the World. Wherefore he produceth a name of his, as yet unknown to the World, or rather not taken notice of, though in frequent use among the Jews, which belonged unto him who was made man, but before he was so. Under that name he shews at first that he had a being in the beginning;* when all things were to be created, and consequently were not yet, then in the beginning was the Word, and so not created.. This is the first step, the Word was not created when the World was made. The next is, that the same Word which then was, and was not made, at the same time, "was with God,"+ when he made all things; and therefore well may we conceive it is he to whom "God said, let us make man in our image, after our likeness;" (Gen. i. 26.) and of whom those words may be understood, "Behold, the man is become as one of us." (Gen. iii. 22.) After this, lest any should conceive the creation of the World too great and divine a work to be attributed to the Word; lest any should object, that none can produce any thing out of nothing but God himself; he addeth, That "the Word," as he "was with God," so "was he also God." Again, lest any should divide the Deity, or frame a false conception of different gods, he returns unto the second assertion, and joins it with the first, "The same was in the beginning with God:" and then delivers that which at the first seemed strange, but now after those three propositions, may easily be accepted; "All things were made by him, and without him was not any thing made that was made." For now this is no new doctrine, but only an interpretation of those Scriptures which told us, God made all things by his Word before. For "God said, Let there be light; and there was light." (Gen. i. 3.) And so "by the Word of the Lord were the heavens made, and all the hosts of them by the breath of his mouth." (Psal. xxxiii. 6.) From whence we understand that the worlds were framed by the Word of God." (Heb. xi. 3. 2 Pet. iii. 5.) Neither was it a new interpretation, but that which was most familiar to the Jews, who in their synagogues, by the reading of the paraphrase or the in* Εν ἀρχῇ, the first word of Moses; whence the Syriac translation, So Solomon N ΣΤΡΟΥΝ Ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸ τοῦ τὴν γῆν ποιῆσαι. Prov. viii. 23. ' In principio erat Sermo; in quo principio scilicet Deus fecit coelum et terram.' Tertull, adv. Hermog. c. 20.

† Πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν, that is, παρὰ τῷ Os, that is, by God. As Nonnus: Пarpòs Env åμéρioros, árépμovi ovvpoνος ἕδρη. —c. i. 4.

As Wisdom speaketh, Prov. viii. 30. then I was by him, DYN JAN μŋv Tap' avr. Chald. et eram in latere ejus. Moschopulus, TEρi oxεdwv, p. 25. IIpòs ròv Dεdv, TOUTEOTI, μετὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ. As: Ai ádeλpai avrov

οὐχὶ πᾶσαι πρὸς ἡμᾶς εἰσί; Matt. xiii. 56. κas' ǹμéρav ñμηv æрòs vμãç. Mark Χίν. 49. πρὸς ὑμᾶς δὲ τυχὸν παραμενω. 1 Cor. xvi. 6. Πεπιστευμένῳ διακονίαν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὃς πρὸ αἰώνων παρὰ Πατρὶ ἦν, καὶ ἐν τέλει ἐφάνη. Ignat. ad Magnes. c. 6.

I conceive this Chaldee paraphrase to represent the sense of the Jews of that age, as being their public interpretation of the Scripture. Wherefore what we find common and frequent in it, we cannot but think the vulgar and general opinion of that nation. Now it is certain that this paraphrast doth often use the word of God, for God himself, and that especially with relation to the

terpretation of the Hebrew text in the Chaldee language, were constantly taught, that the Word of God was the same with God, and that by that Word all things were made. Which undoubtedly was the cause why St. John delivered so great a mystery in so few words, as speaking unto them who at the first apprehension understood him. Only that which as yet they knew not was, that this Word was made flesh, and that this Word made flesh was Jesus Christ. Wherefore this exposition being so literally clear in itself, so consonant to the notion of the creation of the world. As Isa. xlv. 12. fers his whole doctrine of this Aóyoç to

the first chapter of Genesis. And the אנכי עשיתי ארץ ואדם עליה בראתי

I made the earth, and created man upon it, saith the Lord, the Holy One of Israel; which the Chaldee translateth KUIN MAY "DDD XIX I by my word made the earth, and created man upon it. In the same manner, Jer. xxvii. 5. I made the earth, and men and beasts on the face of the earth; the

rest of the Jews before him, who had no such knowledge out of Plato's school, used the same notion. For as Isa. xlviii. 13. the hand of God, is by the Chaldee paraphrast translated the Word of God: so in the book of Wisdom, ἡ παντοδύναμός σου χεὶρ καὶ κτίoaoa ròv кóσμov, Sap. xi. 17. is changed

into draprodinauis cov Adyos de אנא במימרי עבדת ית Targum

And Isa. xlviii.13.Dovρavov, xviii. 15. and Siracides xliii. My hand also founded the earth: 26. 'Ev Aóyw avтov σvykeltal távтa. the Chaldee 5 Nay, the Septuagint hath changed NYN Etiam in verbo meo fundavi Shaddai, the undoubted name of the terram. And most clearly Gen. i. 27. omnipotent God, into Aóyoç, the Word, we read, Et creavit Deus hominem: Ezek. i. 24. quasi vox subthe Jerusalem Targum, Verbum Do- limis Dei, quod Hebraice appellatur mini creavit hominem. And Gen. iii. 8. T, et juxta LXX. Dwvij Toũ λóyov, Audierunt vocem Domini Dei: the id est, vox Verbi, ut universa quæ præChaldee paraphrase dicantur in mundo vocem Filii Dei esse Et audierunt vocem verbi dicamus.' S. Hieron. ad loc. col. 679. Domini Dei. Now this which the And therefore Celsus, writing in the Chaldee paraphrase called the person of a Jew, acknowledgeth that Hellenists named Aóyov as appeareth the Word is the Son of God. Et ye o by Philo the Jew, who wrote before Λόγος ἐστὶν ὑμῖν υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ ἡμεῖς St. John, and reckons in his Divinity, Tavouμev. Orig. adv. Celsum, l. ii. first Πατέρα τῶν ὅλων, then δεύτερον §. 31. And although Origen objects Deòv, ös éσriv ÉKEívov Aóyos. Quæst. et that in this Celsus makes the Jew Solut. Frag. p. 625. vol. ii. ap. Euseb. speak improperly, because the Jews Prap. Evang. 1. vii. c. 13. Whom he which he had conversed with, did calls: ὀρθὸν Θεοῦ Λόγου, πρωτόγονον never acknowledge that the Son of vióv. De Agricult. p. 308. vol. i. He God was the Word; yet Celsus's Jew attributes the creation of the World to did speak the language of Philo: but this Aoyos, whom he terms: öpyavov between the time of Celsus and that Θεοῦ, δι' οὗ (ὁ κόσμος) κατεσκεύασται. De of Origen I guess about threescore Flammeo gladio, ad fin. p. 162. vol. i. years), the Jews had learnt to deny Σκιὰ δὲ Θεοῦ ὁ Λόγος αὐτοῦ ἐστὶν, ᾧ κα- that notion of Λόγος, that they might θάπερ ὀργάνῳ προσχρησάμενος ἐκοσμο- with more colour reject St. John. If role. Idem, Alleg. lib. ii. al. iii. p. then all the Jews, both they which 106. vol. i. Where we must observe, understood the Chaldee exposition, though Philo makes the Aóyoç, of and those which only used the Greek whom he speaks, as instrumental in translation, had such a notion of the the creation of the World; yet he taketh it not for a bare expression of the will of God, but for a God, though in the second degree, and expressly for the Son of God. Nor ought we to look on Philo Judæus in this as a Platonist, but merely as a Jew, who re

Word of God; if all things, by their confession, were made by the Word; we have no reason to believe St. John should make use of any other notion than what they before had, and that by means whereof he might be so easily understood.

Word, and the apprehension of the Jews; it is infinitely to be preferred before any such interpretation as shall restrain the most universals to a few particulars, change the plainest expressions into figurative phrases, and make of a sublime truth, a weak, useless, false discourse. For who will grant that "in the beginning" must be the same with that in St. John's first Epistle (i. 1.) "from the beginning," especially when the very interpretation involves in itself a contradiction? For "the beginning" in St. John's Epistle, is that in which the apostles saw, and heard, and touched the Word: "the beginning" in his Gospel was that in which "the Word was with God," that is, not seen nor heard by the apostles, but known as yet to God alone, as the new exposition will have it. Who will conceive it worthy of the apostle's assertion, to teach that the Word had a being in the beginning of the Gospel, at what time John the Baptist began to preach; when we know the Baptist taught as much, who therefore "came baptizing with water, that he might be made manifest unto Israel ?" (John i. 31.) when we are sure that St. Matthew and St. Luke, who wrote before him, taught us more than this, that he had a being thirty years before? when we are assured, it was as true of any other then living as of the Word, even of Judas who betrayed him, even of Pilate who condemned him? Again, who can imagine the apostle should assert that the Word was, that is, had an actual being, when as yet he was not actually the Word? For if "the beginning" be, when John the Baptist began to preach, and the Word, as they say, be nothing else but he who speaketh, and so revealeth the will of God; Christ had not then revealed the will of God, and consequently was not then actually the Word, but only potentially or by designation. Secondly, It is a strange figurative speech, "the Word was with God," that is, was known to God, especially in this apostle's method. "In the beginning was the Word;" there was must signify an actual existence; and if so, why in the next sentence ("the Word was with God") shall the same verb signify an objective being only? Certainly though to be in the beginning be one thing, and to be with God, another; yet to be in either of them is the same. But if we should imagine this being understood of the knowledge of God, why we should grant that thereby is signified, he was known to God alone, I cannot conceive. For the proposition of itself is plainly affirmative, and the exclusive particle only added to the exposition, maketh it clearly negative. Nay more, the affirmative sense is certainly true, the negative as certainly false. For except Gabriel be God who came to the Virgin; except every one of the heavenly host which appeared to the shepherds, be God; except Zachary and Elizabeth, except Simeon and Anna, except Joseph and Mary, be God; it cannot be true that he was known to God only, for to all these he was certainly known. Thirdly, To pass by the third attribute,

"and the Word was God," as having occasion suddenly after to handle it; seeing the apostle hath again repeated the circumstance of time as most material, "the same was in the beginning with God," and immediately subjoined those words, "all things were made by him, and without him was not any thing made that was made;" how can we receive any exposition, which referreth not the making of all these things to him in the beginning? But if we understand the latter part of the apostles, who after the ascension of our Saviour, did nothing but what they were commanded and empowered to do by Christ, it will bear no relation to the beginning. If we interpret the former, of all which Jesus said and did in the promulgation of the Gospel, we cannot yet reach to the beginning assigned by the new expositors: for while John the Baptist only preached, while in their sense the Word was with God, they will not affirm that Jesus did any of these things that are here spoken of. And consequently, according to their grounds, it will be true to say, 'In the beginning was the Word, and that Word in the beginning was with God, insomuch as in the beginning nothing was done by him, but without him were all things done, which were done in the beginning.' Wherefore, in all reason we should stick to the known interpretation, in which every word receiveth its own proper signification, without any figurative distortion, and is preserved in its due latitude and extension, without any curtailing restriction. And therefore I conclude, from the undeniable testimony of St. John, that in the beginning, when the heavens and the earth and all the hosts of them were created, all things were made by the Word, who is Christ Jesus being made flesh; and consequently, by the method of argument, as the apostle antecedently by the method of nature, that in the beginning Christ was. He then who was in heaven, and descended from thence before that which was begotten of the Virgin ascended thither, he who was before John the Baptist and before Abraham, he who was at the end of the first World, and at the beginning of the same; he had a real being and existence, before Christ was conceived by the Virgin Mary. But all these we have already shewed belong unto the Son of God. Therefore we must acknowledge, that Jesus Christ had a real being and existence before he was begotten by the Holy Ghost: which is our first assertion, properly opposed to the Photinians.*

* The Photinians were heretics, so tus. Nam et Diaconus sub eo alicalled from Photinus, bishop of Sir- quandiu fuit.' Hilar. Frag. ii. §. 19. mium, but born in Gallogræcia, and Wherefore when Epiphanius speakscholar to Marcellus, bishop of An- eth thus of him, ovτoc úpμãтo áñò Zipcyra. Photinus de Gallogræcia, Mar- píov, it hath no relation to the original celli discipulus, Sirmii Episcopus or- of his person, but his heresy; of which dinatus, Hebionis Hæresin instaurare St. Hilary: Pestifere, natum Jesum conatus est.' S. Hieron. Catal. Eccl. Christum ex Maria, Pannonia defenn. 117. col. 415. Photinus, Sirmien- dit.' De Trin. 1. vii. c. 3. He was a sis Episcopus, fuit a Marcello imbu- man of singular parts and abilities:

The second assertion, next to be made good, is, that the being which Christ had, before he was conceived by the