But say the Socinians, " These things are quite otherwise, and the words have another sense in them than you imagine." What is it, I pray? We bring none to them, we impose no sense upon them, we strain not any word in them, from, beside, or beyond its native, genuine signification, its constant niDplication in the Scripture, and common use amongst men. What, then, is this latent sense that is intended, and is discoverable only by themselves? Let us hear them coining and stam])ing this sense of theirs.
First, they say that by " In the beginning," is not meant of the
TRINITY VINDICATED. 395
beginning of all things, or the creation of tliem, but the beginnmg of the preachmg of the gospel. But why so, I pray? Wherever these words are else used in the Scripture, they denote the beginning of all things, or eternity absolutely, or an existence preceding their creation. " In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth," Gen. i. 1, " I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was," Prov. viii. 23. " Thou, Lord, in the ])eginning hast laid the foundation of the earth," Heb. i. 1 0. And besides, these words are never used absolutely anywhere for the beginning of the gospel. There is mention made, indeed, of the " beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ," Mark i. 1, which is referred to the preaching of John Baptist: but "In the beginning," absolutely, is never so used or applied ; and they must meet with men of no small inclination unto them, who will, upon their desire, in a matter of so great importance, forego the sense of words which is natural and proper, fixed by its constant use in the Scripture, when applied in the same kind, for that which is forced and strained, and not once exemplified in the whole book of God. But the words, they say, are to be restrained to the subject-matter treated of Well, what is that subject-matter ? " The new creation, by the preaching of the gospel." But this is plainly false; nor will the words allow any such sense, nor the context, nor is any thing offered to give evidence unto this corrupt perverting of the words, unless it be a farther perverting of other testimonies no less clear than this.
For what is, according to this interpretation, the meaning of these words, " In the beginning was the Word?" " That is, when John Bap- tist preached, and said, ' This is the Lamb of God,' which was sig- nally the beginning of the gospel, — then he was." That is, he was when he was, — no doubt of it ! And is not this a notable way of interpreting of Scripture which these gTeat pretenders to a dictatorship in reason, indeed hucksters in sophistry, do make use of? But to go on with them in this supposition. How was he then with God, — " The Word Avas with God?" "That is," say they, " he was then known only to God, before John Baptist preached him in the beginning." But what shall compel us to admit of this uncouth sense and exposition, — " ' He was with God;' that is, he was known to God alone?" What is there singular herein ? concerning how many things may the same be affirmed ? Besides, it is absolutely false. He was known to the angel Gabriel, who came to his mother with the message of his incar- nation, Luke i. 35. He was known to the two angels which appeared to the shepherds upon his birth, Luke ii. 9, — to all the heavenly host assembled to give praise and glory to God on the account of his nativity, as those who came to worship him, and to pay him the homage due unto him, Luke ii. 10, 1 3, 1 4. He was known to his mother,
396 THE DOCTRINE OF THE
the blessed Virgin, and to Joseph, and Zacharias, and to Elisabeth, to Simeon and Anna, to John Bajitist, and probably to many more to whom Simeon and Anna spake of him, Luke ii. 38. So that the sense pretended to be Avnmg out and extorted from these words, against their proper meaning and intendment, is indeed false and frivolous, and belongs not at all unto them.
But let this pass. What shall we say to the next words, " And the Word was God?" Give us leave, -without disturbance from you, but to believe this expression, Avhich compriseth a revelation of God, proposed to us on purpose that we should believe it, and there will be, as was said, an end of this difference and debate. Yea, but say they, "These words have another sense also.'' Strange ! they seem to be so plain and positive, that it is- impossible any other sense should be fixed on them but only this, that the Word Avas in the beginning, and was God ; and therefore is so still, unless he who is once God can cease so to be. " But the meaning is, that afterwards God exalted him, and made him God, as to rule, authority, and powe7\" This making of him God is an expression very offensive to the ears of all sober Christians; and was therefore before exploded. And these things here, as all other figments, hang together like a rope of sand. In the beginning of the gospel he was God, before any knew him but only God ; that is, after he had preached the gospel, and died, and rose again, and was exalted at the right hand of God, he was made God, and that not properly, which is absolutely impossible, but in an improper sense ! How prove they, then, this perverse nonsense to be the sense of these plain words ? They say it must needs be so. Let them believe them who are willing to perish with them.