as being a proper Son of God, of the same uncreated essence with the Father, (as the terms father and son import among us,) but in so transcendent a manner, that we cannot conceive or define it. Indeed, in the order of nature, a father, as being the begetter or producer, is to be supposed to have a being first or prior to the son begotten or produced; and yet the Son of God is equally infinite with the Father; for in this argument we have nothing to do with the ordinary course of nature: the essence which God always had without beginning, without beginning he did communicate, being as well always Father, as always God; of which we have a faint resemblance in the sun, which is the producer of heat and light, and yet its heat and light is as ancient as itself; nor can one conceive a moment in which the sun was without them, though we cannot account for it; no more can we comprehend how God should have his being from himself, or from all eternity; and yet that is not the less true.

Furthermore, St. John calls Christ the Word: In the beginning was the Word, even then subsisting, or in being, and the Word was with God, as the second person may be said to be with the first, or the son with the father, and the Word was God; in which last sentence, the term God must be understood in the same sense, as it was in the former with God, to signify him who is truly and properly God as to his essence; or else the Apostle must be supposed to leave Christians liable to a great and dangerous mistake, by reason of the doubtful meaning of his words, which ought not to be charged upon

a John i. 2, 3. Grot. in loc. jam tum erat. Therefore he did not then begin to be. The want of the article, in John i. 1. is no objection; for as os expresses the Father without an article, John i. 6. so o oc with an article expresses the Son, Matt. i. 23. See Bishop Pearson on the second Article of the Creed, and Dr. Waterland's Defence.

him, or rather the Holy Ghost. It follows, The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. Now hereby St. John shews, that the same who made, did also redeem the world: for the Jews understood that divine Being, by whom the world was created, by the term, the Worda ; Moses having written, God SAID, Let there be light, and there was light, and so on of the rest of the creation. Hence the Psalmist, by the word of God the heavens were made, which St. Peter imitated, by the word of God the heavens were of old. It seems also, that this term Logos, or the Word, in this sense, was gotten very early among the heathen, (probably by tradition from the Jews dispersed among them,) whereby they expressed the power of God in making the world: so that both Jews and Gentiles were in St. John's time well acquainted with the expression, and easily comprehended the meaning of it. By this it seems plain, that since he that made, or built all things is God', St. John intended to be understood so, as to shew that Jesus Christ, the Redeemer, being that Word, by whom all things were made, could not be himself a creature, but had a

a As the Chaldee Paraphrase; see Grot. in Joh. i. 1. et De Verit. Rel. Christianæ, 1. v. §. 21. Ham. in Luc. 1. not. 2. Bishop Pearson on the Creed, Artic. II. His only Son, p. 117. edit. 4. Lond. 1676. And although Dr, Lightf. (Hor. in Joh. i. 1.) observes, that the Chaldee mimra (the word) does sometimes signify only ego, tu, and ipse, and is applied to men; yet the two last instances given by Bishop Pearson shew plainly the application thereof only to God; as Gen. i. 17. God created man, is rendered, The word of the Lord created man: and Gen. iii. 8. They heard the voice of the Lord God, is rendered, They heard the voice of the word of the Lord God. Compare another writer's observation to the same purpose, (who must be allowed sufficiently conversant in the Jewish rabbinical learning,) Bishop Kidder's Demonstration of the Messiah, part iii. chap. 5. e Gen. i. 3. f Psal. xxxiii. 6. 82 Pet. iii. 5. h Grot. in Joh.

1. 1. Ham. in Luc. i. not. 2.

i Gen. i. 1. Heb. iii. 4.

n

subsistence with the Father in the beginning, and was himself, together with the Father, one true eternal God. And this interpretation of St. John's words in the Gospel, is further confirmed by St. John himself', where the absolute eternity of the Son of God is described in the same words, as that of the Father is, I am the first and the last. It is manifest, that St. John brings in Christ so speaking, because he adds, I am he that liveth, and was dead. Now Isaiah brings in the Father thus speaking Thus saith the Lord, the King of Israel, and his redeemer the Lord of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and besides me there is no God. this we may add the words of Irenæus, who was trained up under Polycarp, St. John's disciple, "Neither the Lord, nor the Holy Spirit, nor the Apostle, would have called him, who was not God, by the name of God, at any time, if he had not been truly God."

To

This doctrine we are the more confirmed in, by Christ's appointing to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghosto. Now whether we understand the words in the name, on the minister's part, to signify, by the authority and commission of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; or, that by the persons being baptized in, or into their name, is signified his profession of faith in all three, and his being as it were listed under, and dedicated to their service; it is plain, that hereby Christ sets every person in an equality, without any the least note of distinction, (more than that of a personal relation,) and that in the case of entering

k Compare Rev. xix. 13. and also Heb. i. 10-13. where the Apostle applies to Christ what the Psalmist had said of Jehovah, the God of Israel, the Maker of heaven and earth, Psal. cii. 25, &c. See at large Dr. Waterland's Defence of Queries. m Rev. i. 17. n Isaiah xli. 4. and xliv, 6. • Irenæus, 1. iii. cap. 6. ad initium.

P Matt. xxviii. 19.

one into covenant with the true God, in opposition to the heathen gods, and of placing a sinner in a state of reconciliation with God, and eternal salvation; which can only be offered and assured to men, in the name of the great and eternal God.

Here it may be proper to explain to the common reader the sense of the Christian church in two respects; 1st, Concerning the three persons in the Godhead; 2dly, Of Christ's being said to be God of the substance of the Father.

As for the first, By a person is not meant such à being as we commonly understand by that word, viz. a complete intelligent being, distinct from every other being; but thus those three, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are in Scripture spoken of with as much distinction from one another, as we use to speak of three several persons, and yet they having equal attributes and perfections ascribed to them, are understood to partake of one and the same nature. So that the Church asserts three persons on the account of divine revelation, but in such a manner as to be agreeable to the Divine nature; which being infinite, is not, like our finite nature, capable of multiplication, separation, or division. These three persons are distinguished in Scripture by their personal properties; viz. either those which are internal, as having relation to each other; so it is the property of the Father to beget the Son, of the Son to be begotten of the Father, and of the Holy Ghost to proceed from the Father and the Son: they are also distinguished by those properties which are external, as having relation to the creatures, especially to the members of the church; so the creation of the world is in Scripture more particularly ascribed to the Father, the redemption to the Son, and the sancti fication of God's people to the Holy Ghost.

2dly, As for Christ's being said to be God of the substance of the Father, it is not to be understood

as if God the Father were supposed to be endued with any bodily substance, such as goes under that name in things on earth; for he is a spirit; or that the Divine nature is capable of division or separation, as bodily substances are; and therefore in this case there is no reasoning from bodily and sensible things. And although Christ was made man of the substance of his mother, as children are of their mother's substance, or a branch is of the substance of a tree, &c. yet we are not to conceive so of the Divine nature; and therefore, when it is said that the Son is begotten or derived, it is not to be understood that he is of a distinct substance, or is a distinct being, but a distinct person. The word consubstantiality, as to Christ, is a term taken up by the Church in opposition to heretics, chiefly Sabellius and Arius; the former of which, about the year 260, pretended that there was no difference between the Persons in the Trinity, but that they were all one Person under three names; and Arius, about the year 306, would understand Christ to be only a creature, and to have had a beginning, denying his divinity, yet acknowledging him, by reason of his excellency, to be styled God in Scripture. And because those heretics and their followers made use of several evasive and coined expressions, and sheltered themselves under ambiguous terms, the fathers of the Nicene council fixed on the term substance, and consubstantial, (or of the same being,) which was not a term then newly used, but had been applied to the same purpose before, and was esteemed most fully to preserve the order and distinction of the persons Father and Son in the Holy Trinity, together with the essential divinity of the Son, without destroying the unity; as signifying the Son's being not a creature, or only God by name; but as partaking of the Divine nature, and enjoying all the essential perfections of the Father in common with him, as it is set forth in the

1