regard here. But as to the minor proposition, that lies plainly before our eyes in the very beginning of St. John's gospel: for there the discourse is manifestly of no other person, but of the Word that was made flesh,' or of Jesus Christ, concerning whom John wrote his gospel. Here therefore He is not only by him called the Word which was in the beginning, and was with God;' but he says also in the clearest and plainest words, such as every one may understand, eds & λdyos, Deus erat illud Verbum, 'God was the Word.' It was observed by us in the former meditation, that these words, if they were placed in their natural order, ought to be rendered, -the Word was God. That this acceptation of the words cannot seem improper to one that has but small knowledge of the Greek tongue, among other things, appears from hence, that a certain person, who translated the New Testament into the German tongue, and not a little perverts those places which speak of Christ, translates the word λóyos, not Verbum, [the Word] but Rede, sermo, [speech] and yet thus expresses the Greek words, according to their natural position: Die Rede war ein Gott, i. e. Sermo erat Deus aliquis,-speech was a (certain) God. By which indeed the interpreter confesses, that the words ought so to be taken according to their natural order, that God may be the predicate, or that which John would here say and affirm concerning the Word, viz. that 'He is God;' yet nevertheless he perverts the text, when he thus translates it into the German, Die Rede war ein Gott, Sermo erat Deus aliquis,-speech was a (certain) God: without doubt for this end, that the readers of this version might think that Christ indeed is God, but not the true and essential God. But now

no man can offer the least colour from the Greek text, to make it only probable, that it ought to be thus interpreted,-the speech or the word, was a (certain) God. For when it is said before, Verbum illud erat apud Deum,-the word was with God; and it immediately follows, Et illud Verbum erat 0eòs, Deus, -and the Word was God; it being presently added, Hoc Verbum in principio erat apud Deum,—this Word was in the beginning with God; it plainly enough appears that the word 0ɛds, (God) put in the first and third place, ought altogether to be understood of the true and essential God; but in the middle place, where it is said, 'the Word was God,' after the same manner, and with the same term, and the name eòs is assigned to the Word without any limitation, (especially when the nature of the predicate eòs, (God) placed emphatically before the subject ¿ λóyos, (the Word,) requires no article before it: certainly we should do violence to the whole context, if here, where the Word is called God, we should not understand it also concerning the true and essential God. This is an example, what miserable shifts corrupt reason finds it necessary to use; when once departed from the clear word of God, it finds the letter opposite to it, and notwithstanding desires to defend an erroneous opinion once formed. Thus in his translation, the first artifice was to put the word Rede,— speech, instead of Wort,-word; and when that would not suffice, he has another way of wresting the text, to make his opinion prevail. Certainly an honest and upright mind, ignorant of those artifices, could never fall into such imaginations upon reading St. John's words. Wherefore we have subjoined that instance for an admonition, that the falsehood

of those things, which are wont to be brought against the divine glory and majesty of our Lord Jesus Christ, may be the better known and avoided. For to attain the knowledge of Christ's Godhead, there is no need of far-fetched interpretations; the plain word of God is before you which it is fit you should believe, and adhere to with simplicity of mind. But to pervert plain words, recourse must be had to human arts, and a laborious exercise of wit. Concerning the above-mentioned version of the text, 'the Word was God,' it is to be noted, that there is nothing new or strange in that expression: for so have the Dutch, the English, the French, the Bohemians, translated these words in their bibles, and Piscator has so rendered them in his German translation. From whence it may at least be understood, that this acceptation of the words appeared to be the plainest and most proper of all to the best interpreters. And that this is the true acceptation, may appear from the intention of St. John by them, viz. that the Word was before the beginning of any thing, or it was from eternity; so as no time can be assigned when he began to exist. But if you inquire, where then was the Word, if thus set beyond time and place, and any conception that man can form of created beings? it is answered, He was from eternity with God, and before or in the presence of God, as the most beloved Son; his delight and joy is in the presence of his Father. (1 John i. 2.) If you further ask, Was the Word of another essence from God? was he any way in respect of his essence different from God? It is answered, No. That same Word was God. If you still urge, Was there then no difference between the Word and God? it is answered,

None at all, in regard of essence, but the Word was in the beginning with God,' as it was said in the first verse, and again repeated in the second, that you may observe there is no difference in the Godhead in point of essence; and yet nevertheless that there is such a difference, that the Father and the Word should not be confounded, but that in regard of essence they are One, and in regard of personality they are Two: which distinction holds also as to the Holy Spirit: wherefore St. John might truly say, that they are Three; and that these Three are One. Why therefore, O man, dost thou go about to wrest those words which the scriptures make plain and consonant? But if any one induced by the least colour of reason, scruples to acquiesce in a clear version generally received by such numbers of intelligent people, and is not satisfied with what is alleged before concerning it, let him know, that this is no derogation at all to the truth itself. Let the version be retained as it stands in our German bibles, und Gott war das Wort, i. e. et Deus erat Verbum,— and God was the Word: taking it in this manner, pray what is wanting to a demonstration of the true and essential Godhead of our Saviour? John says, the Word was with God.' Some may have concluded perhaps from these words, that because the Word was with God, it was therefore not God, but some other thing beside God: John therefore answers, Gott war selbst das Wort, i. e. ipse Deus erat illud Verbum,-God himself was the Word. And when it may be retorted; Are they then in no respect two; and is all difference (even personal) taken from them? St. John for that reason repeats what he had said, and saith; Tos the same (i. e. λóyos the Word;

by which term at the very time he expresses some personal difference) was in the beginning with God. Which way soever therefore our antagonist turns himself, he will not at all advantage his cause; for the words of St. John are so clear, so convincing and piercing, that they cannot possibly be so far wrested, but that the simple and plain mind of John, must needs be acknowledged by him who will not choose to be blind, with his eyes open. They most effectually confute Arius, as well as Sabellius; the first, in his oppugning the true divinity of Christ; and the other, in taking away the distinction of persons in the Godhead. But when we speak of the difference of persons, this is not to be understood in a gross manner, and such as is suitable to created beings for corrupt reason easily sinks so low, as to form to itself such a personality in the mind, that may also involve a difference of the essence. The words of St. John directly oppose this gross and false conception of the personality, and all things are therein delivered in a most plain and simple manner, in which every one may safely acquiesce ; nor is there reason why any one should be offended with the word personality, so it be not hurried by corrupt reason into a perverse sense. Since therefore the words of John are so clear, and attribute the same divinity to the Word, or the Son, as belongs to the Father, nothing more can be required to the former proof of the minor proposition of the second syllogism, than that every one should be referred to the words of John, without adding a single word to them. But it was thought convenient to produce some arguments for their sake, who will not be content with plain words. And if there be any who