SOC. Pag. 101. it is faid, That He was not to Speak of Himfelf, but to speak what he cou'd hear from God.

CHR. Then it was God who was to hear from God? And God was not to fpeak of Himself; but only what God fhou'd tell him!

SOC. All this Non-fenfe cannot be Charg'd upon my Author, because he fuppofes this Spirit to be a Creature, and not to be God.

CHR. That is the first Anfwer, which you have rejected. And you have prov'd pag. 83. and elfewhere, That the Spirit is not any thing different from God, but is God. And even in this very fecond Anfwer which you mention, p. 100. (that you may not be charg'd with forgetfulness) you call this Spirit, by the name of the Holy-Spirit, or Power of God,

SOC. We do so, and we keep conftant to this now, tho' we part with all the Arians, and very many of the Socinians in fo doing.

CHR. Then the Nonfenfe which you faid just now, cou'd dot be charg'd upon your Author, must be laid to his Account again, viz. To make the Spirit or Power of God, which is God, not to fpeak of Himfelf, but to receive from God, and speak what God did dictat to God, &c.

SOC. I must take time to Confider of this.

CHR. But befides, I'm afraid the Conftancy which you bragg you have to this Opinion now, viz. That the Spirit is not any thing different from God, but that it is God. Does not hold very well with you, but that you are forc'd to part with it fometimes, when it is for your Conveniency.

SOC. If you can fhew me any fuch thing, I will truft no more to any thing our Unitarians fay.

CHR. Look into the Hiftory p. 125. and therein anfwer to that Crabbed Text, 2 Cor. 13, 14. he replys in these words, This Text Demonftrats, that neither the Lord

Lord Chrift, nor the Holy Spirit are God, for it plainly
Diftinguishes them from God.

Here the Holy Spirit is plainly Diftingaish'd from God, and is not God." And before, as you have faid, It is not any thing different from God, but it is God.

SOC. It is time to go to the fecond Anfwer which the Hift. Unita. gives to that Text John 1. 1. The Word was God. For ther is enough faid as to the first Answer, viz. That by the Word here is only meant God's Power and Wisdom, which is not any thing different from God, but is God. The Second Anfwer, is, That the word God is given fometimes to Creatures, to Angels, and even to Men. And therefor that Text may not mean that the Word was the Supreme God, but only a God as Kings are call'd Gods, &c.

CHR. To reduce the State of the Cafe as fhort and clear as possible, it is thus. The Diftinction is 'twixt a God by Nature, and a God by Office, or Deputation. By Nature, we all agree, ther can be but one God: But by Office ther be Gods many, and Lords many, whether in Heaven or in Earth.

Now in which of these Senfes the Word is call'd God is the Question?

SOC. That indeed is the Queftion, and if you can make it clear, this Cause, for ought I can fee, will remain decided for ever.

CHR. If I can make appear what St. John's meaning was, who wrote thefe words, I fuppofe that will fatisfy you.

SOC. Yes fure, what he meant by it is the whole

matter.

5.

1. Cor. 8.

3.

The Hea

thens Notion

CHR. I have told you before the Notions of the Jews and Heathens as to the Trinity, That they did believe three Hypoftafes or Perfons in the Divine Nature; and of confequently each of these Perfons must be God by Na

D

ture.

the Logos.

ture. The fecond of these Perfons they did call the Aoy Q the Word

This is fo notoriously known that I might spare any Proof of it, therefor I will give you but a few Authorities that I might not feem to fpeak wholly Precarioufly. Plotinus, Ennead, 5: 1. 5. c. 3. fpeaking of the Logos calls Him God by Nature Oed's aum quas His very Nature is God. And to fhew that he meant not the first Perfon of the Godhead, in the very next words, he calls Him Acump Osos a Second God. By which, as I told you before, they meant only the fecond Perfon in the Divine Nature, and fo have fully explain'd themselves. They meant the fame thing we do, but (as St. Auguft. obferves by way of an Excufe for them) not being ty'd up to ftrict forms of Words, as the Chriftians have been, occafion'd by the many Herefies have arifen, they took their own Latitude of Expreffion, which yet made their meaning plain enough; as the fame Plotinus does in another place of the fame Book, Ennead. 5. l. 1. c. 6. where he affirms the Logos to be next to the moft High, of neceffity together with Him, and nothing between them, and that He differs from Him, only in that He is another, or in His Perfonality. These are his words, & χωρισθείς, ἀλλ' ὅτι μετ' αυτὶν καὶ μεταξὺ ἐδὲν ἐξ' ἀνάγκις σιεςιν αυτώ, ως τῇ ἑτερότητι μόνον κεχαρίσαι And Enn. 5. 1. 8. c. 5. he calls this Logos y'ove the Son of God. Orpheus the Eldeft of all the Greek Philofophers (as he is cited Clem. Strom. I. 5. p. 254. Edit. Florent. Fol. an. 1550) calls the Logos, the Divine Word, and the Immortal King, in thefe Verses,

and

2

Porphyry (Quoted by St. Cyril Cont. Jul. 1. 1. p. 32. Edit. Paris. fol. An. 1638.) calls the Logos "Axe zS dei Mavos ajan. without time, always, and alone Eternal, Tertullian (Apolog. adv. Gentes. c. 21.) fays, that Zeno call'd this Logos, the Maker of the World, who formed all things in order, and that He was call'd Fate, and God, and the Soul of Jupiter, and the Neceffity of all things. Hunc enim Zenon determinat Factitatorem, qui Cuncta in Difpofitione formaverit, eundem & Fatum vocari, & Deum, & Animum Jovis, & neceffitatem omnium rerum.

4.

Notion of it.

And as the Heathen, fo the Jews understood the Logos in the same sense, Philo (Quaft. & Solut.) calls the Logos The fews in the fame words of Plotin. above quoted Adnev Θεόν a fecond God, next to the Πατέρα Α πάντων to the Father of all, and in his Legis Allegor. 1. 2. p. 93. Edit. Paris: fol. An. 1640. he fpeaks, thus of the Logos, Kajo λόγῳ ἢ τὸ Θεῖ ὑπεράνω παντός ότι το κόσμο, και πρεσα βύτατα και ηλνικώτατα. τ ὅσα γέγονε. That the Word of God is fuperior to the whole World, and Elder and more General than all the things whatsoever which are produc'd. von he adds (de Profug.) Elder then all Intelligibles, than all things in the Intellectual World, as well as in the Senfitive, than all Spirits, as well as Bodies, that is, than all Created Beings.

And to fhew that he meant this of another Perfon than of God the Father, he calls this Logos the HighPrieft of God, that is, Governing next under Him, or having the Adminiftration of God's Kingdom in all the * World, which he calls the Temple of God, Ev Axepol's ὁ Πρωτόγονα από Θεία λόγω. in which, His (God's) firft-born Divine Word, is High-Prieft. de fomn. agreeable to this, the Chaldee Paraphrafe makes the Logos and God or Jehova Synonimous, and instead of Jehova often uses the Logos or Word of God, as Exod. 20. 1. Deut. 33.7.

&c.

But does plainly diftinguish them from being the fame Perfon, as Gen. 17. 7. I will establish my Covenant between my Word, and Thee. Where God fpeaks of His Word, as of another Perfon.

The Jerufalem Targum is yet more Express, upon Gen. 3. 22. thus.

The word of the Lord faid, behold Adam, whom I Created, is the only begotten upon Earth, as I am the only begotten in Heaven. And Philo (de Agricult. 1.2.) introduces the Logos fpeaking thus of Himself, Kaj y antQ, ὡς Θεὸς ὤν, ἔτε χυητές ὡς ὑμᾶς. I am neither Un-begotten as God, nor Begotten, after the manner that you are.

ἔτε

Here the Begotten Word is diftinguifhed from the UnBegotten Father of the Word, and the Creation of Adam is attributed, in exprefs Terms, to the Word; and the Text fays he was Created by God, which makes God and the Word to be Synonimous, and Onkelos Paraphrafe of Gen. 28. 21. thus renders it, If the Word of the Lord will help me. the Word of the Lord fhall be my God.

Let me add to this, at leaft to fhew the Jewish Notion in this matter, the Stile in which the Apocrypha Expresses it. Thus we find it.

SOC. But my Business now, is not what the fews or Heathens meant by their Logos or Word of God, but what St. John meant by the Logos he mentions in that Text you have quoted.

CHR. Where do you Imagin that St. John got this Term of Logos, or the Word of God?

3

SOC. I have often Reflected upon that, and really it appear'd very ftrange to me, the beginning of his Gospel feem'd to me to be out of all the Cominon Road of fpeaking: And therefore I put it upon the Account of fome Extraordinary Impulse of the Spirit of God; and that he fpoke Words, which never Man had fpoken before. And therefore I thought you to blame to draw Arguments

from