CHAP. I. The true Idea of the Logos .

GOD dwelling in an inaccessible Light , where no one can either find or comprehend him , was yet willing to reveal himself to his Creatures , either by the way of a Manifestation without , or by the way of Communication within . To manifest himself , 1. He environs himself with a supernatural Light , whence he causeth his Voice to be heard , and declares his Will . 'T is thence that he speaks to Angels : For being invisible by his Nature , even in reference to Angels , it is necessary , that whenever he is pleas'd to declare his Orders to these Ministring Spirits , he should give them some marks of his Presence in some certain Place in the Heavens , and make his Will known . This Manifestation is so lively and luminous , that the Eyes of Men cannot bear the Splendor of it in this mortal Life . None but the glorified Spirits may enjoy this Privilege in common with the Angels , and which St. Paul calls the seeing of God face to face . It is thus without doubt that Jesus Christ beheld him . Mr. Le Clerc hath very well observ'd ( on Exod. 34.18 . ) that Moses , who had such frequent Testimonies of the Divine Favour , desir'd this as a singular advantage , that God , who us'd to shew himself in a Cloud , would vouchsafe at last to discover to him his Glory in the same manner as he doth in Heaven . But this is too much for a Mortal ; this Glorious Presence is an advantage reserv'd for the Angels , as I said before . And without doubt it was in such like Splendor that he presented himself before them when he design'd to create the World , and pronounc'd these words , Let there be Light . At least this is the Sentiment of Basil of Seleucia , in his first Oration upon these words , In the beginning God created , &c. God said , Let there be Light . The Voice was heard , and the World produc'd . But could not he have perform'd what he design'd in silence , and without uttering a word ? Would not the Work have obey'd the least token of his Will ? Certainly the Heaven and the Earth , with the Waters , were already produc'd without any preceding Voice . But it was not so with the Light , the Voice preceded the Production . What sort of a Voice is this , and what was the cause of it ? Let us learn to hearken to Scripture , even when it is silent , and instruct our selves when it speaks . Behold here you have it . The infinite Companies of Angels that were created , saw indeed the things that were a doing , but could not perceive their Author , nor discover the Cause ( for the Divine Essence is really even above the Contemplation of Angels . ) 'T is not then without reason that God usher'd in his Voice , to make himself sensible to those Celestial Spirits , and to stir up their admiration ; that seeing the Effect follow'd immediately the Word and Command , they being astonish'd at the Prodigy , should turn themselves wholly to the knowledg of their Creator , and celebrate his Praises , saying , Is there any greater than this ? God himself teacheth us this Truth in his Discourse with his Servant Job ( Job 28.7 . apud LXX . ) When I made the Stars , all the Angels prais'd me with a loud Voice . For by reason of their astonishment proceeding from the Greatness of that Spectacle , they repeated their Acclamations , and redoubled their Applauses at every Work that God was a doing .

2. God makes use of the Person of an Angel , that bears his Name , and speaks by his Authority . 'T is thus that he appear'd and spoke to the Patriarchs , and this is the reason why Philo calls Angels Words so often . The Author of Questions and Answers to the Orthodox speaks thus of this Manifestation : All the Angels , saith he , which appeared unto Men , instead and in the Person of God , have born the Name of God . Men likewise have been call'd Gods . Both these were honour'd with this Title by reason of their Commission , which when at an end , they cease to be call'd Gods . God himself says concerning the Angel that was to conduct the People of Israel , Obey him , for I have put my Name in him . He saith as much of Men , whom he invested with Magistracy : Ye are Gods , and Sons of the most High . He saith to them , Ye are Gods , viz. I have given you my Glory with my Name , and set you in my Place .

3. Lastly , God appears after a sensible manner in the sanctified Flesh of his Son , who is the Brightness of his Glory , his Image and Character ; which is the great Mystery of Godliness , God manifested in the Flesh , and speaking to us in these last Times by his own Son . For Jesus Christ doth now succeed the Angels , and speaks to us in the Person of God . The Angels are now become his Ministring Spirits , and our Fellow-Servants . Gregory the Great teacheth us this ( Homil. 8. in Evangel . ) The Angels , saith he , reconcile him with us ; and they who despis'd us in our low Estate , look upon us now as their Companions . Hence it comes that Lot and Joshua have worshipt Angels , Gen. 19. Deut. 31. without being reprov'd for it . But St. John going about to worship an Angel , Rev. 22. the Angel repuls'd him , saying , Take heed thou doest it not , I am thy Fellow-Servant . Hence it is , that before the Redeemer's coming the Angels suffer'd themselves to be worship'd by Men , without opposing it : but since they now refuse their Adorations , is it not , that seeing our Nature rais'd above theirs , they can no longer suffer that it should be submitted to them , and disdain not to look upon Man as their Companion , ever since they are oblig'd to worship a Man-God ?

All these Apparitions are call'd the Word of God , or , to speak with the Hebrews , his Shechinah , that is , his Habitation and his Presence . But the last is the Word of God by way of Excellence ; 1. Because God reveals thereby his ▪ final and principal Design , his last and perfect Will . 2. Because God appears here , not only in some measure , but with the Fulness of his Graces . 3. Because he manifests himself here not in a transitory manner , but inseparably , intimately and perpetually . Hence it is that the Scripture saith only of J. C. that his Name is the Word of God .

St. John describes to us the first of these Manifestations , when he saith , that the Word was in the beginning , that this Word was with God ; and this Word by which all things were made , was God himself . In effect God himself was the Word , when he spake to create the World out of nothing , because he spoke immediately , without the intervention of any Angel , or the Ministry of any Man . The Doctrine of St. John is no other herein , than that of the other Sacred Writers . God said , saith the Psalmist , Psal. 33.9 . and all was made . And to explain what this Speech was , he adds , God commanded , and all was created . Where we see that his Word is nothing else but his immediate Command . Is there any other Mystery in what St. Peter teacheth us , That the Heavens as well as the Earth were made by the Word of God ? 2 Pet. 3.5 . Was it not by his Power and Command ? What doth St. Paul mean , when he assures us , That the World was made by the Word of God ? Heb. 11.3 . You cannot find here the Mystery , for the mysterious Word is not in the Original ( it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . ) He means therefore that the World was made by the single Command of God , and not by the Logos of Plato . The same Evangelist St. John a little after describes to us the last of these Manifestations , when he adds , that this Word was made Flesh ; that is to say , that the Flesh of J. C. was a glorious Cloud , where God made himself visible in these last Times , and made his Will known : so that the Word , or the Presence of God is now no longer a Body of Light , or the Person of an Angel , but truly a Man , a Body , and palpable Flesh . Ireneus calls this Dispensation , the Oeconomy of God in the human Nature , lib. 1. c. 4. Bartholomew of Edessa conceived no otherwise of this Incarnation , when he expresseth himself thus in his Refutation of Mahomet : The Word , saith he , did dwell in the Flesh ( 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ) and this Flesh was made the Temple of God . The Word , or the Power of God , was not made Flesh , according to him ; but only because it dwells in the Flesh , as it were in a Temple . God dwelt in the Ark heretofore , and there shewed his Glory and Power , and receiv'd there the Homage from his People ; but now he dwells in the Flesh of J. C. but with a greater Power , and in a more glorious and more visible manner .

That St. John had no other thought , may be proved by some of our best Interpreters : But in order to understand them better before we produce their Testimonies , we must say something about the second Manifestation of God . viz. that by the Ministry of the Angels . The Old Testament calls these Heavenly Messengers often , the Face of God , his Glory , and his Presence , which is the same thing with his Word . But besides this , we will set down here those remarkable Words of Clemens of Alexandria , lib. 1. c. 7. The Word , saith he , is the Face of God , by the which he manifests and makes himself known . — The Antients had the Old Testament , and the Law instructed them by Fear ; and the Word was an Angel ( 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . ) But the new People hath receiv'd the New Testament , and the Word was made ( 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ) and the Fear is turn'd into Love , and Jesus the Mystical Angel is born ( 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Dr. Bull relating these Words of Clement ( in his Defence of the Council of Nice ) Verbum Angelus erat , interprets them thus : Hoc est , per Angelos apparuit ; that is to say , he manifested himself by the Angels ( or as Clement speaks , by an Angel , or by the Angel , viz. by the Angel that bore the Name of God ) but he is mistaken , if he understands by the Word , an Hypostasis distinct from the Father ; and if he means thereby that the design of Clement was to insinuate to us , that the Son of God did manifest himself by the means of Angels : For who seeth not that these words of Clement , the Word is the Face of God , do denote , that the Word is the Manifestation of God ? And these , the Word was an Angel , mean , that the Divine Manifestation was an Angel , or was perform'd by an Angel ? Otherwise what can be the meaning of the opposite difference this Father makes between the Word which instructed the Antients by Fear , and the Word which instructs the New People with Gentleness ; that is to say , between the Word Angel , and the Word Man , between God speaking to the Antients by Angels , and speaking to us in these last times by his own Son ? This would be to no purpose . But if on the contrary , we understand by the Word , a Divine Manifestation , either by an Angel , or by his Son , the words of Clement will produce an excellent Sense : He means therefore , of old an Angel was the Word , that is to say , the Presence and the Oracle of God ; and this Manifestation being surprizing and illustrious , was an Oeconomy of Fear . But now a Man like unto us is the Word of God , that is to say , his Presence and his Oracle ; and this Manifestation being more adapted to our State , becomes a Dispensation of Condescendence and Love . So that if these words of Clement , The Word was an Angel , do signify that God did manifest himself then by Angels ; these words of St. John , the Word was Flesh , will signify likewise that God doth now manifest himself to Men by the Flesh , or , which is all one , by a Man . This is the best Notion we can have of the Word , if we consult the Scriptures , without troubling our selves with Platonick Visions . Clement had the same Notion , and his Words are remarkable , since they give us a Definition of the Word , and at the same time the true Meaning of it . The Word , saith he , is nothing else but the Face of God , by the which he makes himself known . Three great Men amongst the Reformers have had the same Notion .

The first is Bucer , who translates thus the words of St. John , Et Deus erat Verbum illud ; conformably to the Syriac Version , which hath it thus , Deus erat ipsum verbum , God was the very Word . This Translation doth sufficiently declare the Sentiment of this Divine touching the Word : He means that God , speaking then without a Medium , or the Organ of a Man , or the Ministry of an Angel , was himself the Word ; he put forth his Power by himself . He explains these words thus : I would , saith he , translate the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the Oracle ; and if it were lawful , go off a little from its first Signification , and render it the Divine Love and Will ( Vis illa Numenve . ) The reason is , as he adds , that we ought not to borrow the Meaning of this Word from the Platonists , but of the Hebrews , it being the same with their Davar , which the Greeks have translated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . This Assertion is sufficient ; we desire no more ; let us but understand this Word without the Platonick Notions of Hypostasis , a Son begotten before all Ages , &c. let us hold fast the Notion of the Hebrews , who never understood their Davar , to be a Person , or a Son . Justin was the first of the Platonick Fathers , that made an Hypostasis of a Power or a Manifestation , having alter'd the Ideas of the Scripture by the Prejudices he brought from the School of Plato . Bucer observes that the Greeks , viz. the Version of the LXX , render the word Davar by that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . In effect these Interpreters meant nothing else by their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , but only what the Hebrews understood by their Davar . 1. That Virtue and Power which God thrust forth , that I may so say , out of himself , when he was about to create the World : Verbo Domini Coeli firmati sunt , &c. And 2. That holy Breathing which animated the Prophets , Verbum Domini factum est ad Prophetam . Now this twofold Power is found in J. C. both that which created the World , and also that which inspir'd the Prophets . You see , in the very working of his Miracles , this Sermo , or this Jussus Divinus , which said , Let there be Light , and there was Light : His single Word suffic'd , he needed not say any more than , I will it . Say only the word , said the Centurion to him , and my Servant shall be healed . You see moreover , by the Unction receiv'd from the Father , this Sermo Propheticus , by the means whereof he hath declar'd to us the whole Will of God , is also to be seen : For God who spake at other times to the Fathers by the Prophets , hath spoke to us in these last Times by his own Son . In these two regards J. C. shews to the Jews that he is the Son of God , or the Messiah , putting himself into the number of the Gods , whom God sanctified , and to whom the Word of God came , John 10. viz. his Word of Authority and Power , and his Word of Revelation and Prophecy . 'T is in these two Senses that St. John calls him the Word ; and to put a Metaphysical Signification upon this Word , is a piece of Philosophical Extravagancy .

Let us come now to Beza , the second Interpreter I design to produce ( on John 1.1 . ) This Author having related the subtile and Metaphysical Thoughts of the Fathers touching the Word ; 'T is not likely , saith he , that St. John would speak so subtilly on this Subject ; we ought rather have regard to the Hebrew than to the Greek Phraseology : For altho St. John writ in Greek , yet it may be said , that in teaching of Divinity , and above all in revealing his Mysteries , he never departed from the usual ways of speaking used in the Holy Writings , and in the Synagogues , and such as were understood by the People . Now , according to him , the Jews were wont to call the Messiah the Word , as if it were said , He of whom God had spoken , or whom God had promis'd ; the blessed Seed whereof God spake so often to the Patriarchs , and whom we may call the Word , or the Promise of God , by way of excellence . Unless it be said , as he goes on , that this Name was given him , because he is the only Interpreter of the Father , by whom he hath manifested himself to the World . But altho this last Interpretation doth not please him so much as the former , yet he repeats continually , that all the rest of those which the Greek and Latin Divines embrac'd so greedily , do in no way agree with the Hebrew Tongue . This is manifest , and hath no need of Proof . If we discard the Ideas of the Greeks and Platonists , as Beza pretends that we ought , farewel then eternal Emanations and Generations , farewel internal Word , and Word brought forth , farewel Trin-Vnity and Hypostases , with all that Theological Jargon , which is pretended to be form'd upon the Stile of St. John . And if on the contrary , we go up to the Source , and search into the Stile of the Hebrews themselves what this Evangelist meant , the Word will then be only the so often promis'd and so long expected Messiah , of whom God spake to the Patriarchs ; or if you please , that Prophet who was to interpret to us , the Word of the Father , and that King of Glory , in whom the whole Power of God was to be manifested .

Mr. Witsius may also be one of those Interpreters of the Logos of St. John , who discards the Platonick Notions . He doth not so much as believe that St. John borrow'd this Word from either the Cabala of the Jews , or the Chaldee Paraphrasts , but from the Sacred Writers . And since his Explications and Reasonings are the same with those of Beza concerning it , we will not count him for a separate Witness .

The third Interpreter I shall alledg , is Coelius Secundus Curio , who speaks thus in his Araneus : The Sacred History informs us , that several have seen God present , let it be so : but the same History teacheth us , that these were Angels and ministring Spirits , who holding the Place of God , did appear unto Men , and spake in his Name in a visible Form and Person . And not this only , but the incomprehensible God being willing to make himself known in a more illustrious manner , did moreover insinuate himself into J. C. with all his Majesty ; for we read thus in the Gospel , The Father that dwells in me , he doth the Works ; and he that seeth me , seeth my Father also . Add to these the Words of the Apostle , God was in Christ reconciling the World to himself ; and these also , He was pleas'd that all the Fulness of the Godhead should dwell bodily in Jesus Christ . Doth not all this manifestly prove this Author plainly acknowledges , that as Angels had been the Person or the Word of God , J. C. was so likewise ? but yet a Word more excellent , and a Person more noble , into which God insinuated himself ; not God the Son , as they tell us , but God the Father , according to the Passage the Author quotes , Pater in me man●●s facit ipse opera . The Paraphrase of the same Author on the beginning of the Gospel of St. John , is yet more express : Before , saith he , that God created the World , he had in himself the Cause and the Reason of all things ( the Idea and the Design ) Altho this Reason was with God , we must not therefore imagine , that it was any thing else but God himself . For God was that Reason ; but seeing God cannot be seen with our Eyes , nor comprehended by our Mind , he was pleas'd to put on a Person , under which he might shew himself as it were in his natural and living Image . Now seeing he is an only and simple Being , and cannot borrow any form of himself , he produc'd himself one without , by the mean of a Voice , and a Light wholly Divine ; which , because he made use of it to instruct us and manifest himself , was called his Word , that is to say his Oracle and his Wisdom , &c. to the 14th ver . where he proceeds thus : Would you have me at last to discover this great Mystery ? And tell you under what Form God came unto Men ? This Word , this Reason , this Wisdom , this Oracle was made Flesh , and this Flesh which is called Man , that he might raise ours to a Sovereign Immortality . A Metamorphosis to be admir'd in all Ages ? God was the Word , the Word was the Life , the Life was the Light of Men ; the Light was Flesh , the Flesh Man , the Man God , who is blessed for ever . God and Man have join'd themselves together ; for God was in J. C. reconciling the Word to himself . 'T is on this wise that God , the Sovereign God ( Deus , Deus ille ) O Man ! manifested himself in the Flesh , and conversed amongst us . Hence comes it that a great Prophet gives him the Name of Emanuel .

This Learned Man's Words are remarkable : He saith , that the invisible God being willing to make himself known , was pleas'd to put on a Person , that is to say , give himself a Figure , take a sensible Image , under which he produced himself outwardly . That this Image consisting in a Light and a Voice , which he made use of to shew himself and to instruct us , was for that reason call'd his Word . So that the Word of S. John , and the Image of the invisible God , as S. Paul has it , are the self-same thing . Thus you have the Word excellently well defin'd , according to the Ideas of Clement ; neither do I believe , that a neater and more distinct Notion can be formed of it , nor one more agreeing with the Scriptures , which tell us so often of the Glory of God , of his Face , of his Dwelling , of his Presence , in an Angel , in a Cloud , in a Light , in a Fire , with a Clap of Thunder , with a Voice , or with a gentle and still Sound ; and what can this be I pray you , but his Person and his Word ? You need only read Maimonides , in his More Nevochim , P. 1. ch. 25 , & 64. where with extraordinary Clearness , he explains what the antient Word is , saying , that it is the Habitation of the Divine Majesty and Providence in some certain Place , where he would make himself known , which he causeth to dart forth miraculously , under the Representation of a created Light . Would you have the same Word under the N. Testament ? Consider the extraordinary Providence that presided at the Conception of the Messiah ; behold an Angel that speaks , and is the Voice of God on this occasion , a Spirit overshadowing the Holy Virgin , the which resembles so much the light Cloud that cover'd the Tabernacle ; behold the Habitation of God in the Messiah , dwelling himself amongst us : In a word , see the Majesty of the Father in the Son , whose Glory we have beheld . If this will not suffice , get up the Mount to the Transfiguration of J. C. you will there see an Apparition of two great Prophets , a Cloud that covers them , a Light spreading it self over J. C. his Face , becoming bright like the Sun ; and lastly a Voice coming out of the Cloud , saying these Words , This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleas'd , hear ye him . Behold here the Word wherein God gives all the Marks of his Presence ; and whence he declares his principal Will , which is , that we should give ear to his Son , the only Oracle and the sole Word , by which he would ever hereafter discover himself and speak to us .

Irenaeus had no other Idea of the Word , Lib. 4. c. 37. where he saith : That the Word designing to shew God in its sundry Dispensations , shew'd him made like to a Man , that by this mean he preserv'd to the Father his Invisibility , lest Man should come to despise him : that if the Manifestation of God , which was at the Creation of the World , did give Life unto Men ; how much more will the Manifestation of the Father by the Word , give Life to all those who see God on this wise ? That the Prophets never saw the Face of God uncover'd , but only certain Dispensations and certain Mysteries , by which God began to shew himself ; that these first Sketches of the Divine Manifestation , were only the Preludes of that which was to be made by J. C. That the Father is invisible in Truth , that no Person ever saw him ; but that the Word manag'd the Dispensations of the Father , and shew'd their Glory , as it thought fit . Irenaeus tells us afterwards , That the Word appeared under different Figures , of a Man , a Wind , a Light , a Cloud , a Fire , &c. which discovers to us , that all external Manifestation , whether it be by Angels , or by the Flesh of J. C. is the Word of God ; as all internal Communication , whether it be by an Angel , or by an immediate Virtue , is the Holy Spirit . And all this is call'd the Oeconomy ; or , as Irenaeus saith , they are mysterious and extraordinary Dispensations of the Divinity , which environ his Majesty to temper its great Splendor , and adapt it to our Curiosity . For to imagine that this is a second Person of this Divinity , as invisible and as infinite as the first , would make all the Reasonings of the antient Fathers , not only useless , but also absurd ; for they all unanimously declare , not only that the Father never makes himself visible , but also that he cannot do so .

It is impossible , saith Eusebius , Demonstr. Evang. lib. 5. cap. 20. That the Eyes of Mortals should ever see the Supreme God , to wit , him who is above all things , and whose Essence is unbegotten and immutable . It is absurd and against all reason , saith the same Author ( Hist. Eccl. lib. 1. c. 2. ) that the unbegotten and immutable Nature of Almighty God should take the Form of a Man , and that the Scripture should forge such like Falsities . God forbid , saith Novatian ( de Trinit. cap. 26. ) that we should say that God the Father is an Angel , lest he should be subjected to him , whose Angel he were . Et ibid. cap. 31. If the Son , saith he , were as incomprehensible as the Father , the Objection of the Hereticks would have some ground , that then there are two Gods . It is an Impiety , say the Fathers of the Council of Antioch ( Epist. adv. Paulum Samosat . ) to fancy that that God who is above all things , can be called an Angel . Lastly ( otherwise I must transcribe all the Fathers ) Justin Martyr explains himself on this wise in his Dialogue with Tryphon : No body , saith he , unless he be out of his Wits , will dare to advance , that the Father and Author of all things did quit the Heavens , to cause himself to be seen in a small part of the Earth .

I thought to have finished , but that I can by no means pass by that excellent Passage of Tertullian against Praxeas ( cap. 16. ) That he would not believe that the Sovereign God descended into the Womb of a Woman , tho even the Scripture it self should say it . This Father being persuaded by Reason and Philosophy , that the supreme God is immense , immutable and invisible , demands how it could come to pass , that the Almighty God , whose Throne is the Heaven , and the Earth his Footstool , that this most high God should walk in the terrestrial Paradise , should converse with Abraham , should call to Moses out of a Bush , &c. and what is yet worse , that he should descend , according to Praxeas , into the Womb of Mary ; that he should be impeached before Pilate , and be shut up in the Sepulcher of Joseph . He goes on , Really one would not believe this concerning the Son , if the Scripture did not speak it ; and perhaps would not believe it of the Father , tho even the Scripture should say it . How so ! would he mistrust the Scripture ? No , he means only , that he should mistrust the literal sense , and search there for an Allegory . Consequently then all these Fathers own that the Word by which the Father makes himself visible , is not of a Nature incapable of causing it self to be seen , but something sensible , which represents God to us . It matters not whether they conceive by it an Hypostasis , a Spirit , an intelligent Being , or any other kind of Representation in a bright Cloud animated with a Voice . This will always remain true , that they did not understand the Word to be a Spirit equal to the Father , as invisible by its Nature as the Father , but only a certain Emanation , where God produceth himself outwardly , and discovers himself in a sensible manner . And tho they might have sometimes spoken of the Word , as of something invisible , they meant not by this that it was invisible by its Nature , but only that it was not visible to Men out of the time of its Oeconomy , retiring it self from their Presence , and becoming as it were hid in God . Sometimes they would denote by it , even the Energy and the Power of God , wherewith his Manifestation is always accompanied , but never a second Hypostasis in the Divine Nature . For we must observe here sincerely once for all , that the Word , if you consider it only in its Energy , is no other thing but God himself ; but when it is consider'd as it is a Mark of the Divine Presence , then it is something sensible , a Voice , a Light , or some external Form , such like as was seen in Angels , or in the Man J. C. our Lord .

CHAP. II. The Antients believed that the Word was Corporeal .

WHerefore the Antients attributed a Body to the Word , as Servetus very well observed ( Apolog. ad Philip . Melanct. ) and so Tertullian speaks in his Book of the Flesh of Jesus Christ against Praxeas , chap. 7. where he proves at large , that when God uttered his Word , he gave it a Body , indeed not a Body of Flesh , but an Hypostasis , that is , Solidity and Substance , which is the true Signification of the Word . That 's probably what he means , when in chap. 6. of the Book of the Flesh of Christ , he assures that Jesus Christ appeared to Abraham with Flesh , which was not yet born ( non nata adhuc ) that is to say , not indeed with such Flesh as ours , but with a solid Body , which had more than appearance . A Body , I say , which he in the 8th Chapter calls the Seed of God ; from which as from a Heavenly Seed the Messiah was to be born : and this Seed is the Holy Ghost , or the Substance of the Word , which insinuated it self into it .

Thence the antient Docetes , and all the other Hereticks who held the pre-existence of the Word , suppos'd that the Word did not take true Flesh of Mary , but that he contented himself with the Celestial and Etherial Body , which he formerly bore in the Apparitions of the Old Testament , which had no more than the Appearance and Figure of a Man , which the Scripture calls the Face of God . Mons. le Moyne did not understand the thing otherwise in his Varia sacra , p. 415. The Docetes , says he , compared the Apparitions of Jesus Christ to the Apparitions of the Old Testament , which having been in Etherial Bodies for certain times , vanished into the Air as soon as the Dispensation was finish'd , imagining that the Body of Jesus Christ was not of any other Nature . And it is in the same sense , that Cerinthus and Ebion suppos'd that Jesus Christ had not taken true Flesh , as St. Jerom assures in the Preface to his Commentary on St. Matthew . As Cerinthus held ( Iren . l. 1. c. 25. Epiph. Haeres. 28. ) That the World had been created by a Power ; he also maintain'd that Jesus , who was begotten of the Seed of Joseph and Mary , was the Son of the Creator . As to the Christ or the Word , he made him the Son of another Power superiour to the Creator , and attributed to him a Celestial Body , which he had always kept without mixing it with the Flesh of Jesus . For we cannot think he suppos'd , that Jesus the Son of Mary had not Flesh like ours : He meant nothing more than that the Word , or the Christ , as he is pleas'd to call him , had not appear'd to Men , but with a Body wholly celestial and impassible ; so separating Jesus from the Christ , and making two Natures of them , as St. Irenaeus informs us . It is with reason wonder'd that so grave Authors have said , and so often repeated , that Cerinthus's Heresy consisted in denying the Divine Nature of Jesus Christ , when he is the first who brings the two Natures of Jesus Christ into the Christian Religion ; the Divine Nature which he believed to be impassible , and which he makes to descend from Heaven , and the Humane which he believed to be begotten by Joseph and Mary . But there is yet greater reason to wonder , that Irenaeus has been quoted for it , who says nothing less than what Controvertists make him say . All that that Father says , concerning the Error which St. John oppos'd in Cerinthus , is , that the World had been created by an inferiour God , or by an Angel ; but that there was another superiour God , who had sent his Word or the Holy Ghost in the shape of a Dove , into the Son of Mary : That the inferiour Christ , who was called Jesus , was indeed the Son of the Creator ; but that the superiour Christ , who descended into the other , was the Son of the most high and unknown God ; who after having render'd Jesus capable of working Miracles , and of manifesting the unknown God , withdrew himself into his Pleroma when Jesus was to suffer . Iren. l. 3. c. 11.

This Opinion was not so much Plato's as Philo the Jew 's , who believed that God had never done any thing but by Angels . Some Hereticks added , that besides the God of the Jews , who was one of those Angels , and Creator of the Universe , there was another God who had never manifested himself until he made himself known by the Coming of the Christ . Indeed it seems that this is the only Error , which St. John opposes in his Gospel . First he shews , therein following the Psalmist , St. Paul and St. Peter , that the World was not made by any other than by the Word , or by the Power of God ; that this Word was not an Efficacy or Power distinct or separate from the most High God , that is an Angel or self-subsisting Hypostasis ; but that it was in God the Creator as his Efficacy , or to say better , that it was the Creator himself . Then he shews that the Word , the Spirit , or the superior Christ who descended into Jesus , who dwelt in him , and who had wrought so many Miracles , was not an Hypostasis , or an emanated Efficacy of another God than he who had created the World , but the proper Efficacy of God the Creator , the same Word which having created the World , was united to Jesus Christ , and manifested in him . The Word by which all things were made , says he , was made Flesh , or manifested in the Flesh . Which shews , that Christ was the Son of the Creator , and not of another God superiour to him ; and that the World was not made by an Angel , but by the most high God .

Mons. le Moyne , among others , believes , that St. John aim'd at opposing this Error . St. John assures , says he , Varia sacra , p. 407. that the Word was made Flesh , in opposition to the Doctrine of the phantastick Body of Christ . He has no other Design in his first Epistle , where he teaches that Christ is come in the Flesh , and protests that he preaches and insists on no other Word of Life , than that which he had seen , heard and touched ; that is , according to him , that Christ came no otherwise than in a real Body , and no way in an etherial one . If we inclin'd to believe that St. John aim'd at Cerinthus in writing his Gospel , we might add that it is very remarkable , that as often as this Evangelish relates Jesus Christ's saying , that he descended from Heaven , he always makes him speak as if he directly oppos'd that Heretick . For whereas Cerinthus said , that the Christ or a Spiritual Nature descended from Heaven , Jesus Christ assures on the contrary that 't is the Son of Man , that 't is his own Flesh which descended from thence ; Man , as you see , and not a Nature distinct from Man ; Flesh , and not a Spirit . 'T is pity that Heretick did not live in the time of our Lord ; one might have the Pleasure of forming a curious System on that Subject , which would not be less well contrived , than that which has been built on the Word of St. John with respect to that Heretick . But if we cannot positively assert , that Jesus Christ , or his Disciple did attack Cerinthus , we may at least affirm , that 't was against him , or his like , that St. Irenaeus disputed ; They hold , says that Father , l. 3. c. 17 , 18 , 19 , & 20. that indeed Jesus is born of Mary ; but that as to Christ , he descended from above — so dividing the Lord , by saying that he is composed of two Substances , &c. With their Mouths they confess but one Christ , but in reality they have two — one passible , and the other descending from Heaven , invisible and impassible — not knowing that the Word which was united to and mix'd with his Work , and which was made Flesh , is it self that Jesus who suffer'd for us . — But if one suffer'd while the other remain'd impassible , it is not one Christ , but two . — Now every Spirit which divides Jesus Christ ( qui solvit Jesum , Vulg. ) is not of God . — What hinder'd the Apostles from saying , that Christ descended into Jesus ; or the Saviour who is above the Oeconomy , into him who is of the Oeconomy ? But the Apostles neither knew nor said any thing like it . What there was of it , they said , to wit , that the Spirit descended on him like a Dove . It appears by this Passage , and by the whole Work of St. Irenaeus , that his Opinion was , that the Word was made Flesh , not only in communicating it self to the Flesh , which the Hereticks believ'd , but also in mixing it self with the Flesh . And therefore in the 21st Chapter of the same Book , he twice calls him the Word mix'd and blended ( commixtum Verbum . )

The same Theology is found in Novatian , de Trinitate , c. 11 , & 19. In one place he maintains that Jesus is not only a Man , but that he is likewise God according to the Scripture , because the Divinity of the Word enter'd into the Composition , and mix'd it self with the Flesh ( Divinitate Sermonis in ipsa concretione permixta . ) In another place like unto this , he takes upon himself to demonstrate , that the Word having by its Vnion and by its Mixture with the Flesh , associated to it self the Son of Man , made him what he was not , to wit , the Son of God .

Origen says as much of it in his third Book against Celsus : The Humanity of Christ , says he , rais'd it self to such a degree of Divinity , not only by the Communication of the Word , but also by its Vnion , and by its Mixture therewith ( permixtione ) that it is become a God .

Tertullian carrys the matter yet farther in his Book of the Flesh of Jesus Christ , Ch. 16. For he supposes that , As the Clay whereof Adam was formed , was converted into true Flesh , so the Word of God is converted into the Substance of the same Flesh .

Whence I infer that these antient Doctors believ'd the Word to be corporeal , and capable of being compounded with the Flesh ; so that as the Flesh has by this mixture been in a manner deify'd , the incorporated and incarnated Word has likewise been render'd passible . I say passible , taking the Word according to its literal Signification , and not by the Figure of the communication of Idioms , as we are used to speak . For otherwise they would have owned two Natures in Jesus Christ , the one passible , and the other impassible , which is the very Opinion they oppos'd . It is plain , that according to Irenaeus , the Hereticks said , that the Christ had been made two Substances , or , as he speaks , Substance and Substance ( altera & altera Substantia . ) Now what difference would there be between two Substances and two Natures ? Let us then say that they could not be any otherwise refuted , than by supposing , that the Word with the Flesh , made but one Nature , or but one Christ , who from impassible as he was , made himself passible for our sakes . If there be any other Substance distinct from the Christ , which descended on him , Irenaeus teaches us , that 't is no other than the Holy Ghost , as the Evangelists assure us . The Valentinians held that Christ descended into Jesus ; thence Irenaeus infers that they made two Christs . Now if the Orthodox had held that the Son of God descended into the Son of Mary , 't was natural thence to draw the same consequence , that then they made two Sons of God . The Gnosticks did not deny that the Son of Mary had true Flesh , and that he really suffer'd : They only taught , that Christ who descended into him , contenting himself with his Celestial and Etherial Body , did not so unite himself to the Flesh of the Son of Mary , as to have truly suffer'd with him ; and therein they divided Christ . Irenaeus would no less have divided Christ into two , if he had believed , that the Word always remain'd impassible , while the Man whereunto it was united , did suffer . He could not therefore refute them , but by supposing , that this Word so united it self to the Flesh , that from being impassible as it had been before , it became passible , almost as our Soul is so join'd to our Body , that it suffers with it .

If the Trinitarians now hold , that the Divine Nature did not suffer , they are in the same Opinion with those Hereticks : and if by reason of the Union of the two Natures , they can say that the Son of God or the Word suffer'd , because one of the two Natures did suffer ; the Hereticks might also have said , that Christ did not suffer , because one of the two Substances had not suffer'd . And that the rather , because 't was the Substance which had the Personality , whereto the Actions and Passions do belong : For who doubts but that they were provided with many distinctions ? What Irenaeus said in Chap. 21. of the same Book , may be objected to the Opinion which I ascribe to him , viz. that the Word suspended his efficacy , that Jesus Christ might die . But that does not signify that the Word did not suffer , but that he would not make use of his Power to hinder himself from suffering , as appears by the following opposite Proposition : That the Man was absorb'd , that Christ might rise again . Which does not exclude the Man from Resurrection , but means only , that his Infirmities and his Nothingness brought no obstacle thereto , having been surmounted by the Power which rais'd him from the Dead . We might support this Hypothesis with many Passages of the Epistles of Ignatius , but that Discussion would carry us too far . It is to be remember'd that we give only an Essay , and not a compleat Dissertation on the Word of St. John .