in Question. We evidently demonstrate in the person of Christ, Properties that are inseperable Adjuncts of a divine nature, and such also, as no lesse properly belong to an humane nature: from the asserting of the one of these, to conclude to a deniall of the other, is to beg that which they are not able to digge for.

3. There is a twofold communication of the Father to the Sonne; 1. By Eternall Generation, so the Sonne receives his personality, and therein his Divine nature, from him, who said unto him, Thou art my Sonne, this day have I begotten thee: and this is so farre from disproving the Deity of Christ, that it abundantly confirmes it: and this is mentioned, Ioh: 5. 19, 20, 21, 22. This Christ hath by nature. 2. By Collation of Gifts, Honour and Dignity, Exaltation, and Glory upon him as Mediatour, or in respect of that Office, which he humbled himselfe to undergoe, p. 203and for the full execution whereof, an investiture with Glory, Honour, and Power, was needfull, which is mentioned, Math: 28. 18. Phil: 2. 9. 1 Cor: 15. 27. which is by no means derogatory to the Deity of the Sonne; for inequality in respect of Office is well consistent with Equality in respect of nature. This Christ hath by Grace. Mat. 28. 18. Christ speaks of himselfe as throughly furnished with Authority, for the accomplishing of the worke of Mediation, which he had undertaken. It is of his Office, not of his Nature, or Essence that he speaks. Phil: 2. 9. Christ is said to be exalted, which he was in respect of the Reall Exaltation given to his Humane Nature, and the manifestation of the Glory of his Divine, which he had with his Father before the World was, but had eclipsed for a season: 1 Cor: 15. 27. relates to the same Exaltation of Christ as before.

4. It is false, that Christ doth not ascribe the divine workes which he wrought, to himselfe, and his own divine Power, although that he often also make mention of the Father, as by whose Appointment he wrought those workes, as Mediator. Ioh. 5. 17. My Father worketh hitherto, and I worke; v. 19. For whatsoever things the Father doth, these also doth the Sonne: v. 21. For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickneth them, even so the Sonne quickneth whom he will. Himselfe wrought the workes that he did, though as to the End of his working them, which belonged to his Office of Mediation, He still relates to his Fathers designation and appointment. And this is the whole of our Catechists plea from Reason, and Scripture against the Deity of Christ. For the conclusion of the superfluousnesse, and needlesnesse of such a Divine Nature in the Mediator, as it argues them to be ignorant of the Scripture, and of the Righteousnesse of God, and the nature of sinne, so it might administer occasion to insist upon the demonstration of the necessity which there was, that he who was to be Mediatour between God and man, should be both God and Man; but that I aime at brevity, and the consideration of it may possibly fall in upon another account; so that here I shall not insist thereon.

Nextly then, they addresse themselves to that which is their § 16.proper work, (wherein they are exceedingly delighted) viz. in giving in exceptions against the Testimonies produced for the confirmation of the Truth under consideration, which they thus enter upon.

p. 204ggAtqui illi e Scripturis illam divinam in Christo naturam asserere conantur? Conantur quidem va…iis modis; id{que} dum student, aut e Scripturis quibusdam evincere, quae in iis non habentur, aut dum ex iis, quae in Scripturis habentur, perperam ratiocinantur, ac male rem suam conficiunt.But they endeavour to assert the Divine Nature of Christ from the Scriptures.

A. They endeavour it indeed diverse waies; and that whilest they study, either to evince out of certain Scriptures what is not in them, or whilest they argue perversely from these things which are in the Scriptures, and so evilly bring their businesse to passe.

These it seemes are the general heads of our Arguments for the Deity of Christ: but before we part we shall bring our Catechists to another reckoning: and manifest, both that what we assert is expressly contained in the Scriptures, and what we conclude by Ratiocination from them, hath an evidence in it, which they are not able to resist. But they say,§. 17.

hhQuae vero sunt illa, quae illi de Christo e Scripturis evincere laborant quae illic non habentur? Est illius, ut loquuntur, praeaeternitas, quam duplici Scripturarum genere approbare nituntur. Primum ejusmodi est, in quo praeaeternitatem hane expressam putant. Secundum, in quo licet expressa non sit, eam tamen colligi arbitrantur.Q. What are those things which they labour to evince concerning Christ out of the Scriptures, which are not contained in them?

A. Of this sort is (as they speake) his preeternity, which they endeavour to confirme with two sorts of Scriptures. 1. Such as wherein they suppose this preeternity is expressed. 2. Such as wherein though it be not expressed, yet they think that it may be gathered from them.

That we do not only suppose, but have also as great an Assurance as the plaine, evident, and redoubled Testimony of the Holy Ghost can give us, of the Eternity of Jesus Christ, shall be made evident in the ensuing Testimonies, both of the one sort and the other; especially such as are expresse thereunto; for in this matter we shall very little trouble the Reader with collections and arguings, the matter enquired after being expresse and evident in the words, and termes of the Holy Ghost himselfe. They say then.§. 18.

Q. Which are those Testimonies of Scripture i Quaenam sunt Testimonia Scripturae, quae videntur ipsis eam praeaeternitatem exprimero? Sunt ea, in quibus Scriptura testatur de Christo, ipsum fuisse in princi pio, fuisse in coelo, fuisse ante Abra. hamum, Io. 1. 1. Io. 6. 62. Io. 8. 58.John 1John 8:58which seeme to them to expresse his preeternity?

A. They are these, in which the Scripture witnesseth of Christ, that he was in p. 205the beginning, that he was in Heaven, that he was before Abraham, Ioh. 1. 1. Ioh. 6. 62. Ioh. 8. 58.

Before I come to the consideration of the particular places proposed by them to be insisted on, I shall desire to premise one or two things. As

1. That it is sufficient for the disproving of their hypothesis concerning Christ, if we prove him to have been existent before his Incarnation, whether the Testimonies whereby we prove it, reach expressly to the proofe of his Eternity or no. That which they have undertaken to maintaine, is, that Christ had no existence before his conception, and birth of the Virgin: which if it be disproved, they do not, they cannot deny, but that it must be on the account of a divine nature; for as to the Incarnation of any preexisting creature, (which was the Arians madnesse) they disavow, and oppose it.

2. That these three places mentioned, are very farre from being all, wherein there is expresse confirmation of the Eternity of Christ: and therefore when I have gone through the consideration of them, I shall adde some others also, which are of no lesse evidence and perspicuity then these, whose vindication we are by them called unto.

To the first place mentioned they thus proceed.§. 19.

i What dost thou answer to the first?

In the place cited, there is nothing about k Quid vero ad primum respondes? In loco citato nihil habetur, de ista praeaeternitate, cum hic principii mentio fiat, quod praeaeternitati opponitur. Principii vero vox in Scripturis fere semper ad subjectam refertur materiam, ut videre est, Dan. 8. 1. Joh. 15. 27. 16. 4. Act. 11. 15. cum igitur hic subjecta sit materia Evangelium, cujus descriptionem suscepit Joannes, sine dubio per vocem hane principii, p…incipium Evangelii Jo… annes intellexit.Dan 8Acts 11:15that preeternity, seeing here is mention of the beginning, which is opposed to Eternity. But the word beginning is almost alwayes in the Scripture referred to the subject matter, as may be seen, Dan. 8. 1. Joh. 15. 27. 16. 4. Act. 11. 15. And therefore seeing the subject matter here, is the Gospell, whose description John undertakes, without doubt, by this word beginning, John understood the beginning of the Gospell.

This place being expresse to our purpose, and the matter of great importance, I shall first confirme the truth contended for, p. 206from thence, and then remove the miserable subterfuge, which our Catechists have received from their great Apostles, Ʋncle and Nephew.

1. That Iohn thus expressly insisting on the Deity of Christ, Trenaeus ad haeres. lib: 3. c. 11. Epiphan. lib. 1. Tom: 2. haeres: 27, 28, 30, &c. lib: 2. Tom. 2. Haeres. 69. Theodoret. Epitom: Haeret: lib. 2. Euseb. Histor. lib. 3. c. 27. Causam post alios hanc scribendi praecipuam tradunt omnes (veteres) ut veneno in Ecclesiam jam tum sparso, autoritate sua, quae apud omnes Christianum nomen prositentes, non poterat non esse maxima, medicinā faceret. Grot. Praefat. ad Annotat. in Evang Joan.in the beginning of his Gospell, intended to disprove and condemne sundry that were risen up in those dayes, denying it, or asserting the Creation, or making of the world to another Demiurgus, we have the unquestionable Testimony of the first Professors of the Religion of Jesus Christ, with as much evidence and clearenesse of Truth as any thing can be tendred on uncontroled Tradition: which at least will give some insight into the intendment of the Holy Ghost in the words.

2. That by foreign, howsoever rendred, verbum or sermo, or on what account soever he be so called, either of being the eternall Word and Wisdome of the Father, or as the great Revealer of his will unto us, (which yet of it selfe is not a sufficient cause of that Appellation, for others also reveale the will of God unto us, Act. 20. 27. Heb. 1. 1.) Jesus Christ is intended, is on all hands confessed, and may be undenyably evinced from the Context. This foreign, came into the world, and was rejected by his own v. 11: yea expressly he was made flesh, and was the only begotten Sonne of God, v. 14.

3. That the whole of our Argument from this place, is very farre from consisting in that Expression, in the beginning, though that, relating to the matter whereof the Apostle treates, doth evidently evince the truth pleaded for. It is part of our Catechists trade, so to divide the words of Scripture, that their maine import and tendence, may not be perceived. In one place they answer to the first words, in the beginning: in another to, he was with God, and he was God; in a third to that, all things were made by him; in a fourth, (all at a great distance one from another) to, the Word was made flesh: Which desperate: course of proceeding, argues that their cause is also desperate, and that they durst not meet this one Testimony as by the Holy Ghost placed and ordered for the confirmation of our Faith, p. 207without such a bold mangling of the Text, as that instanced in.

4. I shall then insist upon the whole of this Testimony, as §. 20.the words are placed in their Contexture by the Holy Ghost, Novum Testamentum divinitus oblatum aperio. aliud agenti exhibet se mihi adspetu primo augustissimum illud caput Johannis Evangelistae & Apostoli. In principio erat verbum. Lego partem capitis, & ita commoveor legens, ut repente divinitatem Argumenti, & scripti majestatem, autoritatem{que} senserim, longo intervallo omnibus eloquentiae humanae viribus praeeuntem. Horrebat corpus: stupebat animus, & totum illum diem sic afficiebar, ut qui essem, ipse mihi incertus viderer esse. Francise. Junius.and vindicate them from what in severall places they have excepted against severall parcels of them. Thus then from these words, (these divine words (whose very reading reclaimed as eminent a Schollar as the world enjoyed any in his dayes, from Atheisme) we proceed.

1. He that was in the beginning, before the creation of the world, before any thing, of all things that are made, was made, Who was then with God, and was God, Who made all things, and without whom nothing was made, in whom was Life, He is God by nature blessed for ever; nor is there in the whole Scripture a more glorious, and eminent description of God, by his Attributes, name, and Workes, then here is given of him concerning whom all these things are spoken; but now all this is expressly affirmed of the Word that was made flesh, that is confessedly of Iesus Christ, therefore he is God by nature blessed for ever. Unto the severall parts of this plaine and evident Testimony, in severall places they except severall things, thinking thereby to evade that strength and Light, which each part yeilds to other, as they lye, and all of them to the whole; I shall consider them in order as they come to hand.

1. Against that expression, in the beginning, they except in §. 21.the place mentioned above, that it doth not signify preeternity, which hath no beginning. But

1. This imped's not at all the Existence of Jesus Christ before the Creation, although it denys, that his Eternity is expressly asserted. Now to affirme, that Christ did exist before the whole Creation, and made all things, doth no lesse prove him to be no more a Creature, but the Eternall God, then the most expresse Testimony of his Eternity doth, or can do.

p. 2082. Though Eternity have no beginning, and the sence of these words cannot be, in the beginning of Eternity, yet Eternity is before all things, and in the beginning may be the description of Eternity, as it is plainly, Prov. 8. 23. From everlasting, and in the beginning before the Earth was, are of the same import. And the Scripture saying, that in the beginning the word was, not, was made, Joh. 17. 5.John 17:5doth as evidently expresse Eternity, as it doth in those other phrases, of, before the world was, or before the foundation of the world, which more then once it insists on.

3. By in the beginning, is intended before the Creation of all things. What will it availe our Catechists, if it doth not expressly denote Eternity? Why, the word beginning is to be interpreted variously, according to the subject matter spoken of, as Gen. 1. 1. which being here the Gospell, it is the beginning of the Gospell that is intended. But

1. Be it agreed, that the word beginning is to be understood according to the subject matter, whereunto it is applyed; that the Apostle doth firstly, and nextly treat of the Gospell, as to the season of its preaching, is most absurd. He treats evidently and professedly of the Person of the Author of the Gospell, of the Word that was God, and was made flesh. And that this cannot be wrested to the sence intended, is cleare; For 1. the Apostle evidently alludes to the first words of Genesis: in the beginning God created Heaven and earth: and the Syriack Translatour from the Hebrew, here places foreign: so here, in the beginning the word made all things. 2. The following words, the word was with God, manifests the intendment of the Holy Ghost to be, to declare what, and where the Word, was, before the Creation of the world, even with God. 3. The Testimony that he was God in the beginning, will no way agree with this glosse: take his being God in their sence, yet they deny, that he was God in the beginning of the Gospell, or before his suffering, as hath been shewed. 4. The sence given by the Socinians to this place is indeed senselesse. In the beginning (say they) that is, when the Gospell began to be preached by John Baptist, (which is plainly said to be, before the world was made) the word, or the man Jesus Christ (the Word being afterwards said to be made flesh, after this whole description of him, as the Word) was wi…h God, so hidden, as that he was known only to God, (which is false, for he was known to his Mother, to Joseph, to John Baptist, p. 209to Simeon, Anna, and to others) and the word was God, that is, God appointed, that he should be so afterwards, or made God (though it be said, he was God, then, when he was with God) and all things were made by him; the new Creature was made by him, or the world by his preaching, and teaching, and working Miracles was made, or reformed; (that is, something was mended by him,) such Interpretations we may at any time be supplyed withall at an easy rate. 5. To view it a little farther. In the beginning, that is, when John preached Jesus, and said, behold the Lamb of God; was the word; or Jesus was, that is, He was, when John preached that he was: egregiam vero laudem! He was, when he was. The word was in the beginning: that is, Jesus was flesh and bloud, and then was afterwards made flesh, and dwelt amongst us, when he had dwelt amongst us. And this is that interpretation which Faustus Socinus receiving from his Uncle Laelius first set up upon; in the strength whereof he went forth unto all the Abominations which afterwards he so studiously vented.

Passing by those two weighty & most material passages of this §. 22.Testimony, the word was God, and the word was with God, the one evidencing his onenesse of nature with, and the other his distinctnesse of Personality from his Father, our Catechists after an interposition of neare 20 pages, fix upon the 3. verse, and attempt to pervert the expresse words and intendment of it, having cut it off from its dependance on what went before, that evidently gives light into the aime of the Holy Ghost therein: their words concerning this verse are;

bbExpone igitur mihi, quibus testimoniis approbare contendunt, Christum coelum & terram creasse? Iis, ubi scriptum extat, quod per eum omnia facta sint, & sine eo factū sit nihil, quod factū sit, Joh: 1. 3. & iterum, mundus per ipsū factus est, v. 10. & rursus, quod in eo omnia sunt condita &c. Col. 1. 16. Et quod Deus per eum saecul… fecerit, Heb. 1. 2. deni{que} & ex eo, tu in principio, &c. v. 10, 11, 12. Qui vero ad primum Testimonium respondes? Primum, non habetur in prim… testimonio creata sunt, verúm facta sunt. Deinde, ait Joannes, facta esse per eum; qui mod…s loquendi, non eum, qui prima causa sit alicujus rei, verum causam secundam aut mediam exprimit. Deni{que} vox omnia non pro omnibus prorsus re…us hic sumitur, sed ad subjectam materiam restringitur omnino, quod frequentissimum est in libris divinis, praesertim Novi Testamenti, cujus rei exemplum singulare extat, 2 Cor. 5. 17. in quo habetur sermo de re, hui…, de qua Johannes tractat, admodum simili, ubi dicitur, omnia nova facta esse; cum certum sit multa extare, quae nova facta non sunt. Cum vero subjecta apud Ioannem materia sit Evangelium, apparet vocem omnia, de iis omnibus, quae quoquo modo ad Evangelium pertinent, accipi debere. Cur vero addidit loaennes, quod sine eo factum est nihil, quod factum est? Add…dit haec Ioannes, ut eo mebius illustraret illa superiora, omnia per ipsum facta sunt, quae eam vim habere videntur, per solum Verbum vel Filium Dei omnia illa facta esse, licet ejus generis quaedam, & quidem magni momenti, non per ipsum, verum per Apostolos facta fuerint: ut est vocatio Gentium, & legalium ceremoniarum abolitio; licet enim …aec originem ab ipsis sermonibus & operibus Domini Iesu traxerint, ad effectum tamen non sunt perducta per ipsum Christum, sed per ipsius Apostolos, non tamen sine ipso. Apostoli enim omnia nomine, & authoritate ipsius administrarunt, ut etiam ipse Dominus ait, sine me nihil facere potestis. Joan. 15. 5.Col 1:16Heb 1:22 Cor 5:17John 15:5Declare to me with what Testimonies they contend to prove, that Christ created the Heavens and the Earth?

With those, where it is written, that by him all things, and without him was nothing made, that was made, and the world was made by him: Joh. 1. 3, 10. as also Col. 1. 16. Heb. 1. 2. and 10, 11, 12. verses.

But how dost thou answer to the first Testimony?

1. It is not in the first Testimony: they were created, but they were made. 2. Iohn saies, they were made by him; which manner of speaking doth not expresse him, who is the first cause of any thing, but the second or mediate cause. Lastly, the word al things, is p. 210not taken for all things universally, but is altogether related to the subject matter, which is most frequent in the Scriptures, especially of the new Testament, whereof there is a singular example, 2 Cor. 5. 17. Wherein there is a discourse of a thing very like to this, whereof Iohn treates, where it is said; all things are made new; whenas it is certaine, that there are many things which are not made new: Now whereas the subject matter in Iohn is the Gospell, it appeareth, that this word all things, is to be received only of all those things which belong to the Gospell?

But why doth Iohn adde, that without him nothing was made, that was made?

Iohn added these words, that he might the better illustrate those before spoken, all things were made by him; which seeme to import, that all those things were made by the word, or Sonne of God, although some of them, and those of great moment, were of such sort, as were not done by him, but the Apostles. As the calling of the Gentiles, the abolishing of Legall ceremonies. For although these things had their originall from the preaching, and workes of the Lord Jesus, yet they were not perfected by Christ himselfe, but by his Apostles; but yet not without him. For the Apostles administred all things in his name, & authority, as the Lord himselfe said, without me ye can do nothing, Ioh. 15. 5.

Thus to the 3. verse, of which afterwards. We shall quickly §. 24.see how these men are put to their shifts, to escape the sword of this witnesse, which stands in the way to cut them off in their journying to curse the Church and People of God, by denying the Deity of their blessed Saviour.

1. The Connexion of the words is wholly omitted, He was p. 211God, and he was in the beginning with God, and all things were made by him. The words are an illustration of his divine nature, by his divine power and workes: He was God, and he made all things. He that made all things is God: Heb. 3. 4. The Word made all things, Ioh. 1. 3. therefore he is God. Let us see what is answered.

1. It is not said, they were created by him, but made. But the word §. 25.here used by Iohn, is the same, that in sundry places the Septuagint (whom the writers of the New Testament followed) used about the creation. As Gen. 1. 3. foreign. and v. 16. foreign: and if, as it is affirmed, he was in the Beginning (before all things) and made them all, he made them out of nothing; that is, he created them. To create is but to produce something out of nothing, Nothing supplying the' terme from whence of their production. But

2. They are said to be made by him: its foreign, which denotes not the principall, but mediate, or instrumentall cause.

But it is most evident, that these men care not what they say, so they may say something, that they think will trouble them whom they oppose.

1. This might helpe the Arians, who fancyed Christ to be created, or made before all other things; and to have been the instrumentall cause, whereby God created all other things; but how this concernes them to insist on, who deny that Christ had any Existence at all, before the world was some thousands of yeares old, is not easy to be apprehended.

2. In their own sence this is not to the purpose, but expressly contradictory to what they offer in the last place, by way of answer to the latter part of the third verse. Here they say, He is not the principall efficient cause, but the second, and mediate: there, that all things were either done by him, or in his Name, & Authority: which certainly denotes the principall cause of the thing done. But

3. This very expression is sundry times used concerning God the Father himselfe, whom our Catechists will not therefore deny to have been the principall efficient cause of the things ascribed to him: Rom. 11. 36. from him, & foreign by him are all things 1 Cor. 1. 9. God is faithfull foreign, by whom you are called: Gal. 1. 1. Paul an Apostle, not of men, nor by man, but foreign p. 212foreign, by Iesus Christ, and God the Father Ephes. 1. 1. foreign, by the will of God: So that this also is frivolous: thus far we have nothing to the purpose. But

4. Al things, are to be referred to the Gospell; all things of the Gospell whereof Iohn treats: so are the words to be restrained by the subject matter: but

1. This is meerely begged: Iohn speakes not one word of the Gospell, as such; gives no description of it, its nature, or Effects: but evidently, plainly, and directly speakes of the Word, that was God, and that made all things, describing him in his Eternity, his Workes, his Incarnation, his Imployment, his Comming into the World and his businesse: and treats of the Gospell, or the declaration, of the Will of God by Jesus Christ, distinctly afterwards, from verse 14. and forwards.

2. For the expression, 2 Cor. 5. 17. all things are become new: it §. 26.is expressely restrained to the new Creature, to them that are in Jesus Christ; but as to this generall expression here, there is no colour why it should be so restrained. The Expression it selfe every where signifying the Creation of all things; see Gen. 2. 1, 2. Psal. 33. 6. Psal. 121. 2. Isa. 37. 16. Chap. 44. 19. & 62. 2. Jen 32. 17. Acts 14. 15. Act. 17. 24. And this is it, which they plead to the first part of the verse, by him all things were made.

2. The other Expression, they say, is added, to manifest, that §. 27.what was done after by the Apostles, was not done without him: and that is the meaning of these words, and without him was nothing made, that was made. But

1. Their foreign, of referring the whole passage to the description of the Gospell, whereof there is not the least tittle, nor intimation in the Text, being removed out of the way, this following figment falls of it selfe.

2. This Glosse is expressely contrary to the Text. The all things here mentioned, are the all things that were made in the Beginning of the World; but this Glosse referres it to the things made in the End of the World.

3. It is contradictory to its selfe; for by the beginning, they understand the beginning of the Gospell, at the first preaching of it; but the things, that they say here were made by Christ, are things that were done after his Assension.

4. It is true, the Apostles wrought not any miracles, effected p. 213no mighty workes, but by the presence of Christ with them, (though the Text cited to prove it Ioh: 15. 5. be quite of another importance, as speaking of Gospell obedience, not Workes of Miracles, or Conversions) but that those works of theirs, or his by them, are here intended, is not offer'd to proof by our Catechists. And this is the sence of the words they give; Christ, in the beginning of the Gospell, made all things; or all things were made by him; even those, which he made by others, after his Assension into heaven: or thus: (All things) that is, some things, (were made) that is, mended, (by him) that is, the Apostles, (in the beginning of the Gospell) that is, after his Assension.

5. Our sence of the words is plaine and obvious: saies the Apostle, §. 28.He who was in the beginning, and was God, made all things; which he first expresseth positively; and then by an universall negative confirmes, and explaines what was before asserted in an universall affirmative, (without him was nothing made, that was made.) And this is the summe of what they have to except against this part of our Testimony, then which nothing can be more vaine and frivolous.

2. The 10^th verse is by them taken under consideration, and §. 29.these words therein: The World was made by him: against which this is their proceedure.

mmQuid vero respondes ad secundum? Primum, quod hic non scribat Johannes, mundum esse creatum, sed factum. Deinde, eo loquendi modo utitur, qui mediam cau…am designat, ait enim, mundum per eum factum: Deni{que} haec vox mundus, quemadmodum & aliae, quae prorsus idem in Scripturis valent, non solum Caelum & terram donotat, verum praeter alias significationes, vel genus humanum designat, ut locus praesens ostendit, ubi ait, In mundo erat, & mundus eum non agnovit, 1 Ioh. 1. 10. & mundus eum secutus est, Ioh. 12. 19. aut etiam futuram immortalitatem, ut apparet Heb. 1. 6. ubi ait, & cúm iterum introducit primogenitum in mundum, ait, & adorent eum omnes Angeli Dei; quod de futuro mundo accipi apparet e cap. 2. ejusdem Epistolae, ubi ait, etenim non Angelis subjecit mundum futurum, de quo loquimur. At nus…uam de eo locutus fuerat, nisi v. 6. cap. 1. praeterea, habes locum cap: 10. v. 5. ubi de Christo loquens, ait, propterea ingrediens in mundum, ait; hostiam & ob lationem noluisti, verum corpus adaptasti mihi; ubi cum palam sit cum loqui de mundo, in quem ingressus Iesus, sacerdos noster factus est, (ut circumstantiae omnes demonstrant) apparet, non de praesenti, sed de futuro mundo agi, quandoquidem Cap. 8. v. 4, de Christo dixerat, si in terris esset, ne sacerdos …uidem esset.1 John 1:10John 12:19Heb 1:6What dost thou answer to the second?

1. That John doth not write here, that the World was Created, but Made. 2. He uses the same manner of speech, which signifieth the mediate cause, for he saith, the World was made by him. Lastly, this word mundus, the World, as others of the same import, doe not only denote Heaven and Earth, but besides other significations, it either signifieth humane kind, as the present place manifesteth, he was in the World, and the World knew him not: and Ioh. 12. 19. or also future immortality, as Heb: 1. 6. which is to be understood of the World to come, as it appears from Chap: 2. where he saith, he hath not put the world to come into subjection p. 214to the Angells, of which we speake: but he had no where spoken of it, but Chap. 1. 6. Furthermore you have a place, Chap: 10. 5. where speaking of Christ he saith: wherefore comming into the World, he saith, sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not have, but a body &c. Where seeing it is evident, that he speaks of that world, into which Jesus being entred, was made our Priest, as all the circumstances demonstrate, it appears, that he speaks not of the present, but of the world to come, seeing Chap. 8. v. 4. he had said of Christ, if he were on earth he should not be a Priest.

The two First Exceptions have been already cashiered: those which follow are of as little weight or consideration. For

1. It is confessed, that the word World hath in Scripture various acceptations; and is sometimes taken for men in the World: but that it can be so taken, when the World is said to be made, or created, when it is equivalent to all things, when it is proposed as a place, whereunto any comes, and where He is, as is the state of the Expression here, there can nothing more absurd, or foolish be imagined.

2. Heb. 1. 6. speaks not of the World to come; nor is there any place in the Scripture, where the word World doth signify immortality, or the World to come, nor any thing looking that way. Heb. 2. 5. mention is made not simply of the World, but of the World to come; nor doth that expression of the Apostle relate unto that of Chap. 1. 6. where the word World is used, but to what goes before, and after in the same Chapter, where the thing it selfe is insisted on, in other termes. Nor is the future Immortality intended there by the world to come, but the present state of the Christian Church, called the World to come, in reference to that of the Jewes, which was past, in that use of speech, whereby it was expressed before it came; as also Chap. 6. 5. Nor is the world to come, Life eternall, or blessed immortality; Life is to be had p. 215in it; but immortality, and the world to come, are not the same: nor is that World ever said to be made; nor is it any where described as made already, but as to come, as Math. 12. 32. Luk. 18. 30. Luk. 20. 35. Eph. 1. 21. nor can it be said of the world to come, that it knew not Christ, as it is of this that he made. Nor can Christ be said to come into that world in the beginning, which he did not untill after his Resurrection; nor is the world to come, that whereof it is said in the next verse, which expounds this, he came foreign, to his own, for then, his own, foreign, knew him not: so that there is not the least colour, or pretence of this foppery, that here they would evade the Testimony of the Holy Ghost with all.

3. Those words Heb. 11. 5. coming into the world he said, &c. do not in the least intimate any thing of the world to come, but expresse the present world, into which Christ came, when God prepared a body for him, at his Incarnation, and Birth, which was in order to the sacrifice, which he afterwards offered in this world, as shall be evidently manifested, when we come to the consideration of the Priesthood of Christ.

It remaines only that we heare their sence of these words, which they give as followeth.§. 30.

nnQuid veró per haec, Mundu… per cum factus est, intelligis? Duplex eorum sensus dari potest: prior, quod genus humanum per Christum reformatum, & quas… denuó factum sit, eó quód ille generi humano, quod perierat, & aeternae morti subjectum erat, vitane attulit, eam{que} sempiternam (quod etiam mundo Joannes exprobat, qui per Christum ab interitu vindicatus, eum non agnoverit, sed spreverit, & rejecerit) Is enim mos Hebraici sermonis, quod in ejusmodi loquendi modis, verba facere, creare, idem valeant, quod denuo facere, & denuo creare, idq, propterea, quod verbis, quae composita vocant, ea lingua careat-Posterior vero sensus est, quod illa immortalitas, quam expectamus per Christum, quantum ad nos, facta sit: quemadmodum eadem futurum saeculum, habitâ ratione nostri, vocatur, licet jam Christo & Angelis sit praesens.But what dost thou understand by these words, the World was made by him?

A twofold sence may be given of them; 1. That humane kind was reformed by Christ, and as it were made againe, because he brought life, and that eternall to humane kind, which was lost, and was subject to eternall death; (which also John upbraideth the World withall, which being vindicated by Christ from destruction, acknowledged him not, but contemn'd and rejected him) for that is the manner of the Hebrew speech, that in such termes of speaking, the words, to make, and create, are as much as to make againe, or to create againe, because that tongue wants those words, that are called compounds. The latter sence is, that that immortality which we expect, is, as to us, p. 216made by Christ; as the same is called the world to come, in respect of us, although it be present to Christ, and the Angells.

1. That these expositions are destructive to one another is evident: and yet which of them to adhere unto our Catechists know not: such good builders are they, for to establish men in the Faith. Pull down they will, though they have nothing to offer in the roome of what they endeavour to destroy.

2. That the latter sence is not intended, was before evinced. The world, that was made in the Beginning, into which Christ came, in which he was, which knew him not, which is said to be made, is a World: is not immortallity, or life eternall; nor is there any thing in the Context, that should in the least give countenance to such an absurd glosse.

3. Much lesse is the first sence of the words tolerable: for

1. It is expressly contradictory to the Text. He made the world; that is, he reformed it, and the world knew him not; when the world is not reformed, but by the knowledge of him.

2. To be made, doth no where simply signify to be renewed, or reformed, unlesse it be joyned with other expressions, restraining its significancy to such Renovation.

3. The world was not renewed by Christ whilst he was in it: nor can it be said to be renewed by him, only on the account of laying the foundation of its Renovation in his Doctrine. By him the world was made, that is, He preached that Doctrine, whereby some in the world were to be reformed. The world that Christ made knew him not: but the renewed world know him.

4. The Hebraisme of making, for reforming, is commonly pretended; without any instance for its confirmation. John wrote in Greeke, which language abounds with compositions above any other in the world, and such as on all occasions he makes use of.

There is one passage more, that gives strength to the Testimony §. 31.insisted on, confirming the existence of Christ in his divine nature, antecedently to his Incarnation, and that is v. 14. The word was made flesh. Who the Word is, and what, we have heard. p. 217He who was in the beginning, who was God, and was with God, who made all things, who made the world, in whom was Light, and Life, He was made flesh. Flesh, so as that thereupon he dwelt amongst men, and conversed with them. How he was, and how he was said to be made flesh, I have declared in the consideration of his eternall Sonship, and shall not againe insist thereon. This after the interposition of sundry Questions our Catechists take thus into consideration.

How do they prove Christ to have been incarnate?

From those Testimonyes, where according o E quibus vero testimoniis Scripturae demonstrare conantur, Christum (ut loquuntur) incarnatum esse? Ex iis, ubi secundum eorum versionem legitur, verbum caro factum esse, Jo. 1. 14. & Phil. 2. 6, 7. 1 Tim. 3. 16▪ &c. Quomodo ad primum respondes? Eâ ratione, quod in eo Testimonio non habeatur Deum (ut loquuntur) incarnatum esse, aut quod natura divina assumpserit humanam. Aliudenim est, verbum caro factum est, aliud, Deus incarnatus est, (ut loquuntur) ve… natura divina assumpserit humanam. Praeterea, haec verba, verbum caro factum est, vel potius sermo caro factus est, possunt, & debent ita reddi, sermo caro fuit. Posse ita reddi, e testimoniis, in quibus voae foreign (quae hic per factum est translata est) verbo fuit reddita invenitur, apparet: ut in codem Cap. v. 6. & Luk. 24. 19. fuit, homo missus … Deo, &c. Et, Qui fuit vir, Propheta, &c. Debete vero reddi per verbum fuit, ordo verborum Johannis docet, qui valde inconvenienter loquutus fuisset-sermonem carnem factum esse, id est, ut adversarii interpretantur, naturam divinam assumpsisse humanam, postquam ea jam de illo sermone exposuisset, quae nativitatem hominis Jesu Christi subsecuta sunt; ut sunt haec: Joannem Baptistam de illo testatum esse; illum in mundo fuisse, a suis non fuisse receptum; quod iis, a quibus receptus fuisset, potestatem dederit, ut filii Dei fierent.John 1:14Phil 2:6Phil 2:71 Tim 3:16Luke 24:19to their translation it is read, the Word was made flesh, Joh. 1. 14. &c.

How dost thou answer it?

On this account, because in that Testimony, it is not said (as they speake) God was incarnate, or the divine nature assumed the humane. The Word was made flesh, is one thing, and God was Incarnate, or the divine nature assumed the humane, another. Besides, these words, the word was made flesh, or rather, the speech was made flesh, may, and ought to be rendred, the word was Flesh. That it may be so rendred, appeares from the Testimonyes, in which the word foreign (which is here translated) was made, is found rendred by the word, was: as in this chap. v. 6. and Luk. 24. 19. &c. Also that it ought to be so rendred, the order of Iohns words teacheth, who should have spoken very inconveniently, the word was made Flesh, that is, as our Adversaries interpret it, the Divine nature assumed the Humane, after he had spoken those things of the word, which followed the nativity of the man Christ Jesus, such as are these: Iohn beare witnesse of him: he came into the world: he was not received of his own: that p. 218to them that received him, he gave Power to become the Sonnes of God.

This is the last plea they use in this case; the dying groanes of their perishing cause are in it: which will provide them neither with succour, nor reliefe. For

1. It is not Words, or Expressions, that we contend about. Grant the thing pleaded for, and we will not contend with any living about the expressions, wherein it is by any man delivered. By the Incarnation of the Son of God, and by the Divine nature assuming the humane, we intend no more then what is here asserted, the Word, who was God, was made flesh.

2. All they have to plead to the thing insisted on, is, that the word foreign, may, yea ought to be translated, fuit, WAS, and not factus est, was made. But

1. Suppose it should be translated WAS, what would it availe them? He that was a man, was made a man. In that sence it expresses what he was, but withall denotes how he came so to be. He who was the Word before, was also a man; let them shew us any other way, how he became so, but only by being made so, and upon a supposition of this new Translation, they may obtaine something. But

2. How will they prove, that so much as it MAY be rendred by fuit, was. They tell you it is so in two other places in the New Testament; but doth that prove that it may so much as be so rendred here? The proper sence, and common usage of it, is, was made; and because it is once or twice used in a peculiar sence, may it be so rendred here, where nothing requires, that it be turned aside from its most usuall acceptation; yea much enforcing it thereunto,

3. That it ought to be rendered by fuit, was, they plead the mentioning before of things done after Christs Incarnation (as we call it,) so that it cannot be, he was made flesh: but

1. Will they say, that this order is observed by the Apostle, that that which is first done, is first expressed, as to all particulars? What then becomes of their interpretation, who say the Word was made God by his Exaltation: and made flesh in his Humiliation; and yet how much is that, which in their sence was last, p. 219expressed before that which went before it? Or will they say, in him was the life of man, before he was made flesh? When the life of man, according to them, depends on his resurrection solely, which was after he ceased to be flesh in their sence. Or what conscience have these men, that in their disputes will object that to the interpretation of others, which they must receive, and imbrace for the establishing of their own?

2. The Order of the words is most proper; Iohn having §. 32.asserted the Deity of Christ, with some generall concomitants and consequences of the dispensation, wherein he undertakes to be a Mediatour; in his 14. verse enters particularly upon a description of his entrance upon his Employment, and his carrying it on in, by the Revelation of the Will of God; so that without either difficulty or straining, the sence and intendment of the Holy Ghost falls in clearely in the words.

3. It it is evident, that the Word neither may, nor ought to to be translated according to their desire. For

1. It being so often said before, that the Word was, the Word is still foreign, and not foreign: in the beginning the Word was, and the Word was God, and the Word was with God: The same was; he was in the world, he was the light; still the same word; so that if no more were intended, but what was before expressed, the termes would not be changed without exceedingly obscuring the sence; and therefore foreign must signify somewhat more then foreign.

2. The word foreign applyed to other things in this very place, denotes their making, or their Originall, which our Catechists did not question in the Consideration of the places where it is so used; as v. 3. all things were made by him, and without him was nothing made, that was made, and v. 10. the world was made by him.

3. This phrase is expounded accordingly in other places; as Rom. 1. 3. foreign, made of the seed of David according to the Flesh. and Gal. 4. 4. foreign, made of a woman; but they think to salve all by the ensuing exposition of these words.

How is that to be understood the word was §. 33.P Qua ratione illud intelligendum est, Sermonem carnem fuisse.Flesh?

p. 220That he by whom God perfectly revealed all his will, Quod is, per quem Deus voluntatem suam omnem perfecté exposuisset, & propterea a Joanne Sermo appellatus fuisset, homo fuerit, omnibus miseriis, & afflictionibus, ac morti deni{que} subjectus. Etenim vocem caro eo sensu scriptura usurpat, ut ex iis locis perspicuum est; ubi Deus loquitur: non contendet spiritus meus cum homine in aternum, quia caro est, Gen. 6. 3. Et Petrus, Omnis caro ut foenum, 1 Pet. 1. 24.Gen 6:31 Pet 1:24who is therefore called sermo by Iohn, was a man subject to all miseries, and afflictions, and lastly to death it selfe. For the Scripture useth the word Flesh in that sence, as is cleare from those places, where God speakes, my Spirit shall not alwayes contend with man, seeing he is Flesh, Gen. 6. 3. and Peter, all Flesh is grasse. 1 Pet. 1. 24.

This is the upshot of our Catechists exposition of this first Chapter of Iohn, as to the Person of Christ. Which is

1. Absurd, upon their own suppositions, for the Testimonies produced affirme every man to be flesh; so that to say he is a man, is to say he is flesh: and to say that man was flesh, is to say that a man was a man, in as much as every man is flesh.

2. False, and no way fitted to the intendment of the Holy Ghost; for He was made Flesh antecedently to his dwelling amongst us; which immediately followes in the Text: Nor is his being made flesh suited to any thing in this place, but his conversation with men, which answers his Incarnation, not his mediation; neither is this Exposition confirmed by any instance from the Scriptures, of the like expression used concerning Jesus Christ; as that we urge is, Rom. 1. 3. Gal. 4. 4. and other places. The place evidently affirmes, the word to be made something, that it was not before, when he was the Word only; and cannot be affirmed of him, as he was man; in which sence he was alwayes obnoxious to miseries and death.

And this is all which our Catechists in severall places have §. 34.thought meet to insist on, by way of Exception, or opposition to our undeniable, & manifest Testimonies from this first Chap. of John, unto the great & sacred truth contended for; which I have at large insisted on, that the Reader from this one instance, may take a tast of their dealing in the rest; and of the desperatenesse of the cause which they have undertaken, driving them to such desperate shifts, for the maintenance, and protection of it: in the residue I shall be more briefe.

Joh. 6. 62. is in the next place taken into consideration. The §. 35.words are, What and if you shall see the Sonne of Man ascend up where p. 221he was before. What we intend from hence, and the force of the Argument from this Testimony insisted on, will the better appeare, if we adde unto it those other places of Scripture, wherein the same thing is more expresly, and emphatically affirmed, which our Catechists cast (or some of them) quite into another place, on pretence of the method wherein they proceed, indeed to take off from the evidence of the Testimony, as they dealt with what we plead from John the first: the places I intend are

Joh. 3. 13. And no man hath assended up to Heaven, but he that came down from Heaven, even the Sonne of man, who is in Heaven,

Vers. 31. He that cometh from above, is above all. He that cometh from Heaven, is above all.

John 8. 23. Ye are from beneath, I am am from above.

Joh. 16. 28. I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world; and againe I leave the world, and go to the Father.

Hence we thus argue. He that was in Heaven before he was on the earth, & who was also in Heaven, whilst he was on the earth, is the Eternall God. But this doth Jesus Christ abundantly confirme concerning himselfe; therefore he is the Eternall God blessed for ever.

In answer to the first place our Catechists thus proceed.§. 36.

ggAdsecundum autem quid Respondes? Ne{que} hic ullam praeaeternitatis mentionem factam expresse, nam hoc in loco filium hominis, id est, hominem in coelis fuisse testatur Scriptura, quem citra ullam controversiam praeaeternum non extitisse certum est.What answerest thou to the second Testimony, Joh. 6. 62.

Neither is here any mention made expressly of preeternity; for in this place the Scripture witnesseth, that the Sonne of man, that is, a man, was in Heaven, who without all controversy was not eternally preexistent. So they.

1. It is expressly affirmed, that Christ was in Heaven, before his coming into the world. And if we evince his preexistence to his Incarnation, against the Socinians, the taske will not be difficult to prove that preexistence to be in an eternall divine nature against the Arians. It is sufficient as to our intendment in producing this Testimony, that it is affirmed, that Christ foreign in Heaven, before his coming forth into the world; in what nature we elsewhere prove.

p. 2222. It is said indeed that the Sonne of man was in Heaven, which makes it evident, that he who is the Sonne of man, hath another nature, besides that wherein he is the Sonne of man, wherein he is the Sonne of God. And by affirming that the Sonne of man was in Heaven before, it doth no more assert that he was Eternall, and in Heaven in that Nature, wherein he is the Sonne of man, then the Affirmation that God redeemed his Church with his own Blood, doth prove, that the blood shed was the blood of the divine nature. Both the Affirmations are concerning the Person of Christ. As he who was God, shed his blood as he was man; so he who was man, was Eternall, and in Heaven, as he was God. So that the Answer doth meerely begge the thing in question; viz. that Christ is not God and man in one person.

3. The insinuation here of Christs being in Heaven as man, before his assention, mentioned in the Scripture, shall be considered, when we come to the proposall made of that figment by M. Biddle in his Chapter of the Propheticall office of Christ. In answer to the other Testimonyes recited, they thus proceed towards the later end of their Chapter, concerning the Person of Christ.

rrƲbi vero Scriptura de Christo ait, quod de Caelo descendit, a patre exivit, & in mun…um venit. Joh. 3. 13. 10. 36. 16. 28. 17. 18. quid ad haec respondes? Ex iis non probari divinam naturam hic apparere, quod primi Testimonii verba, descendit de Caelo, possint figurate accipi, quemadmodum Jac. 1. v. 17. Omne datum bonum & donum perfectum desursum est, descendens a parte luminum. & Apoc. 21. v. 2, 10. vidi civitatem sanctam, Hierusalem novam, descendentem de Caelo a Deo, &c. Quod si proprie accipi debeant, quod nos perlibenter admittimus, apparet, non de alio illa dicta, quam de filio hominis, qui cum personam humanam necessario habeat, Deus naturâ esse non potest. Porro, quod Scripturae testatur de Christo, quod Pater eum miserit in mundum, idem de Apostolis Christi legimus in iisdem verbis citatis superius. Quemadmodum me misisti in mundum, & ego misi eos in mundum Joh. 17. 18. Ea vero verba, quod Christus a patre exlerit, idem valent, quod de Caelc descendit. Venire vero in mundum, id ejusmodi est, quod Scriptura post nativitatem Christi extitisse ostendit; Joh. 18. v. 37. ubi ipse Dominus ait; Ego in hoc natus sum, & in mundum veni, ut testimonium perhibeam veritati. Et 1 Joh. 4. 1. Scriptum est, multos falsos Prophetas exiissein mundum. Quare ex ejusmodi loquendi modis natura divina in Christo probari non potest. In omnibus vero his locutionibus, quam divinum muncris Christi principium fuerit, duntaxat describitur.John 3:13John 3:10John 3:36John 3:16John 3:28John 3:17John 3:18Jas 1:17Rev 21:2Rev 21:10John 17:18John 18:371 John 4:1What answerest thou to Joh. 3. 13. chap. 10. 36. chap. 16. 28. chap. 17. 18.

That a Divine nature is not here proved, appeareth, because the words of the first Testimony, he came down from Heaven, may be received figuratively, as Jam. 1. 17. every good and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights: and Revel. 21. 2, 10. I saw the holy City Hierusalem coming down from God. But if the words be taken properly, which we willingly admit, it appeares, that they are not spoken of any other then the Sonne of man, who seeing he hath necessarily an humane Person, he cannot by nature be God; Moreover, for what the Scripture witnesseth of Christ, that the Father sent him into the world, the same we read of the Apostles of Christ in the same words above alleadged: Joh. 17. 18. as thou hast sent me into p. 223the world, I have sent them into the world. And these words, Christ came forth from the Father, are of the same import with he descended from Heaven. To come into the world is of that sort, as the Scripture manifests to have been after the Nativity of Christ. Joh. 18. 37. where the Lord himselfe sayes: for this I am borne, and come into the world, that I might beare witnesse to the Truth: and 1 Joh. 4. 1. It is written, many false Prophets are gone forth into the world. Wherefore from this kind of speaking, a divine nature in Christ cannot be proved; but in all these speeches only what was the divine originall of the office of Christ, is described.

1. That these expressions are meerely figuratively to be expounded, §. 38.they dare not assert; nor is there any colour given that they may be so received from the instances produced from James 1. 17. and Revel. 21. 2. for there is only mention made of descending, or comming down, which word we insist not on by it selfe, but as it is conjoyned with the Testimony of his being in Heaven before his descending; which takes off all pretence of a parity of Reason in the places compared.

2. All that followes is a perfect begging of the thing in question; because Christ is the Sonne of man, it followes that he is a true man; but not, that he hath the personality of a man, or an humane personality. Personality belongs not to the Essence, but the Existence of a man. So that here they do but repeat their own Hypothesis, in answer to an expresse Testimony of Scripture against it. Their confession of the proper use of the word, is but to give colour to the figment formerly intimated, which shall be in due place (God assisting) discovered.

3. They utterly omit, and take no notice of that place, where Christ sayes, he so came from Heaven, as that he was still in Heaven; nor do they mention any thing of that, which we lay p. 224greatest weight on, of his affirming that he was in Heaven before; but merely insist on the word descending, or comming down, and yet they can no other way deale with that neither, but by begging the thing in question.

4. We do not argue meerely from the words of Christs being sent into the world, but in this conjunct consideration, that he was so sent into the world, as that he was in Heaven before, and so came forth from the Father, and was with him in Heaven before his comming forth, and this our Catechists thought good to oversee.

5. The difference of Christs being sent into the world, and the Apostles by him, which they paralell, as to the purpose in hand, lyes in this, that Christ was so sent of the Father, that he came forth from the Father, and was with him in Heaven before his sending, which proves him to have another nature, then that wherein he was sent: the similitude alleadged consists quite in other things. Neither

6. Doth the Scripture in Joh. 18. 37. testify, that Christs sending into the world was after his Nativity, but only that the end of them both, was to beare witnesse to the truth; And indeed, I was borne, and came into the world, are but the same, the one being exegeticall of the other. But his being borne, & his coming into the world, is in the Testimonies cited, plainely asserted in reference to an Existence that he had in Heaven before. And thus as our Argument is not at all touched in this Answer, so is their Answer closed as it began, with the begging of that which is not only questioned, but sufficiently disproved, namely, that Christ was in his humane nature taken up into Heaven, and instructed in the will of God, before his entrance upon his Propheticall office.

And this is the whole of what they have to except against this evident Testimony of the divine nature of Christ. He was in Heaven, with the Father, before he came forth from the Father, or was sent into the world; and foreign, was in Heaven, when he was in the Earth, and at his Assension returned thither where he was before. And so much for the vindication of this second Testimony.

Ioh. 6. 62. is the second place I can meet with in all the Annotations of Grotius, wherein he seemes to assert the union of p. 225the humane nature of Christ with the eternall word: if he do so. It is not with the Man that I have any difference, nor do I impose any thing on him for his Judgement; I only take liberty, having so great cause given, to discusse his Annotations.

There remaines one more of the first ranke, as they are sorted §. 39.by our Catechists, for the proofe of the Eternity of Christ, which is also from John Chap. 8. 58. Before Abraham was I am, That they insist on.

ssHoc in loco non solum non exprimitur praeaeternitas, cum aliud sit; ante Abrahamian fuisse, aliud, praeaeternum; verum ne hoc quidem expressum est, ipsum ante Mariam virginem fuisse. Et enim ea verba aliter legi posse (nimirum hac ratione, Amen, Amen, dieo vobis, priusquam Abraham fiat, ego sum) apparet ex iis locis apud eundem Evangelistam, ubi similis & eadem graeca locutio habetur, cap: 13. 19. & modo dico vobis, priusquam fiat, ut cum factum fuerit credatis. Et cap. 14. 29. & nunc dixi vobis priusquam fiat, &c. Quae vero ejus sententia foret lectionis? Admodum egregia: etenim admonet Christus Judaeos, qui eum in sermone capere volebant, ut dum tempus haberent, crederent ipsum esse mundi lucem, antequam divina gratia, quam Christus iis offerebat, ab iis tolleretur, & ad Gentes transferretur. Quod vero ea verba, ego sum, sint ad eum modum supplenda; ac si ipse subjecisset iis, ego sum lux mundi, superius e principio ejusorationis, …. 12. constat & hinc, quod Christus bis seipsum iisdem verbis, Ego sum, lucem mundi vocaverit, v 24, 28. Ea vero verba, priusquam Abraham fiat, id significare quod diximus, e notatione nominis Abraham deprehendi potest; constat inter omnes Abrahamum notare Patrem multarum Gentium. Cum vero Abram non sit factus prius Abraham, quam Dei gratia, in Christo manifestata, in multas gentes redundaret, quippe quod Abrahamus unius tantum gentis antea Pater fuerit, apparet sententiam horum verborum, quam attulimus, esse ipsissimam.In this place the preeternity of Christ is not only not expressed, being it is one thing to be before Abraham, and another to be eternall, but also it is not so much as expressed, that he was before the Virgin Mary. For these words may otherwise be read; namely, verily, verily I say unto you, before Abraham was made I am; as it appears from those places in the same Evangelist, where the like Greek phrase is used, Chap. 13. 19. & 14. 29.

What then would be the sence of this reading? Very eminent. For Christ admonisheth the Jewes, who would have ensnared him in his speech, that whilest they had time, they should believe in him the light of the World, before the divine grace which Christ offered to them, should be taken from them, and be carried to the Gentiles. But that these words, I am, are to be supplied in that manner, as if himselfe had added to them, I am the light of the World, appears, because that in the beginning of his speech, v: 12. he had twice in those words, I am, called himselfe the light of the World. v: 24, 25. and that these words, before Abraham be, do signify that which we have said, may be perceived from the notation of that word Abraham; for it is evident, that Abraham notes the Father of many Nations: seeing then, that Abram was not made Abraham, before the grace of God, manifested in Christ, redounded to many Nations, for Abraham p. 226before was the Father of one Nation only, it appears, that that is the very sence of the words which we have given.

If our Adversaries can well quit themselves of this Evidence, I believe they will have no small hopes of escaping in the whole triall. And if they meet with Judges so partially addicted to them, and their cause, as to accept of such manifest jugling, and perverting of the Scriptures, I know not what they may not expect or hope for. Especially, seeing how they exult, and triumph in this invention; as may be seen in the words of Socinus himselfe, in his Answer to Erasmus Johannes p. 67. For whereas Erasmus saies, I confesse in my whole life, I never Fateor me per omnem vitam meam non magis contortam scripturae interpretationem audivisse; ideo{que} eam penitus improbo: Eras: Joan. Cum primum fatendi verbum in tuis verbis animadverti, sperabam te potius nullam in tuae vita scripturae interpretationem audivisse, quae hac sit aut acutior aut verior; quae{que} magis divinum quid saptat, & a Deo ipso patefactam fuisse praese ferat. Ego quidem certe non leves conjecturas habeo, illum, qui primus aetate nostra eam in lucem pertulit (hic autem is fuit, qui primus quo{que} sententiam de Christi origine, quam ego constanter defendo renovavit) precibus multis ab ipso Christo impetrasse. Hoc profecto affirmare ausim, cum Deus illi viro permulta, aliis prorsus tunc temporis incognita, patefecerit, vix quidquam inter illa omnia esse quod interpretatione hac divinius videri queat. Socin: disput. cum Eras. Johan. arg. 4. p. 67.met with any Interpretation of Scripture more wrested, or violently perverting the sence of it. The other replyes. I hoped rather that thou wouldest confesse; that in thy whole life thou had'st never heard an interpretation more acute, and true, then this, nor which did savour more of somewhat divine, or evidenced more clearly its revelation from God. I truly have not light conjectures, that he who brought it first to light in our age (now this was he, who in this age renewed the opinion of the Originall of Christ, which I constantly defend) (that is, his Ʋncle Laelius) obtained it of Christ by many Prayers. This truly I dare affirme, that whereas God revealed many things to that man, at that time altogether unknown to others, yet there is scarce any thing amongst them all, that may seeme more divine, then this interpretation.

p. 227Of this esteeme is this Interpretation of these words with §. 40.them. They professe it to be one of the best, and most divine discoveries, that ever was made by them; whereto for my part I freely assent; though withall, I believe it to be as violent a perverting of the Scripture, & corrupting of the word of God, as the World can beare witnesse to.

1. Let the Christian Reader, without the least prejudiciall thoughts from the Interpretation of this, or that man, consult the Text, and Context. The Head of the discourse, which gives occasion to these words of Christ, concerning himselfe, lyes evidently and undeniably in v. 51. Verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man keep my saying, he shall never see death: upon this, the Jewes rise up against him, as one that boasted of himselfe above measure, and preferred himselfe before his betters: v. 52. Then said the Iewes unto him, now we know that thou hast a Divell; Abraham is dead, and the Prophets, and thou sayest, if a man keep my sayings he shall never tast of death. and v. 53. Art thou greater then our Father Abraham, who is dead, and the Prophets are dead, whom makest thou thy selfe to be. Two things are here charged on him by the Jewes. First in generall, that he preferred, exalted, and honoured himselfe. 2. In particular, that he made himselfe better then Abraham their Father. To both which charges Christ answers in order in the following words: To the First, or generall charge of honouring himselfe. v. 54, 55. Iesus answered, if I honour my selfe, my honour is nothing; it is my Father that honoureth me, of whom ye say, that he is your God. Ye have not known him, but I know him, and if I should say I know him not, I shall be a Lyar like unto you; but I know him, and keep his saying. His honour he had from God, whom they professed, but knew not. 2. To that of Abraham he replies, v. 56. Your Father Abraham rejoyced to see my day; and he saw it, and was glad. Though Abraham was so truly great, & the Friend of God, yet his great joy was from his beliefe in me; whereby he saw my day. To this the Jewes reply, labouring to convince him of falsehood, from the impossibility of the things that he had asserted, v. 57. Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Abraham was dead so many hundred years before thou wast borne; how couldest thou see him, or he thee? To this in the last place our Saviour replyes, v. 58. verily, verily, I say unto you, before Abraham was, I am. The Jews knowing that by these words he asserted his Deity, p. 228and that it was impossible on any other account to make good that he who in their esteem was not fifty years old, (indeed but a little above thirty) should be before Abraham, as in a case of blasphemy, they take up stones to stone him, v: 59. as was their perpetuall manner, to attempt to kill him under pretence of blasphemy, when he asserted his Deity, as Joh. 5. 18. Therefore thought the Jewes the more to kill him,—because he said, that God was his Father, making himselfe equall with God.

This naked, and unprejudicate view of the Text, is sufficient §. 41.to obviate all the operous and sophisticall exceptions of our Catechists, so that I shall not need long to insist upon them. That which we have asserted may be thus proposed. He who in respect of his humane nature, was many hundred years after Abraham, yet was in another respect existing before him; He had an existence before his birth, as to his divine nature. Now this doth Christ expressely affirme concerning himselfe. And nothing else is pretended but only his divine nature, wherein he should so exist. They say then,

1. That these words do not signify preeternity, but only something before §. 42.Abraham. It is enough, that his Existence so many hundred years before his nativity is evidently asserted; his Eternity from thence will evidently be concluded, and they will not deny, that he may as well be eternall, as be before Abraham. But

2. The words may be rendred, prinsquam Abraham fiat, ego sum; before Abraham be made. But 1. They may be so rendred, is no proof at all that they ought to be so: and, as was before observed, if this be sufficient to evade the sence of a place, that any word in it may otherwise be rendred, because it is, or may be so in some other place, nothing certain can be concluded from any Testimony of the Scriptures whatever. But that they may not be so rendred, is evident. 1. From the Context, as before declared. 2. From the opposition between foreign, I am, and Abraham was, which evidently denotes a time past, as it stands in comparison with what Christ saies of himselfe. And 3. The words in such a construction as this, requires an Interpretation as to the time past. And 4. because this Interpretation of the words corrupts the whole sence of the place, and wrests it contrary to the designe, and intendment of our Saviour. But then they say,

p. 2293. The sence is excellent: for before Abraham be made, is as much as §. 43.before he be Abraham, or the Father of many Nations, which he was when the Gospell was Preached to the conversion of the Gentiles. I am, that is, I am the light of the world, which you should do well to walke in, and attend unto.

1. That this Interpretation in generall is altogether alien, and strange from the scope of the place, the Christian Reader, upon the bare view of it, will be able to judge. 2. It is false. 1. Because Abraham was the Father of many Nations, Jewes, and Proselites, before the Preaching of the Gospell, as Gen. 15. 5. 2. It is false, that Abraham was not Abraham, untill after the assension of Christ, and Preaching of the Gospell to the Gentiles. He was made Abraham, from his first enjoyment of his name, and seed in Isaack, and is constantly so called. 3. It is frivolous; for if Christ was, before Abram was made Abraham, we obtain what we plead for, for he was made so, when God gave him that name. But, it should be, before Abram be made Abraham, or there is no sence in the words: nor then neither, unlesse Abraham be taken as a common Appellative for the Father of many Nations, and not a Proper name, whereof in Scripture there is not any example. 4. It is horribly wrested, 1. In making the words, I am, Elipticall; whereas there is neither need of, nor colour for such a pretence. 2. In supplying the feigned Eclipsis with a word at such a distance, as from v. 12. to v. 58. 3. In making Christ to say, he is the Light of the world, before the Preaching of the Gospell to the Gentiles, when the World is every where in the Gospell taken quite in another sence, for the Jewes, and Gentiles, and not for the Jewes only, which according to this Interpretation it must be. 4. It leaves no reason of the following attempt of the Jewes to stone him, upon the particular provocation of this Assertion, he having before affirmed himselfe to be the Light of the World, which they were not moved at. There is indeed no end of the falsities, follies, and corruptions of this perverting, and corrupting of the word of God.

For the Grammaticall vindication of the words, and the Translation of the word foreign, in a sence of that which is past, there is no occasion administred by our Catechists, and therefore I shall not trouble the Reader therewith.

p. 230And of the first sort of Testimonies, which they except against, and their exceptions, thus farre.

A little Animadversion upon the Catechists good friend Grotius, §. 44.shuts up this Discourse and Chapter. In the End he agrees with them, but fixes on a new medium for the accomplishment of it, not daring to espouse an interpretation so absurd in it selfe, and so abhorrent from the common sence of all men, that ever professed the name of Christ. He takes then another course, yet no lesse aiming then they, to disappoint this evidence of the preexistence of Christ before his Nativity: foreign. Antequam esset, (saith he) before he was: and gives many instances to prove the propriety of so translating that expression. foreign: praesens pro imperfecto: eram: Syrus. foreign Nonnus: sit in Graeco Psal: 90. 2. foreign. very good… before Abraham was, or was borne, Christ was, as in that of the Psalme, before the Mountaines were made, thou art. And a little to helpe a friend at so good a work: It is no new thing for this Evangelist to use the present for the praeterimperfect tense: as Chap. 14. 9. foreign. I am so long, for I was, or I have been so long with you: &c. And Chap: 15. 27. foreign: because you have been with me from the beginning: Thus farre then we are agreed: but how should this be, that Christ thus was, before Abraham was, Fuerat (saith he) autem ante Abrahamum Iesus, divina constitutione. In Gods appointment Iesus was before Abraham was borne: yea and so was Grotius, and Socinus, and every man in the World, for known unto God are all his works from the foundation of the World. And this is that great priviledge in seems, that our Saviour vindicates to himselfe, without any occasion, to no purpose, insisting on that, which is common to him with all the Elect of God in the best sence of the words. Of that other Text of Scripture Ioh: 17. 5. which together with this he labours to corrupt, I shall speak afterwards. I shall only adde that our great Doctours do not in this businesse agree. Grotius here makes no mention of Socinus his Glosse: and Socinus before hand rejects this of Grotius, as absurd and fond; and as such let it passe; as having no occasion given from the words foregoing, nor colour from the matter, nor phrase of words, no significancy to the businesse in hand.