For, therefore, (says St. Basil) did the Holy Ghost rather choose to say apud Deum, then in Deo, with God, than in God, ne auferenda hypostaseos occasionem daret, lest he should give any occasion of denying the same nature, in divers persons; for it doth more clearly notify a distinction of persons, to say, He was with him, than to say, He was in him; for the several attributes of God, (mercy and justice, and the rest) are in God, and yet they are not distinct persons. Lastly, there is also expressed in this first verse, Christ's equality with God, in that it is said, Et verbum erat Deus, and this word was God. As it was in the beginning, and therefore eternal, and as it was with God, and therefore a distinct person, so it was God, and therefore equal to the Father; which phrase doth so vex and anguish the Arians, that being disfurnished of all other escapes, they corrupted the place, only with a false interpunction, and broke off the words, where they admitted no such pause; for, they read it thus, Verbum erat apud Deum; (so far, well) et Deus erat. There they made their point; and then followed in another sentence: Verbum hoc erat in principio, &c.

The first part then of this chapter, (and indeed of the whole Gospel) is in that first verse the manifestation of his Divine nature, in his eternity, in the distinction of persons, in the equality with the Father. The second part of the chapter layeth down the office of Christ, his prophetical, his priestly, his royal office. For the first, the office of a prophet consisting in three several exercises, to manifest things past, to foretell things to come, and to expound things present. Christ declared himself to be a prophet in all these three: for, for the first, he was not only a verbal, but an actual manifester of former prophecies, for all the former prophecies were accomplished in his person, and in his deeds, and words, in his actions and passion. For the second, his foretelling of future things, he foretold the state of the church, to the end of the world. And for the third (declaring of present things) he told the Samaritan woman, so exquisitely, all her own history, that she gave presently that attestation, Sir, I see that thou art a prophet': so his prophetical office, is plainly laid down. For his second office, his priesthood, that is expressed in the thirty-sixth

1 John iv. 19.

verse, Behold the Lamb of God; for, in this, he was our priest, that he was our sacrifice; he was our priest, in that he offered himself for our sins. Lastly, his royal office was the most natural to him of all the rest. The office of a prophet was natural to none; none was born a prophet. Those who are called the children of the prophets, and the sons of the prophets, are but the prophet's disciples. Though the office of priesthood, by being annexed to one tribe, may (in some sense) be called natural, yet in Christ it could not be so, for he was not of that tribe of Levi : so that he had no interest in the legal priesthood, but was a priest according to the order of Melchizedek. But this title to be king, was natural, by descent, he was of the blood royal, and the nearest in succession; so that he, and only he, had, de jure, all the three unctions upon him. David had two; he was both a prophet, and a king; he had those two capacities: Melchizedek had two too he was both a king and a priest; he had two: only Christ had all three, both a prophet, and priest, and king.

In the third part of the chapter, which is the calling of four of his apostles, we may observe that the first that was called, was not Peter, but Andrew; that there might be laid at first some interruption, some stop to their zealous fury, who will still force, and heap up every action which any way concerns St. Peter, to the building up of his imaginary primacy, which primacy, they cared not though Peter wanted, if they could convey that primacy to his successor, by any other title; for which successor's sake it is, and not for St. Peter's own, that they are so over diligent in advancing his prerogative. But, it was not Peter, that was called, but Andrew. In Andrew's present and earnest application of himself to Christ, we may note, (and only so) divers particulars, fit for use and imitation. In his first question, Master, where dwellest thou? there is not only, (as Cyril observes) a reverent ascribing to him a power of instructing in that compellation, Master, but a desire to have more time afforded to hearken to his instructions, Where dwellest thou, that I may dwell with thee? And as soon as ever he had taken in some good portion of knowledge himself, he conceives presently a desire to communicate his happiness with others; and he seeks his brother Peter, and tells him, Invenimus Messiam, we have found the Messias; which is, (as

St. Chrysostom notes) cox quærentis: in this, that he rejoices in the finding of him, he testifies that he had sought him, and that he had continued in the expectation of a Messias before. Invenit Messiam, he had found the Messias; but, saith the text, Durit ad Jesum, he brought his brother the glorious news of having found a king, the King of the Jews, but he led him to Jesus, to a Saviour; that so, all kinds of happiness, temporal and spiritual, might be intimated in this discovery of a king, and of a Saviour; What may not his servants hope for at his hands, who is both those, a king and a Saviour, and hath worldly preferments, and the glory of heaven in his power?

Now, though the words of this text, (He was not that light, but was sent to bear witness of that light) are placed in the first part of the chapter, that which concerns Christ's divine nature, yet they belong, and they have a respect to all three; to his divine nature, to his offices, and to his calling of his apostles: for, first, light denotes his divine nature; secondly, the testimony that is given of him by John Baptist, (of whom the words of our text are spoken) declares him to be the Messias, and Messias, (which signifies anointed) involves all his offices, for his three offices, are his three vocations; and thirdly, the application of this testimony, given by John Baptist here, by the apostles and their successors after, intimates or brings to our memory this their first vocation, in this chapter. So that the Gospel of St. John contains all divinity, this chapter all the Gospel, and this text all the chapter. Therefore it is too large to go through at this time; at this time we shall insist upon such branches as arise out of that consideration, what, and who this light is, for we shall find it to be both a personal light, (it is some body) and, otherwise too, a real light, (it is some thing) therefore we inquire, what this light is (what thing) and who this light is, (what person) which John Baptist is denied to be. Hereafter we shall consider, the testimony which is given of this light; in which part in due time, we shall handle, the person of the witness John Baptist, in whom we shall find many considerable, and extraordinary circumstances: and then, his citation, and calling to this testimony; and thirdly, the testimony itself that he gave: and lastly, why any testimony was requisite to so evident a thing as light. But the first part, Who,

VOL. V.

E

and what this light is, belongs most properly to this day, and will fill that portion of the day, which is afforded us for this exercise. Proceed we therefore to that, John Baptist was not that light. Who was, what was?

Though most expositors, as well ancient, as modern agree with one general, and unanime consent, that light in this verse is intended and meant of Christ, Christ is this light; yet in some precedent and subsequent passages in this chapter, I see other senses have been admitted of this word, light, than perchance those places will bear; certainly other than those places need: particularly, in the fourth verse (In it was life, and that life was the light of men) there they understand life, to be nothing but this natural life which we breathe, and light to be only that natural life, natural reason, which distinguishes us men from other creatures. Now, it is true that they may have a pretence for some ground of this interpretation in antiquity itself, for, so says St. Cyril, Filius Dei creative illuminat, Christ doth enlighten us, in creating us. And so some others of the fathers, and some of the School, understand by that light natural reason, and that life, conservation in life. But this interpretation seems to me subject to both these dangers, that it goes so far, and yet reaches not home. So far, in wresting in divers senses into a word, which needs but one, and is of itself clear enough, that is light, and yet reaches not home, for it reaches not to the essential light, which is Christ Jesus, nor to the supernatural light, which is faith and grace, which seems to have been the evangelist's principal scope, to declare the coming of Christ, (who is the essential light) and his purpose in coming, to raise and establish a church, by faith and grace, which is the supernatural light: for, as the Holy Ghost himself interprets life to be meant of Christ, (He that hath the Son hath life) so we may justly do of light too, he that sees the Son, the Son of God hath light. For, light is never, (to my remembrance) found in any place of the Scripture, where it must necessarily signify the light of nature, natural reason; but wheresoever it is transferred from the natural to a figurative sense, it takes a higher signification than that; either it signifies essential light, Christ Jesus, (which answers our first question, Quis lux,

21 John v. 12.

Who is this light, it is Christ personally) or it signifies the supernatural light of faith and grace, (which answers our second question, Quid lux, What is this light, for it is the working of Christ, by his spirit, in his church, in the infusion of faith and grace, for belief, and manners) and therefore though it be ever lawful, and oftentimes very useful, for the raising and exaltation of our devotion, and to present the plenty, and abundance of the Holy Ghost in the Scriptures, who satisfies us as with marrow, and with fatness, to induce the divers senses that the Scriptures do admit, yet this may not be admitted, if there may be danger thereby, to neglect or weaken the literal sense itself. For there is no necessity of that spiritual wantonness of finding more than necessary senses; for, the more lights there are, the more shadows are also cast by those many lights. And, as it is true in religious duties, so is it in interpretation of matters of religion, necessarium et satis convertuntur; when you have done that you ought to do in your calling, you have done enough; there are no such evangelical counsels, as should raise works of supererogation, more than you are bound to do, so when you have the necessary sense, that is the meaning of the Holy Ghost in that place, you have senses enough, and not till then, though you have never so many, and never so delightful.

Light therefore, is in all this chapter fitliest understood of Christ; who is noted here, with that distinctive article, Illa lux, that light. For, non sic dicitur lux, sicut lapis3; Christ is not so called light, as he is called a rock, or a corner-stone; not by a metaphor, but truly, and properly. It is true that the apostles are said to be light, and that with an article, the light; but yet with a limitation and restriction, The light of the world', that is, set up to convey light to the world. It is true that John Baptist himself was called light, and with large additions, Lucerna ardens, a burning, and a shining lamps, to denote both his own burning zeal, and the communicating of this his light to others. It is true, that all the faithful are said to be light in the Lord"; but all this is but to signify that they had been in darkness before; they had been be-clouded, but were now illustrated; they