m ^^# n*^ ^^■^•^wn^ * '^•^ffi. ■r-f^V^ :: LIBRARY PKIAX ETO^\ N. J. PlINATION OF S A M L' E 1. A Ct N K W , y^ . 11 F H H 1 I. \ Li t L P H 1 A . P \ Letter No. COLLECTION OF PURITAN AND ENGLISH THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE $ LIBRARY OF THE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY A O F T H E x-J-AM^^.s Archbiflidp T^i l l o t s o n's Sermons, Concerning the Dmiity and Incarnation of our 0. SaViourj &c. »7. ltfS4^ rMPRFMATUR, B.A». Barker. ^mtt A VINDICATION O F T H E SERMONS O F His Grace JO HK Archbifliopof Canttrluryy CONCERNING THE Divinity and Incarnation of our B Saviour: AND Of the Lord Bifhop of Worcejlers Sermon on the JMy[lems of the Qhrtjlian Faith : FROM THE Exceptions of a late Book , EntitulecJ , Confederations on the Explications of the DoElnne of the T R I N I T Y. To which is annexed, A Letter from the Lord Bifhop of S^rum to the Au- thor of the laid Vindication^ on the fame Subject. LONDON: Printed for %it, Cl^iCldDeU, at the Rofe and Crown in St. Paul's Church-yard. M DC XC V. '\'!^ tr ^ -^ i "ill ■r»\ ^ 'Jatz/iirtD .^lUC IC^ ' T O His Honoured Friend, James ChadwicKj Efq> TH E Prefent I here make you being a Vindication of my late Lord of Canterhuryj and the Caufe he feafbnably appeared in, and fuccefsfully defended, the De- dication of it feems of right to belong to you , who befides the Happinefs of a near Alliance and a long and inward Acquaintance, had a Juft Efteem and Veneration for Him. Jt was not with- out His G R A c t's Diredion and En- couragement , that I entred upon this Work ; and had He lived to have perus d the Whole, as He did a Part A 2 of eri "he Epftle Dedicatory, of it> (a few Days before his Laft Hours ) it had come with greater Ad- vantage into the worlds, and much more to my own Satisfadion^ as having pat fed the Trial of that Exadt and Im- partial Judgment which he was wont to exercife in Matters of this Nature. But however it may fall fhort in that Particular, fuch as it is, I here prefent it to you ;, not doubting ( though it may not deferve it for its own fake ) but you will accept it in Remembrance of fo Excellent a Friend^ and as a Te- ftimony of all due Refpedfrom, SIR, Tour Affe&ionate Servant y J. Williams:. THE. c nr: THE :yd h' PREFACE. [HE SuhjeB which the Author of the C6nfidera- tions undertakes ^ u a prime Article of the Chriftian Faith , and fo r^^ttires Seriqafnefs and Decorum in the Management of it : And fhe Perfons to whom he declares himfelf an Adverjary \ are not only of an eminent Order arid Station in the Church, hut alfo fuch as have approved themfelves in their Writings to be of that Learning and Judgment , that Temper and Moderation , that thetr Adverfary cannot hut tiy fome Reverence^ in Expreffjons at leafi, to their fer* fons for it. But notwithftanding this^ as if he had a diflrufl in his Caufe^ and durfl not venture it abroad into thetvorld upojf "the Strength of its own Reafon and Authority, hefoon en^ deavours to prepoffefs his unwary Readers with fuch Infinua*^ tions as he thinks will make them, if not of his own Party^ yet fufpeil the Sincerity of the otherl ^ . ^ For would you know who thofe are that he proclaims War againft^ They are one while a poor, fort of ryeak people at the befty that, he fait h^ peither have i^ox can defencl their Caufe, te have giveo \i\Ji'^ Kytht Shcinians : 'huiifjoj^ would indeed know,, who they are, in their prgpe^ colours ; they are the great Penfioafrs.of the world, 'that are bri- bo^ vyi^b gr^at R,e wa^ds^| X^^ey are of a Churchy whole K,ears and Aws ?tXQ grhdf^Tt1^dfiihf\rBn^^^ while they ^re^ great men indeed that (Jefeii'd ttie . Do- ' A 5 ' ■ " "drine - The PRE F AC E. ^rine of the Trinity againft them, but 'tis that they m^Uft maintain it, />. 44^ So that fit aftde Preferments^ Ftars and Atvs, and wtthout doubt thefi Great Men, and the whole Church and NMion (as he would have it btlte' ved ) would Socinianife , and become their Profilytes, Woufd one think that this P^rfvn had ever rrtad the C ha- racier his Grace has given his Predecessors in that Contro' 'verfyy who ufed generally to lay afide unfeemly Refle- ctions, &c ? Would one think this to be thePvrfon that in the Page before faid. That the Archbi(hop irTftru6l:ecl the Socinians xhtm^tXvQs with the Air and Language of a Father, not of ao Adverfaryor Judge ? Or rather^ has he not given us redfon to think he would have thefe doubt- ful Exprejjions conjlruedtothe dif advantage of htm whom he therein pretends to commend ? Or does he think , that after dtl^ he has wiped ^is mouthy and comes off with fome decoram , that he asks Pardon , if there be any thing llei:e (aid, not refpeftful enough. Solomonyi/V/', As a ma in his opinion ^ Ifaty who after all his pretence to a freedom from thefe BiafTes which the Great Pen* fioners of the world are under the power of^ cannot fo /mother ity but upon occa/ion it will break forth : Oj faith he. Let the Church-Preferments be propofed as the Reward of only Learning and Piety, and then mighty ihingslhallbe done^ anditfhallbe fbon feenhOwmany eyes this Liberty would open. Surely he mu(l have to9 hidX an inclination this rvay himfelfy thMcan think fo ill The PREFACE; tfmmkind, a?fd of fuch who. m knom to have ken tried whentimtrvasM defptfed hii fort of Bribes and Fears too, when armed mth Pomr and Authority 5 when they, wtth a bravery becoming their Learning and Jntegnty dar d to own (m his Phrafi) not only ^n inconycment ^/^/ 4 dan- gerous Truth, «>. 6 «;. !'''^ , 1 /" yr It Surely this is a Jort cf treatment that thefe Vemrdle Ferfans miM not have ejcpe^a from oneXf^^^^f ^^<'''''' nation, that ufti to argue with decency. But^^f^% not beexpeaed from him, who k^theionfidLnCe to ttU the World, that the Ancient Unitarians did gemrallyrt^ %ea theGofpel, and other Pieces now attributed to^St. John, and [aid they wer^ written by the Hermck annthqs? ^''jlfdbelaufe he thought himfdf obliged rather to vin^ijte thofe beloved Predecejfors of his (as he would have it) than thofe Divine Books ', he pretends particularly to ftt down their Reafons in order ; of vnhich matter, though (as he tells us) he will affirm nothing ; yet, fatth he, I Ihoulcl be glad to fee an Anfwer to their Exceptions. ^ , ^ , After which, I hope thefe Great men will thi^k tt no M/paragement to fuffer the utmofi indignity in frch Com^^ pany as that of the Divine Evangelifl, But of thit more in its proper place. But why doth our Author thus lead up the Van, and bring ftp the Rear of his Anfwer to thefe VentrMe Perfons, with this popular Jopickof Church-Preferments , and Churchy Fears ^ Was there never a time when the Church of hod proMed the fame Tenets which our Church defends, with- out any of thofe great Rewards /c> bribe /^hen his Unitarians /'ojf/e/SV fame of the greatefi Prefer-- ments when (as our Author tills us) they had thnr f au- las Patriarch of Amioch j and Photinus Mctropphcan the^ i^reiage; of Illyricum ; and that their Followers abounded eve^ ry- where, &c I p, 5 j. A»d I may tell him as a fecrety Was there not a time when the Power of the(e fatal BiaiTes iv^/ Abroad^ thji^ their Metropolkans were nat wont to jir eat fh^Txiti^ts^h ans with the Air and Language of a Father,-^^/ of >3g Adverlary, and a Tyrannical ]\i6gQ^ What elfe mas the meaning of the Commotions^ Violences, and OmrAgesuid ik thofe days J when Fire and Faggot wereevtn among them, in fa(hion\ when Bishops were dtpofed^ exiled, flain^ and the whole Empire in a€orhhuftion hy thofe Infamom PraSiicest Surely (as. oar Author faith of bis Adverfiriesjii thoG^ perfons had beheved as they faid, they <:ouldnevier tjiinfc it neceffary to ufe the Precaution of fuch mighty. A^yj^ and Draconick Saadions ,^ to maintam a Truth loob- vious, as they pretend, to every unprejudiced, and every honeftman, /'.54. ThiSy I doubt we, is in his words a Thorny -and ufl^' grateful Suhje^. And he may thank htmfelffok^tflng^ the occafion ; and me for not tracing it further^ '^^ ''"■ 'r- '-^^ Tor which ^ as I am not confcioH>s to my [elf of having done them any wrong'; fo 1 don t think it fit to conclude my Preface^ as he doth his, with asking his pardo/t, ; 5v 1. 17. after criatid malee ^"M,v^•t .-> A V 1 N- I VINDICATION O F T H E S E R M O N S Of His Grace the Archbifhop of Ca»ferhrjy , Concerning the T>iVmty and Incarnation of our ©• SaViour , S^c^ SECT. L Of the Deity of our Saviour, H E Author of the ConfiJerathnf having taken a liberty of difperllng the mat- ter before him without any jull order, doth accordingly often repeat things of the f^me kind ^ making fi mc ven- tures upnn a Pi int in one place , and taking it up again in another •, fo that his Reader is ( tt< n rather amused than fatiiried. Tho withal, he takes occa- fion to quicken his M tter ( which would otherwife have proved naufeous and heavy) with feveral pert Remarks and Reflections. _ But being my delign is not like B a Man of the Deity of our SaVtour. ?t Man of Myjiety (as he fcoffingly rcprcfents if) to daiken the Caufe , or to calx a milt before the Eyes of the Reader; I (hail- gently lead him by the hand, and endeavour to put what I have to fay, into that order, that whatever force is in it, the Reader may Toon difcover j or what dekds may be in it, he may be a- ble to dcted. This Author allows His Grace to be open and ingenuous in de- claring his Opinion of the Trinity % and is pleafed to allow !iim a right to alledge particular Scriptures to prove the Divinity of our Savi- our. And whether he has proved it or not, is the Point in Cou- troveify. Before I proceed to which, I (hall briefly ftate the Point, and (hew what are the di(Un(S Opinions of the Orthodox , the Arians, and Socinians^ concerning it ; for into one of thefe, is the whole 10 be refolved- 'The Orthodex hold, That Chrifl: the Word, and only begot- * ten of the Father, was truly and really God from all Eternity 5 *God by Participation of the Divine Nature and Happinefs toge- * ther with the Father, and by way of Derivation from him, as * Light from the Sun j and tliat he made all Creatures , and fo * could no more be a Creature, than it is pcffible for a Creature to * make it felf. Thns A. Bp. p. 23,37,38. ' The /^r?(2«/ conceive. That fometime before the World was *made, God generated the Son after an ineffable manner, to * be his InOrument and Minifter in making the World. And this * Son is called God in Scripture, not in the moft perfe(3: Scnfe, * but with refpcd to the Creatures whom he njade. So our Au- thor, p. ^6. a * Sucinus held , That the Son. was not in Being till he was *the Son of the Virgin; and that thtrefore he was a God, not *in Nature, but by way of Office, Million, or Reprefentation, ' as Mafcs, and others, are called God in Scripture. So our Au- ahor, p. 48. h Againlt thefe two lafl: , his Grace direded his Difcourfc, and took them up in order ; and in the iirfi place founded his Ar- gument upon the Firft Chapter of St. JiJms Gofpel. Here his Adverfary labours with all his might to put by the force of thole Arguments. Doth the Archbifhop reafon from the Context.? If you will believe this Author, this Text /^ ahdged impertinently by him for the TrinitaiianSj vphicb it doth not favour, no, not of the Deity of our SaVioun j mt in the kciff. That his Grace can raife th ExpreJJlonf no high^ than Arianifm , p ^6. That ai for the Hijforical Occafwn afftgncd by b'n Grace, there U no Hiflorian ( he is fure, no Anchnt BHhrian ) ajjrgns it. And that many of the Ancients did believe that Ccrinthus vpas the true Author of the Gofpd imputed to St. John', and that the Ancient Unitarians did njeCt the Gofpel^ EpjUes^ and Revelation now attributed to him, p. 4p, 50. This is the Sum of what he has faid -, all of which will be com- prehended under the following Heads. 1. I (lull confider the Authority of St. Johns Gofpel, and other Writings afcribed to him, 2. T (hall confider the Authority of ihofe Vnitariani who, he faithj rejedled thofe Writings. 3. If St. Jnhn proves to be the Author of the Gofpel , I (hall confider the occa(ion upon which he is faid to have written that Book. 4. I (hall defend the Orthodox Explication of it, given by the ArchbKhop. I. I (hall confider the Authority of thofe Writings, which arc ufually afcribed to St. Johuy viz. The Gofpel', T-hree Epiftles, and the Revelation. It's much, that we (hould be put upon the proof of this at this time of day, and by one that profe(res himfelf to believe the Chriftian Religion 5 of which inconfiltency, I think it's much more difficult to give an account, than of the Writings of that Apoi^Ie, called in qucfiion by his dear Frieads, the Ancient Vni- tarianf. It is certain, that there was not the lea(l occafion given him from the Point in difpute to enter upon this matter, where both fides agreed, or would be thought to be agreed about the Au- thority of the Book they reafonfrom: And which he faith, is rvith ^reat Colour alledged for the Arian Vodrine , p. 4^. and that S,Kinius Explication of it, xvould pcrfedly agree to the LordChri^, But 1 muit confefs, he has given too great reafon to fufped:, that he is in this Point of the fame mind with the Ancient Vni- tarians j and would allow Cerinthuf, or Simon Magus, or any of the like Rabble, to be Author of thofe Writings, rather tlian that Divine ApolHe. But as he wifely obfervcs , that thofe An- B 2 ciera of (he Deky of our Sayiour, tim VnUarians that had rejedcd them i * Yet, becaufe they faw * it begun to grow into Credit anniong the other Denominations ' of Chriftians, mihy of which had been feduced by the PJaiomck, ' Philofophers that came over to Chriftianity j therefore fhey were * careful to ihow them , that it was capable of a very allowable * Senfe ', and that it doth not appear , that either St. Juhn , or ' Ccrinthm^ intended to advance a Second God, p. 53. a That is, in plain and honeli Englifh, they themfelves did not at all believe thofe to be the Works of St. John-,b\it becaufe there was no going againft the Stream, and that among the other Denominations ofChriftians thefe were univerfally received, they would then fwina . with it; and then whoever was the Author, whether St. John ot Cerinthus, was no frinitarian. And if they could have made this out to the fatisfadion of the adverfe Party, and there had been nothing wanting but their Approbation of the aforefaid Works to have made the Chrifiians of other Denominations intirely theirs; then they that at firft held, that Cerinthus, and not ^t. John, was the Author*, and towards an Accommodation, came fo far , as to fay for convenience fake, St, J)hn, or Cerin- thus , to remove all rubs out of the way , and to have com- pleated the defign, would without doubt have intirely come over fo far to them , whatever they themfeves thought -, and they would have confented that St. John, and not Cerinthm, was the Author. But alas! that was too hard a task, iox it. John him- felf would not bend and comply, and could not be made a Vnitarian. In the beginning was the IFord , and the IVord n>as mtb God^ and the Word was God, &c. was as ftable as a Rock ; and therefore if St. John would not be for them , they would not be for him. And then all the Vnitariaus with one confent reject the Gofpel, EpiRles, and Rtveiaiion, and give the Honour from St. John to Cerinthus , who fhould be faid to write them , to confirm this Heretic](_s Cahlajikk^ and Platonii\ Nations about the. <&«/©' J or Word , and his Jewiih Dreams about the Millenary King* dom, p. 50- Now which part our Aurhor will take to, whether that of x\iQ hx\dtwtVnitarians , Who, hefairh, n^en Contemporaries to the Tirfl Fathers of the Church, and n>cre Older than any of thof Fathers zt>hofe Works are norv extant (if we will believe him)i whether, I fay, he will take to them and rejed thefe Books, or whether, foyfake his FriendSj and fide with thofe Fathers vphofe Wor\s are, of the Deity cf our SaVwurl MVP epdjnt, and the reft of the Catholick Church in receiving them, 1 am not ablepofitively to determine ; for he holds us in fufpcnce 2nd faith, He will affirm v.oihing in the matter^ hut jhould be glad to fee a good Anfvcer to the Exceptions againji thefe Bookj, rvhich rr? receive as St JohnV , that n>ere made by the Ancient Unitarians. I do not think my fcif obliged to enter into the merits of that caufe, unlefs he will yield thofe Bocks of St. J)hn to be for chcTrinitjrians^ and therefore calls their Authority in queftion :. But when he proftlTes St. John not to favour^ no not in the leafi^ the Trinitarian Vo^rine, and to be wholly Sociaian , What need is there to prolonj^ the time and poftpone the Gonfideration of the main Caufe, and that 1 mull: be put upon the Proof of this, and hew my way through all thofe formidable Ar,guments of the V/iitarians againll St. Johns Writings, before I murt be ad- mitted to Argue the Point in Debare? Which is, as if when his Grace had faid. That the Hrrt Chapter of Genefts might as well be Interpreted of a new Moral Creation, as the firlt Chapter of St. John j before he would allow me to proceed to the Proof of this, he Ihoold require me to (hew that Mvfes wrote the Book of Gemfts^ aitd oblige me to Anfwer all the Arguments of Aben- f«rhat TTtre the Alkgaticns of the Unitarians out of Eufebius , hut tfpecially out of St. Epiphanius, who hath Written very largely of this matter ( as he faitii ). For thefe Arguments this Author refers us to Eufebius and Epiphanius -^ h\ii is {oi Eufebius^ he fays nothing of thefe Argu- ments our Author cites him for i and as for what are in Eufebius^ they arenot/;!jc Alligations cf theV/iitarisus^ but of fome of the otherwife Orthodox againlt i\\& Apocalypfe^ as I (hall (hew. As for Epipbanim-, our Author faith, He hath written very largely of this muter : but if he has, it had become him to have ob- lerv'd that it was becaufe of the Anfwer he has given to the Arguments, which the Alogi (in our Author's Englifli, th^Vnita'. riani J •g Of the Deity of our SaVtour* rians ) alkdged againft St. Johns Writings, in which that Hi- ftotian is very particular 5 and not to propofe them as if rhey had flood the (hock of feveral Ages, and to this day wanted a Pveply : for after this manner he introduces them, / (hould he glad to fee a good Anfvper to the Exceptions of the Unitarians, againfi the Booki which we receive at St. John's. But perhaps in his efteem what Epiphanius hath faid, is not a good Anfxpir 5 and as impertinent and ridiculotts as that he makes for him in the cafe of Thyatira^ of which more anon. It's time now to examine them. ObjeCi. I. The Vnitanans faid, That it was the current Opi- nion and general Tradition, that Cerinthiis, and not St. Jobn^ was Author of theGofpel, Epiftles, and Revelation, that go un- der St. John*s name : for as to the Revelation , it was fcarce doubted by any to be the Work of Cerimhus ; and as fuch, was . wrote againft by divers Learned men of the Catholick Perfua- iion, as 'tis now called. J. The Anfwer Epiphanim gives to that Claufe about Cerinthm^ r is, * How could Cerinthus be the Author of that which was diredt- ' ly oppofite to him : for Cerinthus would have Chrift to be a meer * and late- born man, whereas St. John faith, the Word always rpaf^ * and came from Heaven^ and was made fic(h. Now I conceive this Anfwer of Epiphanim to be good, unlefs they would have Ceri«- thtts to contradid himfelf. As to the other Claufes of our Author's Objedions, Cfor they are not in Epiphanius ) nothing is more falfe, than that it was the current Opinion and general tradition that Cerinthus was the Au- thor of all thofe Writings s and that the Revelation wJS fcarce doubted by any to be his, and was wrote againft, as fuch, by di^ vers of the Catholick Perfuafon : For, *' I. There were fome Books of St. John-, of which there never Ecclef.Hift.'wis anv quelUon in the Chriftian Church, which Eufebius calls /. 3. c. 24- ttvawl/ppo'TBf y^'pa.i-y fuch is hisGofpel, which Iren^us^ and Eafe- ^^'>- btus from tiim, fay he publifhed, while at Ephefus, at the In- Iren. . 3. ^^^^^ of the Aftsn Bilhops, and as fuch is often quoted by the Fa- Eufel>. /. 5. thers. This Sandiiis^ a late Author of the Vnitarians acknowledges, c.S. who faith. The Gofpel was always accounted Canonical. Such Hieron. Ec- again IS the iirft Epiftle of St.Johnt which, faith Eufehius, is ad- f/^/ Sm>^. i^-jf gj by the prefent as it was by the ancient Chriftians with- S^^pTec'- °^^ difpute. So St. Jerom ; upon which Grotins faith, That it was clef. ' never doubted to be St. Johns, So Sandius again, 2. Thofe of the Deity of our SaVtour* *r 1. Thofe Books that were not fo generally rccciv'cl as St. John Sy were yet for the moft part rccciv'd as Canonical. Such were the zd. and :^cL Epirtles i of which fome would have another Jjhiy call'd Jibn the Presbyter, to be the Author, as St. Jerom faith, and Grot'tm {torn him j but for the mort part if » was believed to be St. John the Evangeliii ^; Againft which ^'^^^ '•7- ( it feems ) the yincitnt Vnitarlans had nothing particularly fo ** objed: 5 for elfe we fhould have learn'd it from our Author. Of this fort is the ^pocslypfe 5 of which, faith our Author, it wasfcarce douhtid by any to be the fFork^of Cerinthus. Euftbms indeed faith, Some doqueliion it : But who and how iDany were they on the other fide that did not doubt of either its Autho- rity or Author, even fuch as Jt4(iin Martyr, Ireu£us, 7ertulJian, &c. f Irett. l.^. t fome of which interpreted it, ( as St. Jerom faith ) and fay f. 37.^50. that St. John wrote it when in Vatmos. But I fliall refer our ^"M-^- s» Author for the reft to Grotius and Sandiuj ; the latter of which f; ** » charges them with Blafphemy that would attribute it toCerintbus. ^erf Mar- don, f . 4, Hitrw. Script. Ecclef. Origen. HotniL h primip(y. Laftly, faith our Author, The Revelation was as the Work of CerintbHSj vprote againji by diver j Learned men of the Catholfcf^ Perfuafion, A. Dionyjiui Alexandrinus was of the number of thofe that queftioned whether St. John the Evangelift were the Author ; and for this indeed he offers feveral Reafons, but of fo little force, that if our Author hath feen them, as he has not fo he could not have the confidence to propofe them in behalf of his Ancient Unitarians, But whatever that Father thought of the Author, he allowed the Book to be Divine. There were indeed fome others of the CathoUc\ Perfuafiony that Vionyfms fpokc of in the fame Book, ( as Eufbius EccleC Hift. //&. ^.cap. 24. relates ) that would have the Apocalypfe- wrote by Cerinthus ; but they were few, and fuch as were trou- bled with a Cbrt of Millenaries^ Followers of AV/j^?/ an Eiiyptian Bifliopf ( of Repute for his Learning, Faith, and Knowledge of the Scripture) who for their Opinion quoted the Apocalypfe^ And it feems, as the Ancient "Unitarians rejeded St. John^s Wri- tings, becaufe they favour'd the Divinity of our Saviour ; Ccy thofe ( otherwife Orthodox ) would, it's likely, have rcjc^eJ the ^ of theDeity of our Saviour^ the Apoealypfe, becaufe it favoured ( as they thought ) the Caufe of the MtUennmm. Upon the whole it appears, That it was the current Opini- on and general Tiadition, that St. Jobfu, and not Cerinthnst was the Author of the Works attributed to that Evangelift. Oh)e^, 2. They objeded , he faith, * That this Gofpel is wholly made ufe of by thtCmnthhns and VaUminiansy the two chief StQts of the GnofUck^t and for this he quotes Iren£uty as well as Epiphanini, A. What is this brought to prove? Will it prove Cerinthut to be the Author of that Gofpel ? Then it may as well prove Vakntinus to be the Author of it, as Cerimhns^ fmce the Vaknti- aians rvhoUy made ttfe ef it, as well as the Cemtkianu Or will it prove that the Gofpel is a Vakntinian^ a Certn" thian, or GnofUck, Gofpel ? Then lb would the other Scriptures be fuchas the Seds were that quoted them, that corrupted dind tfirefted them, to ferve their purpofe. And thus Irenauj tells us the Gnojiick/ did, as he gives InlUnccs enough, Har. I, i. c. ] 5, id, 17. Nay, Cerinthuf himfelf owned the Gofpel of St. Afaf- thew, at leaft part of it; will it therefore follow that the Do- Sphiphan. ^^j^^ q£ Cermthus was favoured in that Gofpel , or might be "«.)'« P'oved from it? But his Grace faith, This Gofpel was wrote againfi Cerinthtts \ and then, faith our Author, how came theCermthians toufc it? A. They ufed it as the other Hercticks ufed that and other Scriptures. And lrtn£us applies this to another purpofe 5 for, faith he, By this meant they give 7eftimony tous. And this they might fo much the rather do, as the Evang«« lift makes ufe of feveral Terms of theirs fas his Grace znA Grotins have Ihcwed ) fiich as Life^ Ligh^ Titlnefi, which the Followers of Cerinthut ( who were willing to catch at any thing, as appears from Iren^ut ) finding there, would chal- lenge for theirs ; and this our Author himfelf intimates, when lie thus expounds Zre«r faith , l^he next day after our Savtour^s Baptifm, be fpake rvithhndxcw, &c. I anfwer, i .There is no mention at all of our Saviour's Baptifm in that Chapter, but the Hiftoiy of that being particularly rela- lated by the other Evangelifts , St. John fuppofes it , and refers to it, V. 1 5. John bare mtnefs — 7hif is he of tvbom I fpake, that is, formerly ; and when that was, St. Matthevp 5. 1 1. (hews, which was juft bcforeliis Baptifnn. 2. Accordingly, all the way there is an obfervable difference of Phrafe between St. John and the other Evangelifts. Matthew faith. He it is that comtth after me , that is, he that is to come. St. John faith , Yet. 26. there jiandeth one among you , he it if that toming after me, [as I have faid.] So ver. 2p. John feeth Jefus coming ; he fpake of him, as one then known to himfelf, but that was not till hi^ Baptifm, ver, 33. So again, ver, 30. thk is he , of vphom I faid-, [formerly] Ver. 32, 34. John bare record ^ faying^ I farv ihefpirit^'—and it abode upon him. The Phrafes, faid^ faw^ bare record, abode, do fhew that it was a certain time paft, which he refers to. From whence it appears,( i.)That the Phrafe, the next day, has no reference to our Saviour's Baptifm (for that St. John is not relating ) but to the Difcourfe then in hand i as the (ame Phrafe, Ver. 2p, had. (2.) That there was a diOanceof time between our Saviour's Saptifm , «nd that time that John the Baptili had the Difcourfe with of the Deity of our SaVioi&, B t with the Pharifief ztBethabara^ fer. ip, 24, 28. which was the day before he met Andrew^ ver. 35. 3, It's not at all unreafonable to fuppore, That oar Saviour's Temptation in the Wiidernefs, &c. did fall in with that timej for after his Baptifm he immediately went into the Wiidernefs, Mark^l. 12. And John the Baptift may well be fuppofed to have fpent that time in Preaching and Baptizing near to Jordan , and in the parts adjoyning to it; all which St. John omits, as having been before recorded by the other Evangelifts, as well as our Saviour's Baptifm. But the Learned Reader may confult Epiphanm^ Ear, 51 13, &c, and Petaviws Notes upon it. And I will refer our Author to Schlidingius's Note on John 1.26. Objea. 5. 'He has feigned an Epiftle, as from S(, John, to the Bifhop and Church of Ihyjtira, &c. But it's certain and notori- ous , fay the Vnitariaas , that there was no Church at 7hyatira^ till a long time after St. Johns Death. 'Tis a very ridiculous Anfwer made to this by Epiphanius, who being fenlible (bccaufe he was of Afia) of the truth of this Objedion, is forced to be con- tent with this vain EluGon, that St, John writes Prophetically of this Church. ^ A. I. It*s far from being certain , that there was no Church , and if St. John be of any Authority, it's as certain there was a Church there, as in the other Six Cities, for it's in the fame Stile 5 and it may be as well faid, there was no Church at Ephefusy as at Jhyatira, if the way of writing is to be regarded. 2. It's not probable. that there (hould be no Church there, when Churches were planted all about ^ and that it's granted all the other Six were Churches then in being. 3. If I underftand Epiphaniw^ he is far from granting it: All that he faith, is, (\.') ' Suppofing it to be fo*, what will follow? why, 'Thefe -^ J^V jS * very Perfons are forced from the things which they objedi againtt ^^j,v 'it, by their own ConfelTion,to aflent to the truth; that St. Jihn which he * foretold things to come by Divine Infpiration, concerning the LatmTran- * Corruption of that Church, and thofe falfe Propl.etdTes tiiat ^'''*"' ^'"^ * (hould arifc in it Ninety three Years after our Lord's Afcen- "J^^ '"'"^ * lion. (2.) He pofitively f3ith,Thcre was a Church there in St.John^ time; for faith he, ^ Si, John forefawthat after the time o{ the C 2 Aportlcs, 12 Of the Deity of our SaVtour, ' Apoftles , and of St. John , the Church would fall from the * truth into Error , even that of the Cataphryges , of which ' were the pretended Propheteffes, Prifcilla^ Maximitia, and ^«/«~ * tiVa. So again, * He wrote by Prophecy to thofe Chriftians, that * then were there in 'thyatira , that a Woman, who would call * her felf a Prophetefs, (hould arife among them. So that our Author is as wide of the Senfe of Epiphanins , as his Vmiarians were of the Truth, that would fo many years af- ter affirm there was no Church at T^hyatira in St. Johns time. I fuppofe our Author took it up at the fecond hand 5 for I per- ceive Fererius, and perhaps others, miftook Epiphaaius. \t feems that the Church there had been either deihoyed by Perfecution, or corrupted by the Cataphrygcj^ out of which Con- dition it having recovered a Hundred and twelve years after, (as Epipbanius faith; the Alogi ignorantly concluded there never had been a Church there till that time^ or however, made ufe of this pretence to countenance their impious Delign of over- throwing the Authority of that Book: A defign that our Au- thor hath (hewed himfelf too great a well-wi(her to, by fo for- mal a Repetition of thofe forry, and fo often baffled Obje<^i- ons 5 and by adding what force he (under the name of the /An- cient Vnitarians) could to fupport them. Which brings into my mind an unhappy paffage in Serm. 2. of the Archbi(hop, con- cerning the Do^rine of Socinttf, and his uncoucht way of manag- ing of it. * It was only to ferve and fupport an Opinion which * he had entertained before, and therefore was refolved one way * or other to bring the Scripture to comply with it : And if he * could not have done it, it is greatly to be fear'd, that he would * at laft have called in queftion the Divine Authority oi St, Johns * Gofpel, rather than have quitted his Opinion. It was evidently fo in the Cafe of the y^logi or Ancient Vnita- tuns 5 and what doth our Author want of it , that thus rakes into the Dirt of that Generation , and would have them the bell part of the Chrifiian Church ? But that remains to be con- iider'd. II. Who are the Ancknt Vnitarians , that our Author at all times fjpeaks fo venerably of, and that thus rejected the Books Hfually afcribed to St. Johnf This of the Deity of our Saviour. i j This name of the Vnitarians and Ancient Vnitarians^ is a Title much made ufe of, of late j and it is a ternn of Latitude, that to thofe that know not the difference, adds much to the num- ber \ for under that, they would comprehend all that deny a Trinity, or think not alike ot it with the CithoHck Church, whether Arhns, or PbnUnians and Socinians j though at the fame time they difagree, as well among themfelves, ( as 1 (hall ftjew ) as with us, and particularly in the point in queltion, viz,, the Authority of Sr. 7'^^«\s Gofpcl, &c. Our Author often fpeaks of the Ancient Vnitarians 5 and if we would know how ancient they are, he tells us, they were Contemporaries to the fir(i Fathers of the Churchy and were older than any of thofe Fathers vphofe workf are now extant^ p. 50. that is, t. Clemens himself contempi)rary to St. Paul. Now whom fhould we fo foon hx upon for his Ancient Vnita- rians^ as Cerinthits and Ebion,(or they were Ancicnt^^s Contempo- raries with the Firil Fathi;rs of the Church j and were both of thar) Vnitarians, as they both held that our Saviour was a meer Man? But here our Author intcrpofes, and becaufe heconfejfes he has met rvith thefe tvpo names in the Church Hi/?ory 5 and when he did, fo be fuie Hiids no paffable Gbara(5ter of them \ therefore he will not hive Ehion a Perfon, nor Cerimhus a Vnitarian ; and for the proof ot the latter, offers no Teltimony ( the way for proving - matter of Fadt ) but an Argument of his own ^ For, faith he, if Cerinthui hdd the Vnity of God, and denied the Divinity and Pre- exUhnce of our Saviour (as his Grace and the Moderns fuppofe) neither it fhmld fsem, rvmld the Vnitarians have reckoned him a Herettc^^ nor havi! reje&ed the Bookj which they fuppofed to be his j namely^ the Gofpel, Epi'iles^ and Revelation, now attributed to St. John. As iC a Perfon might not be OrthoJoxin one Point, and Heretical in others 5 and rhe Vnitarians might not reckon Cerimhus a Here- tick ( who held Jefus was not born of a Virgin, but was the rtal Son of Jofep^t and Mary , and that Chrift defcended upon Jefus afier his Biptifm, and leaving him again, returned to Heaven ; and fo it was Jefus, and not Chrif^ that died 5 with , more of thefe whimlical dreams^ though he agreed with them in denying the Divinity and Pre- exilic nee of our Saviour. The matter of Fadt is beyond all contradi4/cgi, fo termed by Epiphaniuff becaufe they denied Chrift to be the ^leJ'©-,the l^ord^ and the Son of God •, and would have him a meer man. But now though thefe are Vnitartans^ and the moft like to the Socinians of all the Ancient Z^/i/Wi^j", if not the only ones that are fo {zsSandius would have it, p. 146, 14.7, &c.) Though they agree with his Chara6i:er again, that they rejected all the Works commonly afcribed to St. John 5 yet they fcem to be the only Vnitarians that did anciently agree in difowning the Authority of all thofe Books } and then it will follow, that the Vnitarians were not more Ancient than thofe Fathers^ pohofe fV^ork/ are none extant ; though he faith, it is certain andconffs^d hy them all^ that the An- cient llnitatianSj from the Apo{iolick,times to the Nicene Council, or thereabouts^ did rcjeCfthem. So that I fee no remedy, but if he will be pofitivc in it,that he muft be contented to let thcCerinthians as well as the Ebionita^ pafs for Vnitarians , to make his Sed thus ancient as the Apoltolick times: But how he will do to find out thofe that did thus profcfledly rejcd: all thofe Writings of Sr.J^o^/i before of the Deity of our SaViour] i y" before them, and from the Apoftolick times to them 5 and yet were older than fuch Fj/^fr/ of the Church, as Ckmtns Romanuf^ Folycarf}. JgaattHj, &c.rome of whofe Works are wijB? extant ^ I muli leave to his Coniideration. Thus much ihill fuffice to have faid about the Authority of St. Johns Writings, and particularly of his Gofpel. But there is another Point yet to be debated j which is, III. To conlider what was the occaiion upon which St. Jj)^« Wrote his Gofpel. This is one of the Hrlt things his Grace doth take into Confideration ; as the knowledge of this feernd to him to be the only trm k^y to the Interpretation of this Vifcourfe of St. Jobn.s^nd the negle. 49. J and ufe the words Lifty Fulnefs, Only begotten^ as they came in his way, with- out any defign , than the great Socinur (hould be blamed. St. John^ indeed, may be faid to ufe words by chance ^ but So- ciinus, formedf and thought, and concluded, and underftood^ and acccording as ht formed, and thought, ^nd conclitdedy Co it muji be meant. He was the man ih^t Jaw plainly, ( as he words it again, p. 48. ) And if his Grace, in Vindication of St. John, and in compliance with the Ancient Hiiiorians, will adventure to Inter- pret him from the occafion of his Writing, he deferves to be treated with contempt. The Serene Repnhlick^ owns none of thefe litles, hijh^p and Archbifhop, dec. Thus fcoffingly and boylfhly doth he introduce this ferious Argument. ' O he ! fays his Grace, * How ftrangely has this man [ Socinus'] miltook for want of the ' Light of Ancient Hirtory ! thus he Interprets Scripture by Scri- * pture, and by Rcafon and Wir, not by the Fathers and the * old Hiftorians of the Churches Party, &c. I could find in my heart to Tranfcribe what his Grace has Wrote upon this cafe 5 his words are thefe ; ' It was the great and fatal miflake ' of Socinm^ to go to Interpret Scripture merely by^ Criticiting * upon words, and fearching into all the Senfes (hat they are ca- ' pable of} till he can find one, though never fo forced and * foreign i6 Oftk Deity of our SaVtour., ' foreign , that will fave harmkfs the Opinion which he was • refolved beforehand to maintain, even againft the moit natural • and obvious Senfe of the Text which he undertakes to inter- • pret. Juft as if a man fliould interpret Ancient Statutes and 'Records, by mere critical Skill in words, without regard to 'the true occafion upon which they were made, and without any ' manner of knowledge and infight into the Hiftory of the Age 'in which they were written, p, i8. And that this was the way Socinus took, our Author's own ac- count of it will manifcll,;?48. where he chalks out the method his great Mafter obferved in interpreting that Evangelift, and that is, by laying down certain Propolitions , which he refolved to accommodate all to \ fuch was the Vnity of God: and therefore, ftith he, when the Word is called God^ it M«/? be meant in a Senfe of Office: And whereas it is faid , all things were made by him', thofe things Mtfji be the Spiritual Worlds 6cc. And then farewell Fa- thers, and Hiliorians,Occarions, and Scripture too, rather than the Keafon and Wit of Socinw be called in queliion. Well, but fuppolit^g that our Author is content to have the Hiftorical Occafion of St. Johris Writing inquired into ^ yet, as for that ailign'd by his Gr^acc, it was, he faith, below the Gravity of the Apojile to confute the Wild Gnojiickt^ 8cc. And if you will take his word for it, he adds, ' I am of opinion, That there is 'no Hiftorian (I am fure there is no Ancient Hiftorian ) who * affigns that Hiftorical Occafion of St. Jchn's Writings , even * the GnofiicJ^ and their Eons, mentioned by his Grace. In fhcrf, ' he hath not very juiily blamed Socinus , for not knowing an * Hiftorical Occafion, which is mentioned in no Hiftorian, p. 49. This is very pofitive, no Hijiorian, no /indent Hiftorian ^ and mentioned in no Hiftorian. We have gained before (if it be worth the while to prove it) that Cerinthtts and Ebion (fuppofing him for the prefent a Per- fon) did deny the Divinity of our Saviour, accord ing as his Gr^ce reprefented it. The next thing is to Qicw, That thefe their Opinions was an occafion which St. John took for the writing his Gofpel, in the Judgment of the Ancient Hiftorians , and Fathers of the Church. Here our Author interpofes, and faith , the account given of this matter by the Ancients, is very different from this of his Grace, For Of the Deity of our SaViour,- ly For they fay, according to our Author's antique Tranflation , * That the other Evangelifts having committed to writing on- ' ly the Gefts of our Saviour, daring one Years fpace ; There- * fpre the Ap3ltle John , being thereto requelted , declared in Va Gofpel according to him, the time that was paffed over by * the other Evangelirts , and what was done by our Saviour ' therein ^ *Eufel>.^. It is very true, That the one of thefe is different from the f- 24. other ; but tho they are different, they are not ccntradidory and inconfiftent. F'or then, not only the Archbifhop would contra- d'ldt himfelf, who elfewhere gives the fame account, and tells us from 'Eufebm^ ' That St John wrote his Gofpel latt, and that * on purpofs to fupply the Omiilions of the other Evargelifts f j \ Serm. 2. but the Fathers alfo would contradidt one another,, and often ?• 94- themfelvcs; who fometimes give the one, and fometimes the other, and fometimcs both as the reafons of 'bt. Johns writing, {iS I fhall prefently (hew). By which way of arguing , Epipha- niMt EuftbiuSy znd St. Jirome^ dec. will clalh one with another } when the tirlt of thefe faith, St. John wrote his Gofpel * by * H^r. yi. the impulfe of the Holy Gholl ; and the other fays, it was at '^• the inliance of the /4Jijn Bifhops. But now, as thefe two may well be accommodated , and are confident •, fo it is in the Ac- count given by the Ancients of the occaGon of Sr. Johns wri- ting the Gofpel i therefore St. Jeromj- joyns them together, and \Scrtpt. after he had faid , That St. John wrote it in Confutation of Ce- Ecckj. rinthuT ^ and other Hereticks ; adds, t\^zxe. is d\io amthet Caufe ^ and then falls in with Eufeb'us. . n ', > , ' V'l '"' So 7rew;. wrote hi^j Golpel againll the He- reties of Cerintbus and E^wi. And indeed, by our Author's r; ply -to this part, ve may gucfs , That when he met rcith thfe tvpo Karnes, in , the Church- H/jl>ry ^ he met with nothing agiinft it. For thus he goes on. , . ,. ; Firft, \s to Ebicn, concerning h'flfi, "jfr /r,,'',_faith he, idoiihted by the Critk\s y vchether there wtis any fuch Man : Nay, a little ^fter, he is got above the Cri.i^ks," and p^ulitiy^ly artira.s, That Ebion D '- nver 12,13. 1 8 of the Deity of out Sdihml never ivof. Now.,^ fupppoling his Modern Oppofers , and among them the Archbi(hop,for want of confulting the Indexes of Names in Ghurch Hijiory, had miftdken ; yet, how will that confute his Modern Oppofers , who ufe to quote Iren£us^ Epiphanius , &c. for their AlTertion, that St. John wrote againft the Ebionitet ? For tho Ehion never was, yet the Ehionites were an^ early Sed> and as early as they make him. But faith he, 7hU Name tvas given to thefirji Chrifiians^ becaufe of their Poverty^ according to the fignification of the word. j4. Then indeed St. John was in the wrong for writing againft thcfe firii Chriftians , whom St. Paul refers to,' as our AuthoT would have us underftand, i Cor. 1.26, or at leaft, all thofe Fa- thers were miftaken that would have St. Jo^« write againft the Herefy of the Ebionites , or that reckon that among the number of Herefies. For what Herefy is there in fimple Poverty > But if they that would have the name an Appellative, fay it was not becaufe of their Poverty, but becaufe they thought, '!^a^i 3^ TtL^tveHi , poorly and meanly of our Saviour , as they would have him the Son of Jnfeph and Msiry^ as fome of them « or of Mary., as others; but all of them agreeing that he W3s a mere Man. So Eufehius. What if Ehion at laft is found to be a Perfon? So it's affirmed hy. tertullian, Trdfcript. c 33, &c. Uie- ron. in Ifai. c. I, e^* 3. Hilariur Epift. de Trin. I. I, Origen in Matih. 5, &c. / ja«r. 30. So Epiphanius exprefly, Ehionites were fo called from Ehion -^ whofe Followers, faith he, would be fo called from their being poor like the Apoftles: But, faith that Father, 1hi4 k a FiCfion of their own > For Ebion woi a proper Name. As for Cerinthus , all that he has to fay, is , That the Gofpel of St. John coulJ not be wrote againft Cerinthus, becaufe Cerin- thus was faid to be Author of it. But this is to reafon about matter of Fadt. li's plain , the Ancients ^ to whom our Author appeals, did aftert. That it was written againft Cerinthus ; and it's as plain. That Cerinthus held thefe Opinions, againft which St. John is (uppofed by them to have written. To which he has QOthing to reply , but that Cerinthus is faid to be the Author of ki but that I have already conlidet'd before. Thus far then, I hope , 'tis pretty evident, That there are Hijiorians and Ancient Miliorians , that do ajftgn the fame Hijiorieal Occafton of St, John'/ Writings y as U ajjigned by bis Grace, But of the Deitf'hf our SdVmr. 1 9 L jButit/s Ukely he- will rejplyj That thcfe w6rds of h'B, «ho ajjigns the Hijiorieat OccaCum of St. Joha'x IVritings , even the Gnofticks and their Eons, mentioned by his Grace. I anfwer, That what has been before faid is fufficient, when there is a. Perpetual Allufion to the Phrafe and Opinions of the Gnojiickj i and very often in the Apollolical Epiftles, as has tieen obferved by many Learned Perfon?. But to put this part difpute , befides what is elfewhere , let our Author turn to Iren£us , and he will find that Ancient Au- Mv, H4r. thor exprefly affirming , That St John wrote his Gofpel againft 1 3. c, II. the Error of Cerinthuj j and a little after/ that St. John took away all ground of Difl'ention; and by the words, the IVorld rvoi made hy him., he confuted the Gnojiick^f* So that if our ,A,utjior was of that Opinion, it was without any ground. :■-,, "bx:f IV. It's high lime we now proceed to enquire into the fenfe of St. John. The Ancient Vnit avians finding (as I have obferved ) the Gofpel of St. John not reconcilable to their opinion of Chrift's being a meer man j Hke Ahxmder^ at once cur the Gor- dian knot, which they could notfairlv untie 5 and r^ jedted thps and other pieces now attributi.d to that EvangelilV, asUncanoniCdl and Heretical. But an after- generation ( whom our Author dignities alio with the farr.e title of Ancnnt Unitarians ) more wary than the former, feeing, that Author, whoever he was, to grorv into credit among the other denominations of Chrijiiant^ were care- ful to fljetv ihcm, that it was capable of a very allowable fenfe, as our Author faith, p. 53. fi'H 't'ij ?■'. • 'I t t4.'ii!.{ n iw. ' .h But hld^ faith our Author, *His Grace himfelf, when he comes to interpret the particular expreilions, can raife them no higher than Arianifm , ( viz. that the Son was generated fome time before the World ) though he ailed ged them to prove Trinit arianifm. p. ^6. b. . , Well, fuppofing this, yet if his Expofition hold fo far good, the Socinian Hypothefis, that will not allow our Saviour to have anyexiftence before his Nativity of the Virgin Mary^ will then be utterly overthrown. But what doth our Author mean ? When he affirms or denies, as he pleafes, what Iren£us^EHfebius and Epipbanius fay^ they are Books few underftand, and fewer have: but methinks he (hould be a little more cautious when he ufes the fame liberty in a Book publifhed but the lail: year, and that has the good hap to be gene- rally well received and read. How then can he fay that h's Grace can raife the exprejpons no higher than Arianifm ? when it's the firft of his Corollaries, viz. '■The Word here defcribed by St, • John, if not a Creature. And then follows, T^his Conclufion is * dire^ly againfi the Arians, n>ho affirmed that the Son of God n>as a Creature, p. 3P' And (here is not a branch of thofe Verfes which the Arch- hijhop doth not alike interfr.t. Thus he faitli of Chrift the IVord^ that is, the eternal Son of God. P. 6. 59, In the Beginnings that is, he did exi(i before any thing was made^ and confeqmntly is without Beginnings and ettrnal. P. Ig^&c. Was Godf that is, from all eternity. P. 24, &c. But of the Deity of our SaVtour. But perhaps^ he will fay, this his Grace has attempted, but not prov'd. That remains to be tried by what he has to object againft k 5. and then he onlyoffer« fomewhat as a Reply to his Crjce/sEx- pofition of the Phrafe, In the Beginnings leaving all the reft that was faid in expoiition and defence of the other Phrafes of the Evangelift, to continue as they were; and if we may judge of what he could have faid of the reft, by what he has faid of this, it muil needs have been very infignificant : For thus he argues. li ^ In the Beginning, is interpreted vcithout Beginning , which * two are diftin(^ly contrary. P. 48 h. A» I anfwer \ This is not dire<^l^ laid down as the interpre- tation of that Phrafe, but is rather the confequence of what his Gtace had faid juft before, as the preceding quotation (hews, In the Beginning, that is, he did exiji before any thing rr>as made^ and £onfequently w rvithout Beginning, and Eternal- 2. ©ranting he had thus explain'd the PhrTLCeJn the Beginning, to be without Beginnin^^ yet they are not direGly contrary.To have a Beginning, and to be without Beginning, are diredly contra- ry, and more than fo, aContradidion. But to he in the Begin- ning^ and to be without Beginnings are fo far from being contrary, that they are very vi'ell conliftent, for elfe God himfelf would not hive bc€n in the Beginning. Thus it is, Gen. i. \. In the Be' ginning God created the Heaven and theEarth. By which Phrafe is ihewed, that the Heaven and Earth had a Beginning, and fo were not in the B ginning^ ( for then they had been before they began to be ) and fo it could not be faid, In the Berjnning rvere the Havns and the Earth ; for then they had, as God, been with- out Beginn'Pg. But it's faid. In the Beginning God created them, that is, he that himfelf had no Beginning, gave a Beginning to them. Alter this manner doth the V\'i(emanexprefs it, in the place quoted by his Grace, on this occafion. The Lord pjj*jf''d me r Wifdom ~\ in the beginning r^f hii tray^ before his rvorks of old. I n>4S fet up from evcrl.jliing, from the beginnings or ever the earth n>ass Prnv. 8. 22, 23. So that to Be in the Beginnings was to be before his tvork^ of old ; to be without a Beginning, and from Ever lading. 2; He objects , * Though he [ Archbifhop ] cannot find th • Coeternlty in the words of St. Johny yet he can interpret hi * ow i*f ^j^ Of the Deity of our Saviour, « own interpretation of his words, (o as to m ke out the Co- ' eternity ; For he faith, in the Btginning, that is, the Son already ' n?^, when things began to be i and by Confequence, the Son was ' without a Beginning j for that which was never made, could ' have no Beginning of its Being. And then he frnartly returns upon him, ' How, Sir, is that a good Confequence, or any Con- ' fequence at all ^ For fuppoting the Son was when the World t began to be, which is not yet Six thoufand years ago, will it ' follow, that therefore he was abfolutely without a Beginning, • or was never made ? &c. Anfrv. If his Grace had left this Confequence to ihnd upon its own foot, without offering any proof for it j yet any ore but competently acquainted with the Scripture-Phrafeology, would not have queltioned the reafon and force of it ; and if not wirh refped to his Advcrfary, yet for a falvo to his own ig- norance, would have forbore his Floppy Sir, is that a good Confc- quencey or any Confequence at all ? But I much queliion his igno- rance 5 for his cautious Adverfary, that had been us*d to write with a due guard as well as ftrength, tock care to prevent this Objedion, and fortify his Confcquenct with the bclLauihority, that of Scripture. For thus h"! goes on immediately after the words quoted by this Author, ( and fo he fs the more inexcufable ) 7he Son al- ready wM when things began to he, and cotifquently is without Be- ginniKg, &c. And fo the J:vfs ufed to deicribe Eternity, before ihe world .was, and before the foundation of the world. Of alfo in feve- ral places of the New Ttii-awent. And fo \\ktwi{c Solomon de- fcribes the Eternity of IVifdom, 7he Lord, fays he, p'Jfjfed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old, &c. So thit if the Cmfequence be not g-od, or if it be no Confluence at all, the *^cripture is to be blamed, and not his Grace for fol- lowing it in a line of Ar^mmenration. Accoiding to the Scri- pture way of fpeaking, that v,'hii.h wa"? before the world, is ac- counted e'ernal ; And therefore what was in theBeginnirg had no Beginning; and fo the whole CauTe of Arianifm, that would have ChriH (o be irartof the Creation, (he ugh before the world was, mult unavoidably mifcarry; uhich was the Cafe in hand, and what his Grace undertock to prove. But this was Hr to be conceal'dj fur otherwife cur Author would have had a'; little to fay to the Archhjhop^s Explication of the Fhrafe, In the Beginnings as Of the Deity of our SaVioun 2 5 as he his to the other Phiafes of the Evangelift. Therefore he thufes rather to wind off with a bare Repetition or two, to the Socinian Hypothelis, to try whether he caa with better fuccels encounter his Adverfary upon his own Principles, than upon ihofc; of the Arian. p. 47. a. h. Socimif being a peribn of a (harp and piercing wit, foon per- ceived that the ./irhn Scheme was not conliUent with St. John j for fince there was nothing in the world but Creator and Crea- ture, tiiat which was the Creator ( as the Ari ant did admit the Aoji^, or Vj/ord to be, and as St. Jjbns words, if hterally un- deritood, do import ) could not be the Creature. And there- fore, either he muft, with our Auihor's vi//3c/.rwt Vnitariant^ forgo St. Johns Authority, or find out fome other Explication than had yet been thought of; and that conrtrain'd him to fly to a Mi- nilkrial God, and a Spiritual World j as the Archbijhop had (lie wed, Sermon II. All that our Author has to fay upon the Socinian account, is with reference to a double Charge brought againft it 5 and that is, the unreafonablenei's and the novelty of this Explication. As to the Hrl^ of thcfe, His Grace faith. Sermon 1 1. ;>. 75. * Ac- cording to this rate of liberty in Interpreting Scripture, it will fignify very little or nothing, when any Perfon or Party is concerned, to oppofe any Dodrine contained in it; and the plaineli Texts for any Article of Faith, how Fundamental and neceflTary foever , may by the fame arts and ways of In- terpretation be eluded and rendred utterly ineflre<3:ual for the eflabli(hing of it. For example, if any man had a mind to call in qucition that Article of the Creeds concerning the Creati- on of the fforld^ why might he not, according to Socinns his way of Interpreting St. John^ under(\and the tirft Chapter of Censfif concerning the Beginning!, of the Mofaical Difpenfation ; and Interpret t\\Q Creation of the Heaven and the Earthy to be the Inftltution of the Jevcifh Polity and Religion, as by the Knv Heavenj and the New Earth , they pretend to be underftood the New ftate of things under the Gofpel , 6cc. It is certain that it was not the Phrafe of St. J^hn mifled Socinm^ or gave "limany occafion for his novel Interpretation, but a preconceived Principle (as has been before obferved ) j for indeed the Phrafe of St. John bears fuch a conformity to that of the Firfr of Genpfijy tiiat one fccms to be a key to the other ; and in the bc' E ginning 2 (J Of the Petty of our Saviour, giMing God created the Heavens and the Earth, is To like to m the he^ ginning was the Word^ ■ and all things tpere made by him ; that one is naturally led to think that as they in words fecm to lelate to the fame ftate of things,fo that the fFord that thus was in the beginning, and madt all things, was truly God j and that the whole Phrafeology of it is as properly and literally to be underfiood in St. J.)hn, as in Gemfis ; and that the one can no more admit of a Moral and Allegorical Interpretation, than the other. This is fo pertinently alledged by His Grace^ and the Parallel fo lively reprefented by the Bilhop of Waue^er^ in a Difcouffe there referred to, that our Author feemsperftdtly at a lofs whe- ther to grant or deny it ^ and fo from admittirgthe cafe as it is propofed, would advance another Scheme oi it; for thus he faith, *Let His Gr^ce put the cafe, as it usually is, and I am con- tent to join iffue with him upon the inftance he hath here given. The Hrtt Chapter of St. John fpeaks of a certain Perfon, namdy of the Lord Chrift, who is confefs'd to have been a Man, and yet it faith of him, AH things were made by him, *• So ii the firft Chapter ofGenefis imputed the Creation there fpoken of to H}fes ; if it fa id, In the beginning Mofes Created the Heavens and the Earth , it would be not only abfurd, but abfolutely necef- fary, to interpret the Chapter Alkgorically and Figuratively j and to fay that the Heavens and Earth are the Jewijh Polity and Eeligion, the Church and (he Difcipline thereof, &e. Now this^Anfwerof hrs contains fome what abfurd, fojne what untrue, and is alfo befides the cafe. 1. It contains fomewhat abfurd, which is,To conceive that itV po(Tible for M/e; an Infpired Writer, to have delivered himfelf after that manner ; and that when he was to Write of the firft Inftitution of the Jewijh Polity and Religion, he (hould thus deft.r.ibe it. In the beginning Mofes created the Heaver? and the Earth j and the earth was without fomt^ &c. and Mofes faid^ let there he light and there was light, ^z. Aud yet our Author, to ialve Socims's wild Interpretation of .9f. John^ is contented to grant this j jre, iaith he, fay it, we affirm it^ that if thefirft: Chapter of Gencfis imputed the Creation to Mofes, it ought to be fo interpreted. 2. It contains fomewhat untrue, as when tonaakeout his Pa- Jillel, he faith, Ik firfi Chapter of Sf, John fpeah^ ( Spiritual H^avens^ and an Intelledual Light ( in our Author's phrafe ). Now the QuelUon upon this is, Whether Spinofa might not as fpecioudy thus expound the Firft o(Genefts for the advantage of his Hypothcfis, as Sodnus did the Firft of John to fcrve his delign } And that any one that compares the one with the other, Gene fif and St. John^ will be able to difcern. Indeed as abfurd as the fuppofition of his concerning Mofes is, it might as allowably be faid of him, as Chrift the IVord have that faid of him in St. John, if the IVord was no more than Mofej, z Minifterial and Temporary God, and had no moic been in the beginning than Mofes, And then the Book of Genefis might as well have begun in the fame Phrafe with Mofesy as St. John with the Wordy after this manner, • In the beginning was Mofes, and Mofes was with ' God, and Mofes was God {jot a God, as he will have it]. The * fame was in the beginning with God. All things were made * by him, and without him was not any thing made that was ' made. Such pitiful and forry fliifts are thofe drove to that firft refolve upon an Hypothefis, and then arc to feek how to maintain and defend it. The only Point remaining with ourAuthor is,* That thi Evan- * geliftjwho^as a Jewfyaks here of the Mejfias^in the ufual Stilc £ 2 and i8 Of the Deity of our Say lour. and Language of the Jews^vvho were wont to fay^and fay it in al- mofi: all their Ancient Books, that ihc M^fiaf (h( uld make a New World, he fliould abolilh Paga ifm an J Idolatry from among the Nations; and thereby fas the Prophets alio (peak) Create a New Heaven and a New Earth. Anfw. I acknowledge the Scripture fometimes calls a Pclicic:'! or Moral Change in a Chuich or People, by the Term of New Heavens and New Earth : But, in our Author's way of fpe^king, ii irufifto the Readers Judgment and common fcnfe^ in a matter that it's not well p llible for him to doubt in, or to queliion what are the Heavens and Earth there fpoktn of, as Ifuiah df. 17, 18. 66. 22. 1 ?£ter 3. 13. &c. But here is no intimation given in the Evangelift, that the Phrafes fliould be Tranflited from a Natural to a Spiritual fence; nor can it polTibly be without great violence, as their own Ex- plication of it will (hew ; For they are forced to under ttand Chrift to be Perfonally the Word in one Claufe, and the Gofpei to be the Word'vn the other,as Socinus dothjZa the beginning was the Word^ Chrift i and the Word^ that is the Go(]3eI, n>aj mthGod, Or for the avoiding of that difficulty, others of them make Chrift to afcend Actually, Perfonally, and Bodily into Heaven before his Miniftry (though the Scripture fpeaks not one word of it ) that they may put a colour upon the Phrafe 5 The Word xpas with Godf as His Grace has ftiewed Sermon II. p. 61, of which more anon. But now if we take the words in their natural and pro- per fence, there arc feveral other places to confirm it , as His Grace hasftiewed, p, 101, e^c. and which it (hall fuflice for the prefent to refer to. The next thing to. be confidered is, the Novelty of this Expoiition of St. John by Socinus , of which faith the Arch' hijhop , it is gnite to another fenfe , and fuch as by their oven confejjion was never mentioned ^ nor I believe thought of by any Chrifiian Writer whatfoever before him. Sermon JI. />. 57. which he more largely profecutcs, j'. 64, e^c. What faith our Author to this ? 'Suppofe this i Why may we not own that time and long * con(ideration do improve a!' forts of Sciences, and every part *of Learning, whether Divine or Humane? I do not think it ' 50 be any Diminution of Somusy that it may faid of him, and of Of the Deity of our SaViour] 29 * of (his Context, he hath tcfcued it from that Darknefs in ^ which it JDng by. A. This Oafsrvatinn of his had in reafon been prevented, if he haJ well weighed what his Grace had faid upon it, who thus purfucs his Art-um'-nt. I. That the literal Senfe was fo obvious, that the Orthodox^ and even the Aruns and Phtonijis ( as Ameliui ) agreed in it. But here our Author , like a flying Tjrt^ar that dares not in a Pur(uit look . behind him , throws a fpitefu! Dart at his Ad- verfary. ' As to Friend Amelins , 1 think it fufficient to fay, ' That the Credit of the Trinitarian Caufe runs very low j when * an uncertain Tale of an obfcure Platoniji , of no Reputation ei- ' thcr for Learning or Wit , is made to be a good part of the ' Proof that can be ailed ged for fhefe Dodrines. This is fpoke at all adventures j for if he had read Eufebius * upon it, he * Prapar.p, would have found the Platoniji to have de(crv'd a better Cha- 540. raster, and neither the Perfon to be fo obfeurey nor the Relation of it fuch an uncertain Tale^ as he would reprefcnt it t. t V. San- But he that can make Hiflorical Occafions out of Propofitions, ^'«^'^^IJ> and will prove mitter of Fad by reafoning upon it without ^^^' Authority, may be allowed to make ( .haradters at his pleafure, and ftamp what he will upon a Quotation. Let him however take or refufe Friend Ameliur , it's a fmall part of the proof depends upon that Tale; the ufe made of that in concurrence with the Judgment of the Orthodox and Arians , was, that not one of ihcm|ever imagir el that there was any other World alluded to in that place , than the Natural and Material World, nor other Beginning than that of the Crea- tion. 2. His Grace goes on; * Surely it ought to be very conhdcr- * able in this Cafe, that the moft Ancient Chridian Writers, * Ignatius^ Juftin Martyr^ &c. and even Origen himfelf, are molt * cxprefs and pofitive in this matter, &e. And if this Interpret ' tation of Socinm be true, it's almoli incredible that thofe who . * lived fo very near St. Johns time , and were moft likely to •know his meaning, (hould fo widely miftakc it. And then that : •the whole Chriftan World (hould for fo many Ages together . * be deceived in the ground of fo important an Article of the * Faith ; and that no man did underlknd this Palfage of St. John * aright before Swinui, This very confideration alone, if there *werc ...0 of the Deity of our SaVtour* < were no other , were fufficient to ftagger any pruolcnt min*s * Belief of this Mifrcprefentation. 3. And as his Grace goes on, ' That which makes the n:i3t- * ter much wor(e, is, that the Religion which was particularly ' deHgn'd to overthrow Polytheifm , and the belief of more * Gods, hath according to them been fo ill taught and under- * flood by Chriiiians for fo many Ages together , and almoft ' from the beginning of Chriftianity, as does neceffarily infer a * plurality of Gods. An inconvenience fo great , as no Caufe, * how plaufible foever it may otherwifc appear , is able to (land * under the weight of it, p'7^' And which the Reader may there *fee admirably enforced. For which reafons it cannot well be fuppos'd , that cither time or long Confideration , would place a man in fo advantagi- ous Circumftances, that he (hould beat out that Track , which all Chriftians for 1500 years together, were not able before him to defcry; But after all , this (hall be no Vimnutm to Soci- nust as our Author will have it. But tho in words he will not allow it a Vimnuthnt yet he in Fad betrays it ; and after all, is not willing to own the Charge. For thus he argues, * Why doth his Grace fay. That not only *all the Fathers, but all Chriflians have for this Fifteen Ages, * Igreed in his Interpretation of this Context > Have there been * no Chriftians in the World for 1 500 Years, but only the Arians J and Trinitarians ? This is a little too grofs, for he knows full well , that this is not alTerted by the Archbi(hop 5 therefore he makes another at- tempt. * Or was Socinm the (irft (for that (it may be) was his Grace*s * meaning) who departed from the Arian and Trinitarian Senfe * of the Context > What an obfcure Writer doth he make his Grace to be , when he is , as it were , forced to come again and again upon the Enquiry, and at length to conclude with, it may be it was his meaning? And yet at laft he is fo unfortunate as to mi- Aake it. For his Grace doth no more fay , That Socinus was the firfl man that departed fronythe Arian W Trinitarian Senfe of the Con- text , than he faith, 7hat not only the Fathers, hut all Chri^iant have for Fifteen Ages agreed in it. For he knew lull well, that there of the Deity of m- SaVwur. j t there were CemthUnr, znd Ebimtef, and Pbotimans, and others, that went under the General Name of Chriaians, that diffcr'd as well from the /Brians as the Orthodox, and would allow our Sa- viour no other Exigence, than he had as th^; Son o( Mary, and fo could not with conlifknce to their Principle, expound St. John , as the Orthodox and Arians expounded him. But let his Grace fpeak for himfelf, viz. * Not only all the Ancient Fa- rthers of the Chritihn Church, but, fo far as I can find, all In- * terprcters whatfoever for Fifteen hundred years together did * undeilhnd this pafTige of St. John in a quite diflPeicnt Senfc, * [ from Sociaus'] namely of the Creation of the Material, and ' not of the Renovation of the Moral World. And however our Author would evade and molify it, his Grace had provehoU PravMces poflfefTed by thcic. FeUofPers, p. 53. But if our Author is of anyCredit,they did not only polTefs whole Frovimtt but Ages too, the twohrli yndonbtedly (as he fuggeils)^ Ancb ^i Of (he Deity of our SaVtow\ And faith he, '' We are ready to difpute it in the prefence of rhc * Learned World , that the Fathers mentioned by his Grace *• were lefs of the mind of the Tmitaiians^ than of our?. They ' held the Doctrine that was afterwards called Arhnifm^ p.52. ^« 54- '»• The firft falfe Step he makes, is, That he takes it for grant- ed, that his Grace allows the two firft Ages of Chriftianity to be for the Socinians^ or at leaft not againll them. For , faith he, if of Seventeen Ages , tve have (^ts n>e have tindouhledly have) the two firfl , much good may do hit Grace vpith the other Fifteen, He mud not deny us the trvo, nay, the three fir(}, generally f peaking. It feems his Grace mu(i not , nor indeed can deny him it he in- fifts only upon the laft Fifteen Ages as his Period , for then he quits the two firft. But now any indifferent Reader will foon fee, that when his Grace fpeaks of Fifteen htindred years y it's with refpe6t to the Ages intercurrent fiom the Apoftlcs to the time of Socintts, whofe Expolltion he charges with Novelty. [So p. ^4, 73, &c,'] And who lived in the laft Century. The fecond falfe Step, is his way of proof, which is this, * We will {_ faith he'] wreft it from all the World, that the Apo- * ftolick Creed , which was the only Creed of the three firft 'Ages, is wholly Vnitarian, and perfedtly contradids that In- * terpretation of the beginning of St. Jjhn^i Gofpel , which his * Grace feeks to advance, />. 52. How that is, we muft feek further, viz^. p, %^.h. where he takes it up again. In the Apoftles Creed , ' The Lord Chrift * is unconteftably fpoken of, as having no Exiftence before he * was generated in the Womb of the BlelTed Mary^ by the Spirit * of God. Not to infift upon that, that it was the only Creed of the three fir(i Ages , it will require a more than an obftinate Re- folution to xvrefi it out of the poffeffion of the Trinitarians^ who both from the diftributbn of the Creed under its three General Heads, do alTert a Trinity , and from the Charader given to our Saviour of being the only Son of Godt do maintain his Di- vinity. But for this, being he has offer'd no proof, I (hall re- efer him to Bifhop Pierfon upon that Point, which he has at large . explained and defended. - 1 His Of the Deity of our SaVtour, j j 3. His next falfe ftep is, That whereas his Grace particularly names Ignatm.Juftin^ Athenagoras^ Inndus^ 7ertul}tan, and Origerty as of the fame mind with himfelf ; this Author affirms, That conrrariwife they held the ^rhn Dodrine ; where yet he fails in his main Point, which was to clear Sochm's Explication, and his Dodrine, from Novelty : But iiikacj of that, all he attempts is to (hew that the Ancient Fathers were for the Arian Dodriae j which is to fay tl ey were not for the Soctnian : And yet even there he fails again 5 as has abundantly been proved by Dr. Bull 5 and which i (hall look upon as unanfwerable, till I fee the Book he promifes us in Anfwcr to it. Having all this while been employed in Vindication of the Au- thority of St. Johns Gofpel againlt the Ancient Vnitariant that quelUoned it, and our Author that propofes their Arguments $ and in Vindication of the Orthodox Expofition of it, againd the Arian on one iide, and the novel one of Socinui on the other > I fliall now proceed to the Confideration of thcfe Texts of Scri- pture which the Archbifljop occahonally made ufe of for the Ex- plication of St. John 5 and they are, Heh. i. i. And Col. 1. 15. His Grrf« has alledg'd £/i:^. 1.2. feveral times in his Sermons, twice in his Firft, for the Explication of St. John^ and Col. 1. 15. And thus far our Author goes along with him in the bare quo- tation j but he manifeftly wrongs him, when he thus triumphs as he goes off from the Text j Jf^uuld a man build the belief of more gods than one., contrary to the tvhole current^ and moji expreff vpords of the refl ofScripture^ on a Text fo uncertaii as this is ? p. 5 1 . ^. I fay he manifcftly wrongs him j for he knows very well, that his Grace agrees with the current and exprefs Words of Scripture^ in afTerting the Unity of the Godhead ; and fo could never at- tempt to build the Belief of more Gods than one^ upon any Text whatfoever, unlefs he would contradidt himfelf. What is it then his Grace alledges this Text for ? Why, it is to juftify St. Johny when he faith. That all things Wire made by theiVord » andconfequently the Word that made all things mult be God. The Propofition is St. Johns, the Confequence is in- deed his Grace^s , but what will necelTarily follow, as he has proved it from Heb. i. 2. I perceive our Author needs to be re- mcmbred upon occafion: For tho this is the ufe hisGrace makes of that Qnotation in Sermon Firfi, yet our Aathcr is to know there is a Second Sermon, where hisGrace doth not criticife upon F Words, ^4 Of the Deity of our SaViour. Wor^ls and (hew how they may be expounded this way and that '/, y, and k^ve it, \n our /\urhoi's f hraie, an uncertain 7.xt ; buf fully (hews, Tiiat this Verle, aiid Col. l.l6.mulintctjfari!y h UfUh'-lt^rid of ihe old Creation of the Natural WorH^ and not of the Moral iVdrld., and the Rmovation and Reformation of the Mmds and, Manners of mm by theGofpeL And this he nor only at Ijr-ge €on- firm>% bur alfc gives a pariculat Anfwer to the Copiimenr of Schliiimgiius and Creliy.^ upon it 5 Sermon II. p 103, J 06 &c. Now our Author in rtafon (hould have imerpofed v^ the behalf of thefe his defcrted Friends, and have given a juft Reply to their Adverfary 5 but his bulinefs i5"iather to proppfe, and re- peat, and make fome fudden fallies, than grapple with his Op- ponent, and come to downright Blows. The hrft Adventure he makes is, That the word AiSm, which we render Worlds^ more ufttally and properly fignifies Ager 5 and its fo tranfljted by St. Jerom ; and thtr^fore divers of the moji Learned Critickf underjiand this Text of the Gofptl Ages j of vehich ihe hard Chriji if (undtr God) ihe undeubtcd Author. A. It feems the Le<3r«ed Criucks go different ways, and our Author dares not lay too much on their fide, that underjiand this of the Gofpel' Ages', for he faw th.;t the Phrafe, he made the Ages, was harlh, and as unufual as it is ufual for the Greek, word to tig- nify Ages : And which is worfe, that the word Ages in the Jen>- ijh and Scripture- Stile, ordinarily (ignifying the Age before and the Age under the Mellias, it mull: follow, That the Lord Chrift m«^ be the undoubted Author of botli the A^,es ; of that from the Foundation of the World to the GofpeJ, as well as that from the Gofpel to the End of the World : And if fo, he mult have been exilient before the Ages ; for clfe how could he be the Au- thor of them ? This he that has been fo converfant in the Learn- ed Critick^s of thetrinitarians^ cannot be ignoiant of: And becaufe 1 have not a Lift of them at hand, 1 (hall for the prefent refer him to Dt. Hammond on Lu\e l, p. &c. Whether he forefaw this or no, I cannot divine j but how- ever, he has another anfwer in referve. For thus he goes on ; B»t, faith he, let us fay euaVAt here if \Vox\d. yt Grotius gives very good reafons tvhy xve ought to nnder the word thus-, For whom he made the Worlds ; i.e. God made the World for the Meffiae, or mth intention to fubjeCi it to him in thefalmfs of time. A, But of the Deity of our SaViour, ; ^ A. But fuppofing it mayjbe fo rendred, yet there is no fuch falvo for verfe lo.- where it's faid of Chrift, (as the Anhbifhop hath umnfwerably proved ) Thju^ Lord^ in the beginning haji laid the foundation of the earth, &c, 2. The Gre'ik^ Phrafe, <^ «^re, is the very fame with what is ufed, "fohn i. 3. AU things were made by him \ where the ordina- ry Trinllation is allowed -, arid as far as the Phrafe will go, it may as properly be applied to our Saviour, as the efficient, as the Hnil Caufe, /. e. That the World was made by him, as /or him : And that it is here to be utiderftood of the former, his Grace has (hew'd, ' 5. The Apofile, Col. i. 16. ufes thefe two ditV[nd!y, enl* ium by him ; and «f a.vnv, for him. But to this our Author has fome- what to fay. For the Archbidi^p having mide ufe of thit place of St. fuul to confinn what he had bitore produced out of St. Jahn, the Opponent thinks himfelf bound in honour to attack him: But in his ufual way : For whereas his G/jce had fpent about twelve Pages in both his Sermons upon the Explication of this Text, ani in Anfwer to the moll confiderable Objection againft it ; our Author replies, Hi urgeth that Text. - — Hi ohferves moreover. That in thefjregoing t^erfe the Lird Chriji if called the Ftrii-born of every creature. And he fceh^ to prove^ I think he has proved it^ That Ftrfi-born here U ai mn:h m tn fay Hnr or Lord "/ every creature. P. 5 1. ^. A. He fpeaks as coldly, as if he durfl not trull:, his Reader with his Adverfary's Arguments, or fo much as fug^ll for what reafoH'? or upon what grounds the Archbilh^p urged that Text. Only he grants. That when his Grace had (hi wed that by Firft- born was principally meant an Heir, he Toftly anfwcrs, Ithink^he kofprovcdit. And if he has, hs has (o far wrelkd none of the lealt of the Texts produced both by the Arians and Sociniansy out of their hanJs. Archb. p, 35, $4. But he goes on, if I may call omitting fo. ' IrviU (fmiiy Toat the greater number of Criticl^f and more Learned * Interpreterf^ of his Grace s ore n Pirty. and amwg them Arhanaiius ^ himfelf^ trarrjiate and interpret that Text, not of real Creating^ but of * the ModiUinz, of all things. A. 1. I hope he wi!l admitthofe to be Criticks that are in the Critici Sacri ^ or thofe whom Mr. PrW has inftrted into his 5y- mpftst, but if we may pafs a judgment upon the Learmd Jnterpre- F 2 ters ^5 of the Deity of our Saviour, ters by them, we (hall be far from^^finding a Number, and I be- lieve it will be a Number of one , if he will be fo favourable to us as to allow Grotius to be one of his Graces Tarty. As lox Athanaftuf^ I had the curioiity to confult him (though it's too hard a Task to put upon his Reader to turn over two Folios to fearch for a Quotation ) but could find no fuch Expli- cation of the Apofile, as he fuggefts. But on the contrary, from that place he (hews that all things were created by him, and fo he could not be a Creature. So in his "lc.K^(ni vn'^afj and his Synod, Nicena Vecret- J. 2. He faith he will omit this, that is, as I thought, give it up j but I find rather it is that he will not be obliged to defend it: He finds the/^rcl^?^?/^^/' had made the Point of a Moral Creation a little too hot to be maintain'd ; but being it's what he himfelf has a great liking to , he goes on to fay all he can fay, in hopes his Reader may think as favourably of it as himfelf. But he comes off as to himfelf, as Ifaid, 1 rctUnot infill on this Concejfton. He therefore comes to another Retrenchment, and that is the Account given of it by St. Chryfo\hm (as he will have it ) in the Opus ImperfeCium , who reads it thus -, For him were all things created. So faith he, the Senfe is^ all things were originally created by God for the Lord Chrifi 5 namely y tofubjeCl them^ in the fulnefs oftime, to him, and his Law. A. As for what he. faith of the 0pm imperfeUum of St. Chry- fo(lom, whoever was the Author of it, it's granted by the Learned that it is not St. Chryf^Jhm's. But let it be whofe it will, I am pretty confident that there is no fuch Expnfition of that Phrafe in the Book (though it confifis of 54 Homilies.) And befides the turning it over, I am confirm'd in it from what is (aid there, Homil. 30. upon that. Who it my motho\ &c. J, who before the conjiitution of the world, created the world , k^ow no fuch worldly Pa' rents^ &c. Indeed this Vei(ion of cfi* h/nt , for him^ is merely to ferve the Hypothefis that he is advancing. For when he can apply it to a Moral Creation, he admits it, as John i. 2. and fo it's ncceffary to be underibod here, 7^.20. J>' owJ, by him ta reconcile all things to himfelf. And accordingly as theApoftle begins,fo he ends theVerfe with the fame Phrafe j By him were all things created ; and as one would think to prevent allcaviljUfcsPhrafes as diftin(aas the efficient and Of the Deity of our SaViour. 37 final caufe, for fo he clofes theVerfe, All things were created by him^ and for him \ by him, as the -efficient \ an for at the lart hisprobable Explication leaves him therei and what was it elfe when he fays, All things were originally created by God for the Lord Chri^^ namely , to [uhjeB them in the fulnefs of time to /vV«, and his Laws .<* And how doth that differ from {\\& modelling and changing all things in Heaven and Earthy to a new and better ejiate ? on the Earthy by abolifhing Paganifm^ and Idolatry, 8cc. and in Hea- verii Angils and heavenly Powers being put under his diredion^ &c. as he tells us in the Column of thofe things that are omitted. Laftly, It's not probable thzt his is the jull Explication of this place, and that for a Reafon or two. I. Bccaufe the Apoftle difcoutfes this afterwards, v. 20. Ha- ving made peace through the blood of his Crofs, by him to reconcile all things to himfelf i by him ^ ^Av> vphctber they be things in earthy or thine^s in heaven. For the clearer underftanding of which, I fhall take liberty fo fet before the Reader the connexion of a few Verfes. The Apo- ftle, V. 14 fpeaking of our Saviour, in whom we have redemption ihroitgh his bloody &c. proceeds to (hew who this Redeemer was, and that in a two-fold capacity. Firft, in refpedt of his Divine Nature, who is the image of Godj the firfi'born or heir of tb« whole. Of the 'Deity of our SaVwur» creation : And then gjives the reason of fuch his pTehemincnce, and why he beftovvs fo great aTitle upon him:,and that is v.id^ij. For by him ivere all things created^ Scc. From thence he proceeds to difcourfe of him as to his Human Nature, and the ftation he is in, v.i^. And he is the head of the hody,6cc,hi\d this done v.2o.he returns to the point where he fet forth t/, 14. And accordinaly hisLord- fhip's Explication is very eafy and natural, p 34. fFho is the image of God y the heir and Lord of the whole creation ; for hy him all things were ere tied. 2. This Author's account of this place is not probable ; for ChriiVs being the Head over all things, was not till his Death atid Refurredion, when his Mediatory Kingdom began ^ where- as our Author fays, "th:it all things were originally created by God for the Lord Chriji ■■) and without doubt as fox his ufe and to his fervtce^ fo for the advantage of them that were under his government and diredion But what a vaft folitude was there, a Chafm of 4600 years before his Birth and Being ? and in what a condition was the whole World of Intelligent Beings, till our Saviour's Rcfurrection and Afcenfion ? What Service could he challenge from them, when he himfelf lay in the Embrio of nothing? And what advantage could they hive from him that was to come into the world for the Redemption of Mankind 4000, 3000, &c. years after ? Where was the Va^anifm and Idolatry he in that dif- mal Interval aholifhed ? Where the 4ngels and Heavenly Povcers that ivere put under his dire&ion, and by him employed in defence and fuccor of the faithful? What was it to thofe unhappy (buh, born fo many ages before his time, under the Conftellation of Paganifm and Idolatry, that fome thoufajids or hundreds of vcars hence fhould arife the Lord Chrift, who in thefdnefs of timeWis,xo be a&UiaVy fet above all T^hrones and Dominions, dec and in whom as in their Hezd^ all things (hould be united and confi[i ? as our Author words it. Of T y 0/ the Pn-exijitn^ of our Saviouy, Hat the Word defcribed by St. John had an Exilience be- ^_ fore his Incaruatioi>, and. his being born of the Virgin, was a Conclulian his Grace inferrt^d from the Phrafe, l,: the Bcgi'irjng. Serm. i. Tills he contirmed by feveral Texts of Scripture, which he raiikiid under the two following Heads. Sirm. 2. p. 84. T. ' Thofe which cxprcfly affert the Son of God to have ' been, and to have been in Heaven with God, and partaker * with him in his Glory, before his Incarnation and appearance * in the VVcrld. 2. ' Thofe which affirm that the World and all Creatures * were made by him. Of the Hr ft fort are J(>^. 3. 13. 6.62. 8.58. 13.3. 1^.27. 17.5. I Jiih. 1. 1. in which it's faid of our Saviour, that he came down from Heaven, was with God, was before Abraham , that he had a Glory with the Father before the World was. To thofe which fay our Saviour vpm in Heaven^ and came down fT)fn Htavcn, our Author returns fome general Anfwers, ( as for method's fake I fhall conhder them. ) Firft, He anfwers in general, That thefe Texts., in their mofi literal fifife^ amount to no mo*e than thif, that the Lord Chriji is a Meffenger^ really cotm forth from God to men. As much is true of every Pro- phit^ and the very pme is ufid concerning St. JohnBaptilt, Job. 1.6. There tVfis a man [ent from God., tvhofe t.ame was John. Anfw* I. If thefc Texts aminuit to no more than this., that the Lord Chri{i is a M.ffen^er from God to men., then can no more be concluded fiom thence, than that he was no more a Prophet, and no more with God, and no more fent from God, than, other Prophets, or than John the Eaptiji^ And if as much .h this is true of every Prophet, then it may be faid of every i-rophet, and of John the Bjptiji as well as our Sa- viour-,^ ?9 ao Of the fre'-exiflenu of our Saviour] viour, that he afcended into Heaven'i and came down from Heaven, and was mth Gody and had a Glory with him before the World was, &c. But where do we hnd tl^ Scripture to exprefs it felf af- ter this manner of any but ffr Saviour, no not of Mo/ex, as much a Friend of God, and coffverfant with him, as he is af- firmed to be ? 2. If theCe Texts all things^ John i<5. 50. 21. 17. and yet k^neiv not the time or day of Judgment /* Mark 13. 32, &c. Thefe things are confiftent upon the Principles of the Or- thodox or Trinitarians , that hold the IFord to be God and Man } but not upon theira that hold , that he is Man and not God. 3. He anfwers again in general, That his Grace propounded ta prove the Pre'exi(ience of our Saviour J?y the texts that expreflyfay our Lord Chrijl afctnded into Heaven before he began his Minijiry , and then came dotvnfrom Heaven to declare the fVill of God to Men. That is , he propounds to prove the Trinitarian VoBrine , but really proves the Dobrine of the Unitarians. A, I. If this be fo, his Grace was mightily miftaken, to at- tempt the proof of this Point by fuch texts as exprefty fay the contrary. A great and inexcufable over-iight, if it were true. But where are thofe texts that exprf[ly fay, that our Saviour af' cended into Heaven before his Minijiry? It was a prejudice Socinui would inful'e into his Reader, that there is but that one Text of St. John I. to prove the Pre-exiftence of our Saviour before his Incarnation, which the Archbi(hop has difproved, p. Si* But here it holds; for his texts that he faith exprefly prove what heaflcrts, (brink all into one, viz. No man hath afcended into Hea- veny but he that came down from Heaven. 2. Where isit fPc/^rf/Typi^ in that, or any other Text, that our Saviour afcended into Heaven before hU Minijiry? It is not fo exprifty faid , That our Saviour afcended into Heaven , but that Servetus under flood it Spiritually , and faith that it was fo ex- prefs'd, becaufe his Spirit was from the beginning in Heaven , and that his words were heavenly. But it's neither there , nor any where exprefly faid. That our Saviour afcended into Heaven be- fore his Minijiry , and then came down from Heaven to declare th^ WiU of God to Mm, That is wholly a Fiction of a Cafe, as his G Lordjhif of the ^re-'Cxifleme of our Saviour. Lord(hip has fufficiently proved. V)uu Author, indeed , would reprefent it, as if his Grace had only found fault with them for this their Opinion ^ and after the having beftcwed a few hard words upon it, and call'd it an Arbitrary and Frecarhus Suppcfi- tion, (tho he himfelf utiderjiands the text in a literal Stnfe) Ihould then give it up. But that this is a Fidion of their own, \ may fay again, his Lordfhip has fufficiently proved -, and fo much the more reafon have I now to fay it, as his Adverfary has not dared fo much as to take to task any one Argument or Paragraph relatinlg to it. For with what Ihength doth his Grace argue againli it from the exad Hi(tory of our Saviour's Life , from the im- portance of the matter (if true), from the Silence of the Evan- gelifts, and efpecially of St.yo/jn/ How doth he argue againft it from the Weaknefs of the Socinian attempts to prove it, and for which in effLd: tbey have nothing to fay.? How from the in- confiltency of it with Scripture? and that whereas St. John faith. The li^ord was in the beginnings and then vpm made Fkjh : They fay, That he was firft made Flejh^ and then a great while after was in the beginning rvith God. How, laltly, doth he ar- gue from the difagreement in the feveral parts of this their Interpretation ; as it may be worth the Reader's while hiinfelf *iim.i. toobferve^? -^ t^9'i,&c. i^w this our Author has prudently pafs'd over; but that he may fecm to fay fomething , and have a fair opportunity to Complement where he wants a Reply j he forms a Queilion for his Grace J (for it's a Charge , and not a Queflion , Arch- hifhop, p. p2iP30 He demands y faith he, vphen did this Afcenfwn of our Saviour into Heaven happen ? His Grace had indeed charged it upon them, that they themfelves cannot agree precifely n>heni and without doubt he wanted a fair accountof it. But our Author unfortunately pitches upon thar time for it, which his Adver- fary had beforehand prevented. For thus he anfweis, St. John bath refolved this ^efiion in thfe vpords of his Gofpel., fin the be- ginning the Word was with God ]j i. e. in the beginning of his Minijlry , ]uji before he enter d thereon ; the Lord Chriji rcaS rvith God by afcending {as himfelf exprejly and sften faitli) into Heaven. This Account of it is vciy precife. But to this his Grace had alrea- dy mjde two Exceptions, I.. That of the fre'exiftem of our Sayiouri 4j T. That this is not confiiynt witli their own Explication of the Phrafe, in the beginnings that is to fay, when the Gofpel firft began to be publi(hed ; which was by Authority from him (he bjvin^ afcended into Heaven, and came from thence to declare the IVtU of God to men^ as our Author faith) but that was not began to be pubhihed , till after he had been with God ( in their {€a(c.') And therefore if the fP^ord was at all with the Father, fo as to afcend from Earth to Heaven, it mufi: not have been in the beginnings but before the beginning. 2. He flisweth, this is not reconciliable to another Opinion of theirs, which is, that Ghrili was not God but by Office and Divine Coi/iitution , and that he was not fo conltifuted and declared till after his R.erure(^ion, and his being advanced to the right hand of God -, but if in the beginning, is in the beginning of the Gofpd-iiate, then the Jf^ord was God in thi fame beginning that he was with God, and (o muft be God by Olfice, before he enter'd upon his Office of Publick Mini- ftiy, and confequently long before his Refurredion. But if he was fo conftituted not till after his Refurred:ion , he was not God in their fenfc of the beginnings and fo con'rqiiently was not with God, nor did afcend into Heaven before he began his Miniiiry* So that there is no manner of proof, either for the Matter, or the time of this Legendary Dodlrine of theirs, concerning our Saviour's Afcenfion into Heaven before he began his Mini(iry^ if the aforefaid Arguments hold good. Bat that which our Author prefTes mod, ( without regard- ing the Arguments againft it) is the literal fenfeof the Phrafe, No man hath afcended, &c. in which, he faith, the Archbilhop doth underjhnd it. But this is no more true that his Grace fo underftands it, than that it's exprefly and often faid in Scripture, that our Saviour afcended info Heaven before his Miniftry, ( as our Author affirms) unlefs it be when his Grace undertakes to prove that fuch an Afcenfion never was. But fuppofmg it were literally to be underfiood, yet will it not ferve their purpofe. For then, according to the letter of it, our Saviour muft have come down from H;aven before he afcended thither. If it had been worded, that no man hath come down from Heavens bnt he that hath afcended into Heavens ^'i^'* ^^ would have afcended firft, and after that have dcfcended : But when it's faid, No man hath afcended into H'.aven^ but he that came G 2 down 44 * Lightf. Third Part of the Harm, in he. Of the Tre^exiftence of our Say'tour, dr>wn from Hejtverit ( if the mann\,r of fpeaking is to be our Guide) then he mail have: cams do;vn before he afceiided, af- ter the way the Apoftle fpeaks, Ephef. 4. 9, 10. N)iv that he afcended^ n^hat U it, hut that he alfo defcendsd firji, Sec. 1 fay, the order of Words then ihevvs, that hisDefcent muft = have been before his Afcenfion \ which is diamefrically oppofite to the Socinun Hypothefis, and is not to be accommodated but by theOrihodox fenfe of h^viz. that he that in the Beginning was with God, and had a Glory with the Father before the World was, in the fulnefs of time was made Fhfjj > and came down from Heaven, to fulfil and declare the Will of God to men. And then it orderly follows, No raauhith fo afcended into Heaven, and no man hath been there to underftand the Will of the Father, but he that firft came down from Heaven, and is in due time to afcend thither j as if he hid faid, ( to tranfcribe the Paraphrafe of a very learned perfon ) from me alone are ihefe things to be learned, for none can go up to Heaven ta fetch the kriotvledge of them from thence^ hut 1 came dorpn from Heaven to reveal the JViU of God ^, &c. The feeond fort of Texts which fpeak of our Saviour's Ex- iftence before his Incarnition, are thefe, Father glorify thon me mth thine own felf, with the glory which 1 had with thee before the World was, John 17. 5. And before Abraham was^ I am^ &c« John 8. 58. To the firft our Author replies, that according to St. Aujiin and Grotiuf, this is to be underftood of God^s Decree, after this manner, Let me now aCiually receive that glory with they felf which I hid with thee in thy Decree and Purpofe before the World wof. And if we may take his word, he faith, that he has fttfficiently con- firmed this Interpretation in the Second Edition of his Brief Hi'- (iory of the Unitarians. He very feafonably refers us to his Se4:ond Edition^ (which I have not feen) for in the fiift it exceedingly wants fomeCon* firmation. All that he has to fay there, is, that we in Scrip- ture are fometimes faid to have that which we have in God's Decree. From whence he infers , therefore fo alfo we may under^ ftaod^ that Chrift had Glory before the World was. An inference very cautioufly worded, Therefore we may underjiand^ &c. And it was not withoutieafon, as I (hall immediately (hew* At I, Of the Tre'-exiflence of our Saviour, 45 ^. I. I grant that the Scfipture doth often reprcfent things after this miiiner, fo tha^ that which is to be hereafter, is fpok n of as if it was adually prefent and exiftent) as Ifaiuh 53. 3. H::is Jcfpifid and re]-Bedof nun. And \n like manner we arc reputed to have that which we have by proraife, as in the place he quotes , 2 Cor. 5. i. JVe have a hntlding of God, dec. but then as Decrees and Pronaifes do in the nature of them rcfpedt the future, Co there mull: be fome reafon for this man- ner of [peaking, which without fuch reafon would be abfurd. No A^, the reafon of fuch Forms of Speech , is to reprefent the certainty of the thing, that it being thus appointed and pro- mifed by Almighty God, it (hall as certainly be fulfilled in its feafon , as if it was now adually prefent. But fet afide fuch Reafon, and fuch Forms of Speech will be abfurd -, as for Ex- ample, if I Ihould fay, all Generations that (hall be to the Worlds end are now in being , and have been ever fince the World was. But there is no fuch reafon for fuch an Interpretation here, for this refpeds the time part. 2. Tho we Ihould be faid to have that which we are decreed to have , yet we cannot be faid to have it before the World tvas j as for inftance, we cannot be faid to have a building of God be- fore the World was ; for that is to have it before we were. We may be faid by the forefaid Prophetical Scheme of Speech to have what we that are in being , (hall have in its proper timci but we are not faid to have it, or to have had it before the Foundation of the World. God indeed may be faid to give before the World , by virtue of his Decree and Intention fo to do, becaufe he always was, is, and ever will be, and to him all things are prefent in their Caufes , over which he has an abfolute Power. But tho we may be faid to have , with re- fpe^ to the time to come, as well as prefent (in the Cafes afore- faid ) yet we cannot properly be , nor are in Scripture faid to have it before the World was, becaafe we are born in the World. Thus God mxy be faid to give us Grace or Salva- tion before the World . began , in the place he cites , a Tim. i. p. but we are not faid to kive a building of God before thi world TPiK, And fo when it's faid, Father, glorify me with thine own felfi rvith the glory which 1 had with thee before the world ' WiH i as it doth fuppofe our Saviour to have been in being., and to have had a Glory with the Father before the World., fo. 4<5 Of the fre^exljlence of our SaViour2 fo he cannot be faid to have it ii^. Decree before the World was. 3. And that the words are nor capable of ftsch an Interpre- tation will further appear from the Phrafe, mth thee , which anfvvers to that which went before, mtb thine own felfi and if the latter dofh.fignify the adual Enjoyment of that Glory, then fo doth the former. Indeed , the Phrafe xvith thine cv^n felfy and with thee, (for they are both one) doth fuppofe the Perfon that is with God to be in being. As it was when God is faid to be the God of Abraham, Ifaac, and Jscoh ; thereby is implied, that thofe Holy Patriarchs are alive, according to our Saviour's reafoning, God is n^t the God of the dead, but of the living, Matth, 22. 32. And {(to be the God of Abraham, did imply that Abra- ham was in being; then furcly, if it had been faid o( Abraham, that he was with God, it muft alio imply that Abraham adu- ally was. For he could no more be faid to be with God^ and not be', than God could be faid to be his God, and he not alive. And accordingly it might as well be faid of Abraham, that God was hi^ Gad in Decree and Intention , as Abraham might be faid to be with God, and yet be no otherwife fo than in God's Decree. So abfurd is it, with our Author, to allow our Savi- our to have had no Being before the World was , and yet to fay he was with God before the World , which is in the fame breath to fay he was not, and yet he was. A difficulty our Au- thor, with thofe he follows , found to be fo great , that they chofe rather to give a new interpretation of the Phrafe, in the beginning, John i. i. (as has been before (hew'd) and fo to al- low the f^ord to have then been adually with God-, rather than to maintain, as feme Others before did, that the IFord was with God in his Decree, contrary to the plain and evident tneaning of that Phrafe. 4. I may add, If the fenfe of this Prayer of our Saviour is, Father f glorify me with thine own felf, with the glory which I had with thee in thy Decree and Promife before the world wai^ then (according to what our Saviour faith, ver.22. The glory which thouha^ given me.I have given them, the like Glory being promifed to and decreed for all the Faithful; every good man may ufe the fame Prayer with our Saviour, and fay. Father, glorify me with thine own felf ^ mth the glory which IhadvPtth thee before the fForld of the fre^exiflence of our Saviour^ 47^ JForld tvar. But I fuppofe^St. ^ujiin, ( who our Author faith was for this decretal ieaic ) would not have prefumed to do fo. I contefs I have done more than in ftridnefs I was obliged to, when he refers us to another Book of his, and to another Edi- tion of that Book 5 but I am apt to think this Anfwer will fervc for either Meridian. The fecond Text produced by the Archhijhop, \s. John 8. 58. Before Abraham vp as ^ 1 am: *The obvious fenfe of which words ^C^aith his Grace) is, That he had a real Exigence before ^Abraham was actually in Being, ^, 8<5. But on the contrary, the Socinians fay, That he was before Abraham was, in the Divine Foreknowledge and Decree. This hisLord(hip took to task, and (hewed, * That this is nothing but what nnighthave been faid of any 'other man. and even of Arahamhivc^diy and that our Saviour * had then no preference or advantage above Abraham, And then argues from the words I am^ as the proper Name of God, whereby is figniticd the Eternal Duration and Permanency of his B ing. Which he conrirms by feveral other places. To this our Author has nothing to reply j but would infi- nuate as if his Graa had only propofed the place, without any manner of Proof ; for after this ridiculous manner doth he re- prefent it : His Grace xf ill not hear of this [about the Decree ]; n>e cannot help it ; but rve \novp the reafm to be^ becaufe he taketh it as aground of his Interpretation of this Icxt^ that our Saviour was (not only in God^s Decree^ hut ) in aClual Exifhnce before his Progenitor Abraham 5 but that is the Point vphich his Grace had to Prove, not to Suppofe as a ground of Interpretation. This perfon writes, I per- ceive, for a Party, and prefumes his Readers will never confult the Books he pretends to anfwer -, for elfe he would not fo bold- ly venture thus to irapofe upon the world, and to tell us that his Grace only fuppifcs. but does not prove what he propofes ; and accordingly hehimfelf flips over the Argument, and runs from it as far as lie can. •2. He replies, Here again I muji mind his Grace^ that none of his' Psooffj in their utmoji jiretch., rttn higher than AthnKm. A. Proofs : He (hould have call'd them Suppofitions, if he had not forgot himfelf. But what if thofe Pr(jo/>r«««o Wg^ert^i/rArianifm ? they are fuflScicnt : For all his Grace was under any obligation at this time ^8 Of the Tn^exiftence of our Say'tourl time to prove, was our Saviour's Pi^e-exiftence, agalnft the So- dnians^Sctm U.p. ^6^&c. ( having in his former Sermon main- tained the Point of our Saviour's Deity , againft the j^ri- ans^dcc. ) And if he has proved that, he has gained the Point under Confideration. All that our Author has further to fay, is, To give us his Opinion of this Text over and over, and ulhers it in with a Magifterial Authority : But if we can^ let us make both Arians and Trinitarians fenfihle pphat it the meaning of thefe words ^ Before Ahra^ ham was^ I amy from the Circumliances and Context, But if I may not too much incur his difpleafure, by laying afide his Suppofals for the prefcnt, I will venture to propolc the Cafe as the Evangelift relates it, and then difcourfe v;ith him upon it. In Verf. 48, Our Saviour replied upon the Jews^ Tour Father Abraham rejoiced to fee my day 5 and he faw it and was glad. To this they captioufly object, "Thou art not yet fifty years oldt andhaji thottfeen Abraham ? That is, Was't thou coexiltent with him, and born in his time, who has been fo long dead? Whom makeft thou thy felf? \^ver. 52, 53.] To this our Saviour an- fwers, Verily^ verily^ I fay unto you^ Before Abraham was, I am. Which Text, according to our Author, is elliptical and imper- fect, and wants fomewhat to fupply it : Which he thus at- tempts, / was long before' hhtah^m^s time in the decrees andpomifes (f God. Now fuppofing it fo to be, Why muft It thus be fupplied ? Of faith he, it cannot be true in any other fenfey being fpoh^n of afon and dependant of hhtdih^Lm, Suppofing that to be fpoke of fuch a one, why may it not as well fall upon the former as latter part of the Claufe, and fo be read, Before Abraham was the Father of the Gentiles^ ( lignified in Ifaac) lam, or 1 was in the world > Or why may it not be faid, Before Abraham was, I was in being ? For though our Saviour was a Defcendant of Abra- ham according to the Flefh, yet he was the begotten Son of God (as none of Abraham's Pofl:erity was) that was in the be- ginning, and before the World with God ; and fo he might literally fay before Abraham was, I was or am. But fuppofing we admit his Explication, that before Abraham was J 1 r»as in God's decree* Would Of the Tre'exijience of our Saviotiy. 4p Would this prove what was to be proved, That he that was not fifty years old, had feeh Abraham^ or that he was Co-exi- ftent with Abraham ? Suppofe we take it as he would have it, independent of what it was to prove, what a mean thing was it for our Saviour to alledge, Ivoas before Abraham^ namely, in God's Decree > For, Might not the Jewt then reply, So Abraham was before Adamy and fo both Abraham and Adam were before the World } Might they not fay, fo were we then before Abraham-, Abraham before himfelf, and we before we were? Nay, might they not fay , Is any thing before another > Art thou before Abraham , or Abraham before us, fince all would then be co-exiltent alike in Decree, being the Decrees are alike Eternal ? Might not our Saviour as well have faid, I have ken Abra^ ham, referving to himfelf, in the Book of Genefis , as fay, be- fore Abraham w*w, / rpas , referving to himfelf, in the Book of God's Decree ? Laftly, If our Saviour had faid. Before Abraham was, I was in God's Decree, or had been fo underftood, where was the Blaf- phemy for which the Jen>s would have ftoned him ? It is apparent that the Jervs prefently underftood him, being a Title known to all , and known to belong only to God, as well known ( by reafon of that noted place it relates to in Exodus) as Jehovah , and fo immediately they took up ftones to caft at him. But his Grace hath not fo done with this Text, but goes on to fortifie it with other parallel places,asto thephrafe and fignifica- tion, p. I CO. as Hebr* 13. 8. 7he fame ye(ierday, to day, and for ever. And Revelat. I. 8, 17. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending , rvhich is , and which ncas, and which k to come^the Almighty^ Rev. 22, 13, 1 5. This our Author declines, and inftead of propofing it as it lay in hxsGrace's Sermon, he takes up the litter of thefe places in the dofe of his Difcourfe upon this Head after this manner, The tail of his Grace'j leoits to prove the Pre- exijhnce and Divinity of okr Saviour, is Rev. i. 8. p. 58, b. Though out of its place, 1 am content to take it as he propofes it ; and efpecialiy becaufe I may hope now, if ever, to make a Convert of him j for thus he anfwers, When his Grace proves that thefe words are fpoken, not ofCod, but of Chrifi^ I willthank^ him, and give him the Cattfe. H Fairly 5 o Of f ^^ ^re-'Cxipence of our Saviour* Fairly offered, and fit to be accepted. In the firft place, 1 take it for granted, that I need not re- mind him of what hisGrace has obferved, That th(fe Exprejjzons are the common Defcripthn vphkh the Scripture gives of the Eternity of God^ rvhofe Being is commenfuraie to all the fever al refped.s of Dura- tion, paft.prefent^and to come. For I his is the reafon why our Author denies this to belong to our Saviour, fince that would be to a- fcribe fuch a Being to him, as is commcnfurate to all thefe Du- rations. Therefore with his ufual afTurance, he affirms, *' That they are not fpckenof our Lord Chriil, fecras to me as clear as '' Meridian Light, from what is laid v. 4. Fromhimvphichis, " which XV ^.f andtvhichifto come^ and from JefusChrili. Where " we fee plainly, that Jefus Chrilt is diftinguillied as a different " perfon from that Almighty who is, and who was, and who " is to come > therefore he cannot be intended in the Defcrip- •'• tion, V, 8. Anfwer. I fuppofe that he intends this as a general Anf^er to thefevcral places of the Revelation quoted by his Grace ; and then it's as much as to fay, that Gnce Jefus Chrifi is dijiingmjhed from him r»ho is, andtvat^and if to come, v. ^. therefore he cannot be intended at V.8. nor 17. nor Ch. 22. 13, 16. That is, that thefe Ex- preflions , which are the common Defcription the Scripture gives of the Eternity of God, are never applied in any of thofe places to our Saviour : But if it appears that they are at any time applied to our Saviour, his Argument is utterly ruined, and it will unanfwerably follow, that if Jefus Chrift ^f, and woi^ and is to come, then he is alike Eternal as the Father, and parta- ker of one and the fame nature with him. 2. How doth it follow that Jefus Chrifi is dijiinguifhed as a dif- ferent perfon from him tvho is^ rpas, and is to come ; therefore he cannot he intended in theVefcription at ver. 8. > For he may be a different perfon from the Almighty Father, who is defcribed by that Character, v. 4, and yet as the Son have the fame property Effential to the Divine Nature afcribed to him. This we con- tend for, and this I (hall endeavour to prove. I (hall begin with z^. 8. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, faith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come ^ the Almighty. All the queftion is, who is the Lord that thus faith of himfelf, 1 am Alpha and Omega, &c ? For this we mult confult the context, and then the Character will ap- pear of the fre^exi^ence of our Saymr. 5 1 pear to be his that cometh ^ith Clouds , v. 7. That made Ui Kings and Priefis unto God and his Father^ v,6, the firfi begotten of the Veady the Prince of the Kings of the earth, that loved w and rva(hed us in his bloody even Jefus Chrift^ v, 5. So that he is no lefs the /llpha and Omega^ than he is the Prince of the Kings of the earth. But let us go on with that Divine Writer, whom we find af- ter the fame manner defcribing our Saviour, v. 11. I am Alpha and Omega^ the firji and the lafl. And ihat it*s given as a Cha- radJer belonging to him, is evident, for he is the fame that commanded St. John to write, and who(e Voice he heard, the Son of man that he fa w in the m(i{i of the feven candlefiick^r, v. 1 2 , 1 3 . So again, v. 17. he that faith of him(tlf, lam thefirji and theldji^ is the fame with him that faith ot himfelf, v. i^.Iam be that li- veth and was dead, and behold I am alive for evermore. So again, he faith of himfelf, chap 2. 8. Ikfe things faith the firfi and the lad, n>hich was dead and is alive. And as St. John begins, fo he ends this Prophetical Book, cap. 12. 13. lam Jlpha and Omega, the be- ginning and the end, the firfi and the laji-, viz. the fame with him that faith, ver. 11, 6c 20. Behold, I come quickiy'y — - Jefus that fent bis Angel to tejiify thefe things, v. 1 6. From all which laid together it is very manifefl:5and as clear Oi the Meridian light, that thcfe Phrafes are applied to our Saviour, that he is the beginning and the ending , which is , and which was , and which is to come, the Almighty, But how. can the Being of a Creature be commenfurate to all the feveral re- fpecSts of Duration, paft, prefent, and to come ? And what a prefumpiion would it be in a Creature that had a beginning, to iay of himfelf, I am Alpha and Omega, the firji and the laji ? So that our Author malt in the conclufion tide with his Antient Vnitarians and deny the Revelation to be Canonical j or be as good as his word, andgiw hisAdverfary the C<« But faith our Author, Grotius and Vorjliut think otherwifej and he goes on, I know not why his Grace overlooked this Interpret a^ tion of two of the moji learned and judicious Criticks of this or any other age, Anfwery I anfwer in his phrafe, J marvel much how our Author piould kriow that his Grace overlooked it, for it's likely that he might not have the fame opinion with this Writer of thefe two great men, fo as to think them the ablefi Interpreters the Chttrch has yet had: Forjiius for many reafons j and Grotius for his pofthu- mous Notes (! (hould rather call them adverfaria) come not up to that Charader. Be(ides his Grace knew very well what both the Antient and learned and judicious Critieks of latter Ages, thought of this Text. In the number of the former is Tertul' Uan, adv. Praxeam. c. 15. Amongft the latter is Er Before his Grace leaves the Argument of our Saviour's Deity he fakes notice of a ufual plea of the Socinians , that they glory they have Rcafon clearly on their fide in this and the other point of the B. Trinity j and that the Dirticulties and Abfurdities are much greater and plainer on our part than ontheirs, A.B.p. ii r. To each of theCc his Lordfhip made a dirtindt Reply, and fliew'd particularly as to the Dodtrineof the Trinity, that tho' it was above, yet it was not contrary to Rcafon 5 that though there were Difficulties, yet no Abfurdity in it. This our Au- thor thought tit to pafs over in liknce. As to the htter, his Grace undertook to prove that the Opi- nion of our Adveifaries hath greater Viffiailties in tt^ and more palpable AbfurJitiei following from it , than any they could charge upon the Orthodox. As when they fay, 7hat the Son of God if a meer Creature^ not God by Nature, and yet truly and really Ged by Office^ and by Divine j4ppointment and Conjiitntion ; to vehom the very fame Honour and f'For/hip is to be given which we give to him who is God by Nature. p. 123. In which his Grace obferves two Difficulties and Abfurdities. I, That '■ they hereby bring Idolatry by a back-door into the * Chriftian Religion , as they give Divine Wor(hip to a ' mere Creature , and as they willingly admit two Gods, * the one by Nature, and the other by Office. 2, That ihcy cannot vindicate themfelves in this poinr in any other way, than- what will in a great meafure acquit both the Fagansdiwd Paptjh from the charge of Idolatry. This our Author faith, is not an ttncomnion imputation on the So- cinian Dodlrine, and thus far he is in the right, for befides iMo- dern Writers, the ftream of the Fathers charge the ^r/j«j with Idolatry as they V/orfhip Chrift,whom they fuppofe to be a mcer Creature. Thus /ithanafms^ Gregory Naz, 3iud Nyjfen. St. £>/i/, Epiphanius, &c. And this Charge our Author doth rather avoid than deny •, for which purpofe he dividech the Vnitarians into two forts; Such as give Chrift no Divine WorlLip; Of thefe he faith, It is certain we have wrote no Bjo'^ this fevenytarSy in which we have not been careful to profefs to all the worlds that a Uh^ Honour or Wor- (hip (much hfs the fame) isnjt to be given toChrijl as to God. And then he will by all means have this Charge of worlhipping our Saviour ^^ Of the fre'exijlence of our Saviour. Saviour, to be a foul Calumny th^rown on them by the TV/V;/Vn that his kliorvUdge either of our tvants or Trayers is only by Kevelation from God ^ and his Power by which he relieves us^ is wholly of God's giving. But is not Prayer a part of Divine Worfliip, and peculiar to God ? And don't they then equal him to God, when they pray to him? And is not that Idolatry, to give to a Creature the Worftiip belonging to the Creator ? And can any Divine Ap- pointment make that not to be Idolatry, whi:h in its nature is fo ? ( as the Protectants ufe to maintain againfi the Church of Rome), And belides, don't thofe Socinians that worlhip our Saviour, af- firm that they worfhip him as God ? Thus Socinus himfelf pleads, Vt pro Veo ac Domino fuo venerentur^ Tom. 2. p. 631. Th^t they warjhip him as their God and Lord. And much more to the fame purpofe. And what is it to worihip him as God, but to give him Divine VVorftiip ? The Second Difficulty and Abfurdiry his Grace charges upon them, is a Plurality of Gods, the one by N.hich every one knows if falfe : Or^ that the Finite is united only to fame part of the Infinite^ and is dis'pymd from the refi of it i mhlch d// Trinitarians deny and abhor 5 becatife if fo, J^ffis Chriji (hould not be perfed Gc/dy but on' ly God in part. Anfoper. By this way of arguing our Author may as well un- dertake to prove, that there is no fuch thing as a perfonal Vni- on between the Soul and Body 5 For, that cannot be imagined vptthout admitting one of thefe ttvo things *, either that Soul and Bo- dy are commenfurate and equals and alike extended, tvhick every oneknorvs is faffs : Or, That Body and Soul are united Oi to fome part only, which is disjoyned from the nfi, and that is of a Spirit ta make it material. What more plain, if his Argument be true, than that there can be no perfonal Union between the Soul and Body, fuch diflant extremes ? So that you may as foon expedl that the foft and impalpable Air lliould be united to a Thunder- bolt, or a Speculative thought to a MilAone, as that there can be a Union between things fo incommenfurate and unequal, as a Body and a Soul are. But if notwithftanding fuch con- ceived Difficulties, Soul and Body ar£ thus found to be united 5 then is it alike confident that the two Natures in our Bleffed Saviour be united in one Perfon, Again, by the fame way he may go on and prove that Zw- tmriftty is no perfedion of the Divine Nature i and that it's im- poflible God (bould be every where, and Eflentially prefent. For Immenfity (if it be) has a relation to place, that is, 7«/r- nite to F/««e : but fuch a relation cannot be in God, without one of thefe two things, that Finite [place] and Infinite [im- menfity] zxt Commenfmatey tvhich every one k^opps is falfe: Or, that the Finite [place] has a relation to fome-part of the In- finite, and is disjoyned from the reft of it ; and fo the Divine Effenceis partible aud divifible, which all deny ; The Difficulty we Oftk l/iccirnation of ouy SaViokf. we Te€ prefics as hard upon the perlbnal Union of Soul and Body, and God's Immenlity, as upon the Utiion of the Divine and Humane Natures in our Saviour i and which he mull de- ny, or ^ive up his Argument. Indeed it is not fur us to taik Metaphyfically of the Divine Nature, till weunderiland our own jncrof the Nature. Kinds and Modes in higher matters, till we underlhnd the Con- nexion and Union of parts in a pebble or a bubble ; left by fuch an Attempt wer«n our felves into Herefuy a dangerous and inevitable Piock, as our Author reprefents the Cafe •, or into his downright Nonfenfe, of uniting two Underftandings, or Per- forK, by the Abolition of oaz cf th:m. Except. 2. TheVnionof SoulandBody may he perfonaly that if , may coiiliititte or make one Perfon : becaufe it U not the Vnion of two Perfons, but only of one Perfon {the Soul) to a thing tvhich if other- n>ays without Ltfe^ Reafon^ Memory, or Free'lFill.--- But in the (pre- tended) Vnion of God with Man^ there are two difiinCf^ and very dif' ferent Lives, Reafons., Memories and Free-Wills, which utterly de- (hoy the Njtion of a perfonnl Vnion. Fot aperfonal Vnion fuppafes but one Life, one Reafon^one Memory^ one Free- Will, Becaufe if thefe things which conftitute a Perfon are found more than once , there is no longer one Perfon but two^ and confequently no perfond Vnion in the fenfe in which we are arguing. Anfiver. I deny that two Lives, or two Underftandings, or two Free- Wills, do neceffarily make two different Perfons or Beings, when there is a Subordination between them ; for then they receive their Denomination or Title from the Supreme. As we ufually fay there are three forts of Life, Vegetation in Plants, Animality in Brutes, and Rationality in men 5 now if one of thefe is alone , that gives Denomination to it, as a Plant is called a Vegetable. But when the Vegetative life is united to the Animal , it lofes that Charader , and the Creature then is called an Animil, and is fo called as if there was no Principle in it of Vegetation. And the rational (though there be Vegetation and Animality) is fo called, as if there was no Vegetation or Animality. That is, when there are feveral Powers one in Subordination to another, they make not feveral Beings (as they would do if alone) but the Su- pream gives the Denomination to the whole. I 2 And ^o Of the Incarnation of our SavlouK. And thus it is in the Cafe before us, where there are' two Natures, the Divine and Humane h two Lives, the Immortal and Mortal 5 twoUaderitandings, an infinite and aLimited •, two Wills*, and yet not twoPcrfons: becaufe the Underftanding and Will of the Inferior (the Humane Nature) is (ubordinate to the Superior (the Divine) and to the Perfon is as much one, as if there had been but one Nature, one Life, one Under* ftanding, and one \^ill. As to our Author's Hiftory of JpoVinariufy Nejl'^ius, and Eu' tychs, (were I difpofed to make Excurfions) 1 could prefent him with the Rhapibdy and Bedrole of the Opinions of thofe he calls Vnuarhns, from Cmnthm and Ebion downward to Socinuf^ and of the Violences and Outrages of the Ariani againft the Fhotinians and Orthodox j and of the Rancour of the Photinians againft the Arians and Orthodox : but that I ftiall refer to a more proper occafion. Obje^. 2. * 'Tis a thing incongruous , and much beneath the * Dignity of the Son of God, to be united to Humane Nature. To this his Grace makes a large Reply, and amongft other things faith : * The lower any Being, be he never fo high, * condefcends to do good, the Glory of his Goodnefs ftiines fo * much the brighter. To this paffage alone our Author returns an Anfwer, if I may call a Reprefcntation fo, and in requital I (hall return him the Reverfe of his Comparifon, mutatis mutandis. If Chrift by tbeju^ interejibe has in the favour of his Father ^ procures the pardon of Sinners, and to k^ep them for the time to come from the likg had courfes^ (hould obtain the Grant of eternal Happinefs, and then give themfuch Gounfel and Precepts, as might beji difpofe them to a netp Courfe of Life ; — ' IVould not this Care and Benignity be fufficient, unlefs the Son of God himfelf came, and be content to be cloathed with the Kags of Humanity,and to be bound and buffetted, Imprifoned^ Arraigned, Condemned and Crucified for them ? In his Judgment, Such a Scene rvould have more of Folly than Goodnefs. And he concludes, Therefore much lefs it it ta befuppofed of God^ than of a Wife man. This needs no fsgrther AnimadverGon, the Impiety of it is a fufficient Reply. Oh)eli* 3. * The Incarnation is not neceflary, faith he. For oaf Of the Incarnation of our Saviour i 6'e * our Oppofers grant this, that the pardon of Sin might have * been offer'd to mankind by a Prophet in the name of God; * fo that there was no apparent cogcnf Neceffity, no extracr- * dinary and indifpenfable caufe for it j and fo muH be allow- * ed an unaccountable, cauftkfs Debafcmcnt of the Divine Ma- ' jefty j and feeing no fuch caufe is afftgned, faith he, we have ' leave to believe it never was. A. ThcObjedion is of our Author's own forming; and there are two Ufes he makes of his Adverf^ry's Concciliun (which for the prcfent we will take as he rcprefents it.) 1. That if there was no apparent cogent Neceffity, no indifpen- fable caufe for the Incarnation^ it mufi: be an unaccountable and caufelifs Debafcmtnt. 2. Seeing no fuch caufe is affigned, therefore they have rea- fon to believe it never Witt. As to the Firlt, it's a grofs Miftake s, for there may be a good and fufficicnt caufe for that, which there is no Cogent 3ind Indifpcnfabk^ and much more no Apparent neceffity for : He tells us. That the Gofpel and pardon of Sin might have been offer'd to Mankind by a Prophet in the name of God^ and fo there was no apparent and Cogent necejjity for Chriil's Incarnation. And fure- ly if the offering Fardon by a Prophet was fuffitient, there was no Apparent^ Cogent^ and indifpenfable Neceffity for Chrili's coming into the World •, and then (according to our Author's way of arguing) Chriil's coming into the World is as MrtaccountabUy and caiifehfs, as he would have his Incarnation to be. 2. As to the Second : * Seeing no fuch caufe is affigned, * therefore the Son of God was never incarnate. A. I anfwer, By this way of arguing, Chi irt was never Cru- cified, any more than he wss Incarnate. For if there was no Indifpenfable caufe for u, it might have been omitted -, and there was no Indtfpenfabk caufe for if, where the Teachrng of a Prophet was fufficient. A).d without an Indifpenfabie c.:ufe, our Author has taught us the iVifdom of God would not jimp to fitch a Humiliation i And confcqv.ently, our Saviour was no more Crucified than he was Incarnate, if our Author argues right. Under the covert of this Objc<9tion, our Author fakes to Task the Reafons which YixsGraa offers for our Saviour's being Incarnate; and excepting the cafe of Mylleries (which I (hall referve for another place) our Author frames one general Anfwer to them jill, viz. That ' of the Ucarnatm of car Savhun ' That thefe ConfJerations do not prove the Incarnation expidknt^m the Age of Auguftus 5 jot they rvere much more forcible in the 7ime of M^m^than o/AuguHus. For in the hjU God could propound only to reclaim Men from tfmr Idolatries^ Errors and Impieties j but if he had been incarnate in the Age of Adam he had prevented then;. ■And if thefe are good Arguments^ ^tis Morally impojfihle, either that there n>as in the Age of Auguftus, or everfhaU be an Incarnation. He concludes, / think^ I may fay, this Is an accurate andjttji Reafoning : it being founded on this Maxim of common Vrudence, that what was more expedient to be done at firfi than afterwards^ tvould have been at firfi^ if it had been at all expedient to he done, A, The Reafons , given of Qhrift's Incarnation, viz>. The '- reclaiming Mankind from their Idolatries^ Krrors and Impieties^ are the fame with the Reafons for ChrilVs coming into the World ; And where the Reafons are the fame, they are to be tryed in the fame way. Let- us therefore put Chrift's coming in' to the Worlds into the room of his being incarnate •, and we Ihall find it as requiiite (if our Author's Argument be of any force) that he fhould \\zvt come into the IVorld from the beginning, as that he (hould have been Incarnate from the beginning j and as Morally impolTible he (hould have been born in the Age of Ju- guffusj as that he Ihould have been Incarnate in his time. For thefe Reafons tvere much more forcible in the Age of Adsm than of Auguftus. For by folate a Nativity as the Age 0/ Auguftus, (joi could propound only to reclaim Men from their Idolatries, &c. but by being born in the very time of jidam, he had prevented the ^Idolatries of 4000 Years.—' If thefe he good Arguments for Chrift's Nativity, Uis Morally impojfible, either that there tvof in the Age of Auguftus, or that there everfhaU be a Saviour born into the World. The fame Argument will alfo affedt theGofpel, and make it neceffary, that it (hould have been as completely publiflied in the Age of Adam as of Auguftus, This is a home Charge indeed, a charge of a great Ovef fight and negled in Almighty God,for want,it fcems, of attending to a Maxim of common Prudence, viz. Of doing what was more expedient to be done at firft than afterwards. For according to our Author, the whole dcfign of Salvation by Chrili was mif- timed, and thefulnejs of time for it was in the Age o( Adam^ ■ and not of Augufim, This he accounts actirate and juft Rea- foning J of the Inciinhitton of our SaViour] ^a fon'mg 5 and 1 fuppofe the next News wc hear, will bc'Amend- ments upon the Gofpel i and a Set of Chronological Tables to redihe us in thefe Watters. And to that work I leave hitr. For I fuppofe he will not exped from his Adverfarics, that they fhould prove to him, that the time of Anguftus was bet- ter than that of ^dam. for our Lord's appeatancein the World j or to give him the Rcafons , why Almighty God chofe the time of Augu'hi^ for the Nativity of our Saviour, and thepub- ^ifhing the Gofpel by him, rather than the time of Adam. A Vindicatio*3 of the Lord Bijhop of WorcefterV Ser^ mon concerning The Myfleries of the Chriftian Faith, from the Exceptions mtsie a9ainft it, by the Ait^ thor o/^/^e Confiderations on the Explications of the Doftrine of the Trinity, IF the Author of the Conftderatiom had a mind to have writ •upon a Noble Argument, this Learned Adverfary gave him a fair occafion ta try his Skill, by propofmg the two different Hypothefes concerning the Salvation of mankind by Jefus Cbri^i and (hewing, the agreeablenefs of the one, By bis ajju- wing our Nature^ and.juffering in our fiead, to the revealed Will of God. Which he confirms, as it's mofi plain and eafie^ and agreeable to the moft received Senfe of the Words > as it fuits with the Scope and Defign of the whole New Teftament ; hath been generally received in the Chrifiian Church ; and beft agrees with the Charaflers of thofe Perfons from whom we receive the Cbri- flian Faithy viz. Chriji Jefus and his Jpofiles. Upon the laft . of thefe his Lordftiip more particularly Difcourfes. But inftead of taking his Adverfary to Task about thid weighty Subjed, our Author chufes rather to fall upon fome other Points, where he may have a greater Scope for the gra- tifying his roving Fancy j not caring to be tyed up by the Rules and Meafures of itridt Argumentation •, and therefore for the fitting to his purpofe what he had to fay, he paffes over the other, under the Charader of a great many Heads^ too troublefome for a Reader's view, whereas the Chief of all (as he will, have it) Ues in thefe Three* i.»God , ^^ A f^ifiiikation of the i) lOod may juiUy require of us tobcUeve what we cati- * not coffipieheud. 2. ' Tnofe wKo reject the Myfteries of Faith, do them- felves advance greater Mylteries than thofe they declaim •■ againft. 5. ' The manner and way of Salvation the Church teaches, *• tends more to the benefit of mmkind, than the way of Sal- ' vation by Chriii taught by the Socinians, Of thefe Three Propofitions our Author thus paffes his Judg- ment. The fir/t is true, but not to the furpfe, Tte Second is home to the purpofei hut not true. The Third is neither true nor to the fur^ofe. When he elfewhere read this Charader of a certain Book, without doubt he thought the Cadence of it very pretty, and might be diver tive for his Reader, whether it were right or wrong, and tit for his purpofe or not. But becaufe I am apt to fufpeS the Exadnefs of fuch Turns of Fancy, I (hall make bold to examine them, and fee how his Characfter and the Heads of Difcouife he applies it to, will agree. The firjif faith he, is true, but not to the Purpofe. The contrary of this ufed to be accounted true by his Pre- decelTors in the fame way, Socinus himfelf, as his Lord (hip fhewed I^Serm. p. 2 1 .] denkd the Divine Prefcience^heczuk he could not comprehend it ; and the incomprehenfiblcnefs of a Dodrine ufed to be a mighty Argument amongft the Socinians, againft the truth of it, as might be (hewn. But our Author is of another mind, as he tells us, for the prefent .* And if his Lordlhip could by Vrefcience have foretold his mind , and forefeen he would have replied upon him, he might have fpar*d to himfelf (as he gravely obferves) the Tains vf thefe ten Pages in his Sermon, in which he feeks to prove, that there are many things we do not comprehend. But his Lordlhip is not to be blamed for want of that Prefcience, which the acute Socinus would not allow to God himfelf. And to fay the truth of it, he thought he had wrote againft a Socifiian Point, but our Author can tell him, He utterly mi- ftakes ', perhaps his Lordftiip had not read the Notes on the Creed of Athanajius, nor the Trinitarian Scheme of Religion, nor the Answer to Mr. Milbourn, (Books our Author recom- mends) ncr the Hiftory oithe laji Seven years \ for it's likely he might there have found tl.e Index Expurgatorttts to Socinuty and Slfholf 0/ W;ofcefter'i Sennon. (5j and his SucceiTors ; and the Alterations nnade in this Refining Age in their groffer Dodrine, without which they will tell him he writes againlt imaginary Socinianifm. But our Author with- in the compafs of Three pages changes his mind. In page 4. AU the vporhj of God an Incomprebenfibk^ and we carnot comprehend the leaji Spire of Graft, But pag. 7. He can,:\:t undeffta/d uhy his Lordjhip and many others are jo pnfuive., ' becaufe of this he takes himfelf concerned to make good his Paradox, by fetting up fuch a Notion of Comprehtnfwn as he conceives may fupport it: And that is, that to comprehend a things is to have a deaf difiincl and adequate Conceptim of it. And he adds. May n>e not have fuch a hotinn c/ an infinite Attribute .hat the thing is. And of both of thefc he himfelf has given us a remarliable Inftance. For the Bifliop having (aid, If nothing is to be believed hut what may he compnhended^ the very Being of God muji be reje&ed too. P. 22. Our Author upon it makes this Obfervation, "■ That the Attributes of God are Licrmprehenfible^ I have often heard 5 but never till novp what hii Lord(hip adds in the next place, purely from himfelf, If nothings faith he^ is to be believed, &c. But Vi?hy is this purely from himfelf.? For this admirable Reafon, fubjoyned by Our Author, To comprehend the Being or Exijlence of God-, is only thiSi to comprehend that God is : and if rfe cannot comprehend that^ all Religion ceafet. But how came that word Exigence in } To comprehend the Being or Exigence of God is only this. &c. For his Lordftiip has no other word than Being, which plainly there re- fers to the Nature, and not the Exiftence of the Almighty. So in the Paragraph juft before, It is Midnefs to pretend to com' prebend what ir Infinite: And in the clofe of the fame Paragraph, ^f long as they believe an Infinite and Incomprehenjible Beings it u Nonfenfe to rejeCl any other VMrine rrbich relates to an Infinite Beings becaufe it is Incomprehenftble. So that it's God, as an Infinite and Incomprehenfible Being, that his Lordftiip is Difcouriing of 5 not of his Exiftence, but his Effence and Nature. And yet we are not at an end of thefe Difficulties, were we to confider his Exiftence. To return to the Bithop's firft Propofition (as recited by our Author) viz* God may jufily require of us to believe what we cannot comprehend,To what purpofe is this ? For our Author faith, Ht [the Bi(hop] utterly mifiakss, in thinkjng that we deny the Articles of the New Cbri{iiamty, or Athanafi^n. Re/i^/w [concerning the Trinity, the Deity, and Incarnation of our Saviour, e^c] becaufe they are My^erie/i or becaufe we do not comprehend them \ we deny them, becaufe they are ContradOfons, Impofftbilitit^s^' and pure Nonfenfe, p. 4. b. Surely this New Chrjjiianityf thi$ Athanafian fieligion, is no other than Babylon in the Revelation, that had Myfiery wrote on her Forehead, that was the Mother of Harlots y, and Abominations of the whole Earth ; and deferves to.be tr^^ted in like manner, if fhe vends Impojiure and Coniradi^ions under the name of Myjieriei, as he repreicnts it. But in d€fe<3: of a Fvoyal Authority to confutnmate the Sentence, there is a terrible Scourge, a Book K 2 wrote 6i A l^indlcation/of the wrote by a Learned Friend of theirs, that hath wrought won- ders, and with the like Succefs as the Whips were (hew'd to the Sicilian Slaves, to tac'u utter Difcomfiture. So that the Merchants of tbefe VVares have their Markets fpoiled, or muchhin^ dred^ if he is to be believed. And yet after all, if we may guels at the Book by his Sample out of it, it's as gentle as one could wifli i and falls in with his Adverfaries. For what doth he fay, but what they have faid before him > As, 1. There are in Religion fame Myjieries ^and Incomprehenfible Secreiu 2. We are not to give the venerable Name of Myjhry to Do' Brines contrary to Nature*! and Keafon*s Light. 3 . "fhe ordinary meaning of M\fiery in Scripture^ if not fomething in it's own nature dar\ and obfcure^ hut fomething intelligible^ and k^eptfeeret inpaji Ages, and tvof revealed in Gofpel- times. But for all this, may not the word Myliery be applied to fuch things as are in-fome meafure hfiotvn, but in much greater unknotfn to m (as his Lordlhip faith) ? And when our Author's Friend doth (ay, th& ordinary meaning of Myjhry in Scriptftrej is for n>hat ivas a Secret y but nopp made h/iovpn ; it fuppofes that he was fenfible it was alfo fometimes there us'd for what was in its oven nature dark^and ohfcure. I thouglit to have purfued this Argument, but I the rather pafs it, becaufe It's under the Confideration of si Learned Pen. ^^ Amongft the Inftances that are IncomprehenfibJe, his Lord- (hip begins with Eternity i and faith, That he is apt to thin\^ there is no gredter Difficulty in the conception of the Trinity) and Incar- nation j than there is of Eternity. A bold Saying/ And' he de- ferves to be expos'd for it. Difficulties the BilSop calls them, but our Author will have it Contradi(^ions, and many Contra^ diWtons in the Trinity and Incarnation ; and inflnuates that his Lordfhip would himfelf have call'd his Difficulties in Eter- nity, Contradidiions, if he durft % For thus his Advfcrfary goes on, He dares not call them ContradiBions (though Of be jiates them- they are undeniable Contradi&ions ) becaufe if they tvere confeft'dto he ContradiBionSy he would be forced to deny an 'Eternity. And it is not long before we are told the Bifliop denies that alfo. There are two Difficuties his Lordftiip obferves in the Eter- ternity of God. The firft is, * That if God was for «/er, he mufl be from him' *felf 5 and what Notion can we have in our minds concerning it / Oui ^l[hop of Worcefter'j Sermon. So Our Author reprefents this, as if it was the Bifliop's defigti to argue againft God's Eternity , after this manner, / am forry an Eternal God mnii be a Contra JiS ion. Had he no way to defend kit Nerp Myfieriefj but by efpoufing the Caufe of the Athiijis ? &c. A Calumny as black as Hell ! For, is there any word leaning this way ? What ! to prove that there are Contradidtions in the Notion of Erernity, or that an Eternal God is a Contradidii- on! Doth not his Lordjh/p both affirm there is grca* re^/^« to believe the Eternity of God , and in the fame breath ef- fedlualiy prove it , and confute thofc Atheijis whole Caufe this Slanderer would have him to efpnufef But this is his ufual way of prefacing an Argument ; the reafon for it lies open enough. But where is the Contradid^ion? At laft it proves one of his own making. For, faith he, What ms^es him [theBifliop] fay^ God muji be from himfelf or felf- originated? For then he muji be before he vpas. For God to he before he was, is a Contradi6lion. But I do not fee how it follows, that if he is from himfdf he mufi be before he WiK? For he may be from himfelf and yet be necefTarily and eternally Exigent. This 'tis likely our Author faw, and there- fore to clinch his Argument, he joyns an aliof to the Phrafe, From himfelf, and then it is From himfelf j or Self originated. And now he has put a pretty varni/h upon it ; for Self-origi- nated, if ftridly taken, implies an Origine or Beginning from himfelf: And ( as he faith ) All Origination of what kind foever is inconfiflent with an Eternal Bting. If his Lordfhip had faid , God had his Beginning or Origination /r(?>« himfelf^ or in his Adverfarie's phrafe were Self-originated, there had been fome colour for him to have inferred , Then he was in Being before he was. But to be from himfelf ^ is no more liable to (uch an inference, than when we fay he is Self-extfl;ent, or in the word ufcd by the Fathers , 'AvWfls©-, God of and fromhtmfelf that IS, lb as to have no Caule nor Beginning. The fecond Difficulty his Lordfhip propofed about God's Eternity, is> Hoev God (hould cn-exili with all the differences of timely and yet there be no Stirceffion in his crt>n Being ? — And Sttcceffion be- ing not confji^ent with the Abfoluie PerfeGion of the Divine Nature^ therefore God mn^ be all at once what he if. Thb 70 -^ Vinitmkn of the This our Author faith , U a great many ContfadUiiotis , and propofes no lefs than Five Queries upon it, which he gives his LordQiip time till Dooms-day to anfwcr. For thus he clofes them, 7he Notion of the 'Trinity , and this Notion ofEternityy mil be vindicated both in a Day. However we will try if the Day for it be not already cont\e j and for trial's fake , I will venture to offer them again to the Reader, as they ihnd in his Treatife. ' ^ 1. 'What is the difference between an Eternal Moment^ * (which every one difcerns is a Contradi^ion in the very terms) 'and between pojfeftng Eternal Life all at once, which is his Lord- * ihip's Definition of Eternity > A, The difference is as great, as between Contradi<5tion and Truth. An Eternal Moment is a Contradidion ; for a Moment is a moveable point, and paffes as foon into not being, as it came into being. It was not , it is , and immediate- ly is not i and fo nothing more oppolite in the nature o( it to Eternity. But Eternity admits no Succefliion, no Divifibility, no Moments , no Paft , no Future , no Motion , no Change, and confequently muft be all exigent together, and all at once : For there is no mean between Succellion , and all at once ; and fince Succeffion is imcompatible with Eternity* Eternity muft be all at once. And if God did not poffefs himfelf all at once^ he could not be Eternal. • ^ 2. ' Seeing it is of the Nature of all Duration to confift * in a Succeffion , elfe it were not Duration but a Moment , I ' ask whether it be not unavoidable, that if Almighty God poC- * fcffes Eternal Life ad at once , he muft have paffed into fome 'Durations before they are?. The Duration, for example, * in which the Day of Judgment (hall be, is not actually come. * But if God poffeffes Eternity all at once, he is already entred * upon that Duration, that is, he is entred upon it before «itis. A. If it be of the Nature of all Duration to confijl in a Succeffton^ then there can be no more Duration than there is Succeffion in an Eternal Being : And confequently, 'tis a grofs Abfurdity to conceive of God , as entring upon a certain Duration, and paf~ fing into fome Duration , which is to conceive of him as a Tem- porary Being, and that began to be, (for fo it is in all Succeffi- on) and not as one that is Eternal. &3. ©//7;o/> of Worcefter'i Sermon, g^j. ' Seeing it is a Ccntradidion, and therefore impofli- * ble , that any Being Ihould pijflefs a Duration before fuch * Duration i j I dcfire to kiow of his Lord^rup, how it can be *an Imperfcdion(as he arlii ins) in the l^ivine Nature, not to do * that which implies a Contradid-ion &c. A, 'Tis true , (hit it is a Contr.tdtilion , and therefore impojjible for a Creature, to whom L^ur ton and Succellion belong, t9 poffefr a Duration before juch Duration if.' But it is a Contra- diAion, and rheretore lmp( ilible (or God to poflefs any Du- ration (which confifit in Sncce(fton) becaule he is Eternal, For him to poffefs a certain Duration and Succcifi jn , would be to fuppofc: him in Duration A^ before he removed to Dura- tion B and when he is in Duration B, to have leff Duration A, Eternity in God, is with refped: to Time , what Immcniity is to Place 5 and fo he is all at once, as he is at once in ^11 places ; and dS rotwithllanding the innumerable Divitions in place , God is no moie divided , than he was before Place was created. So, notwithltanding the manifold dilhibutions of time, God is no more in one Duration than in another , but is now the fame Eternal undivided Being, when there is a Bt/ore, a Prefentt and an After in Time , as he was before there was any Time, Duration or Succcffion. ^4. ' How is it more an Imperfed-ion to pafs from not be- *ing, into fuch a Duration, to fuch a Being in it, than 'tis an * Imperfe£tion to pafs from not operating in fuch a Duration, *to operating in it ? This lalt all men muft contefs to be true * of God i for none will dare to fay, God made all his Works * at once. A to pafs from Duration to Duration-, and from not being hi fuch a particular Duration to a Beinff tn it , is no other than Sue* celTion which (as has been (hew d) jsuttQily inconfiftent with the Nature of God, who is Eternal I0 pafs from not operattnz ffi fuch a Duration^ to operating in »'r, is to fuppofe there was a Duration beiore God did operate io ffjWhich is manifcltly abfurd. For Duration is a continuance of Time i but what Duration was there in Eternity, before there was any Time, or God began to operate and nake the World > Again, To argue from xhz Works of God to his Nature, is to circumfcribe him to Time and Place, as they are. And he may as well argue, That God began to be, when he began to Operate^ 71 71 A V'miicatibn of the ^ Operafe, as (o argue from Succeffion in the Creatures , or a Succeflion of God's Operation in the Creatures, to a Succeffi- on in Himfelf 5 and that he cannot be aUat once, becaufe he did not make al! his Works at once. g^5. ' What fhadow of Imperfection is it to pafs from one * Duration to another, when the Perfon fo paffing, carries with • him all perfedions into every Duration } A, If this were fo, the Almighty would want one perfedion of his Nature, which is Eternity. For he can no more carry his Eternity with him into the various Succeffion^ of Duration, than he can pafs from place to place, and carry his Immenfity with him. Tis the Updiot ( I will not fay the Defign) of thefe his Que- ries to overthrow the Eternity of God , under colour of. dif- proving the Notion of the Platomfis and Boethm^ the School-men and the Do&ors , and Profejfors of Myjieries in our Tim j , ( as he derives its Pedigree, and is plealed to give their Gharadter^ viz. That Eternity is a p<,jJejJion of all at once : Ani lo turns all the bitter Invedives upon hinr.felf , with which hefo virulent- ly, and without any pretext endeavours to wound his Ad- verfary. For what elle is the effed of his Dodtrine of Succef- fion in God, and paffing from one Duration to another ? For where there is Succeffion, there was a beginning, unlefs he will make the firft Moment in his Succeffion to be Eternal^ which he knows is a Contradidion in Terms, The Two rem lining Difficulties which his Lord (hip offers to our Confideration, and to (hew how incomprehenfible things are, are the Spirituality of God's Nature, and his Prefcience. To the former he makes no other Reply, thin to difavow Cif it is fo) what was charged upon fome of their Way about God's Corporeity. As to the latter, nothing will ferve his turn, but that the Bi(hop oppofes the Vnity of God ( that e.iVied Vodrine ) by finding Contradi&ions in hU Eternity and Forek^ovifledge, But what if the Bloody Charge- fall upon Socinui, who found the Vifficulties , and as he thought , the Contradiliions in the Dod^rine of God's Fre/e/e«ce to be fo great, intrenching upon the Freedom of Humane Anions, and making God the Author of Sin 5 that he thought it the better way wholly to deny it. But this our Author is very careful to fupprefs. 2. Propofition, !Bip?op 0/ WofcefterV Semon, ^^ 2. Propofition. *The difficulties, faith his Lordfiup, arc in * point of reafon more infuperable in the Socinian way than *ours ; of which he gives feveral Inllances that may be called * Myjhrks. I. The Myftery on the part of the Orthodox, is the Eternal Son of God's being with the Father before the World was made by him. The Myftery on the other fide is, ' That although Jefus were born Six months after Joljn Baptifl^ yet he was in dignity be- fore him. Now this, faith the Bifhop, is a Myftery j forafmuch as it cannot be conceived that theEvangcllllihould, in lofty ex- prefjiont^ and profound language^ prove a thing which was never difputed. It is St. John that is referr'd to, and if he may be efteemed the Author of that Gofpel, yet our Author cannot find that pro- found language and lofty exprefftons in him. The fenfe indeed, faith he, if fometimes profound^ but the exprfffion is altvays mean. So little judgment had Frimd Amelius^ when at the firft read- ing he thought the Barbarian ( as he call'd that Divine Evange- lift ) to Platonize i and in his -profound language to imitate his great Mailer. Indeed our Author rather thinks of a CharadJer befitting a Rhetorician, Orator, or Poet, than a Philofopher or Divine Writer. As if becaufe theEvangelift had not an ehva^ tion of conceit or exprefton $ like or above the Greil{^ or Roman Ora" torSf or Poets, his language could not be profound, nor his expref- fions lofty. 2. Saith he, If the language were profound, it would not foUow^ the Senfe intended muji be a Myliery. But it would follow, that St. John that wrote of fuch fublime things, after that manner, would not take pains to proue what rvof never difputed, viz. that although Chriji rvere born fix months after John Bapttji , yet be xcof in dignity before hiw. At laft.byhead and (boulders, he brings in aParaphrafeofthe Sociniant on the beginning of St. John, which has already been confider'd j but becaufe I am not willing to be behind-hand with him, I (hall repay it with another, borrowing fome help towards^ it from his own Expo(ition,z//2i. ' In the beginning of the Gofpel, the Word Jefus Chrift be- Mng about 30 years old, was then in being and alive : And ' about that time was rapt up into Heaven, as St. ?aul was, L * which ■<-^ yA - ji yindicatm of the * which we are ptoufly to believe, being the Scripture is fiknt ' in it. And alter a very (hort ftay there, but (b long as it * may be faid, he vpof mtb God, this Iford came down again from ' Heaven, which we arc upon the ranieconrideration to believe, * as his f ,riner Afcenfion. And then or fome time after, perhaps * at his Refurredion, he was conftituted a God, not an Eternal *God , but a Man-God, a Creature-God, a hnite temporary 'God, that dates the beginning of his Deity from the terra * aforefaid. And being thus a God, he made a New World, as « the Eternal God made the Old. And though he had nothing * in him of the Divine Nature, ( for that God could not give him ) * nor any of the Incommunicable Atirihutes of the Veiiy, Omaipotencfy ^ Omniprefence,Omnifcience^ and fuch like. (Wherefore 'ri^r better * to ufe the words Chriii, Lord and Saviour, than God, becaufe there ' may be no fmall inconvenience tvith refpeU to the Vulgar ) yet he: ' was to have the fame honour given him by Angels and men, * which they gave to the Father, the Eternal, Omnipotent, * Omnlprefent, and Omnifcient God. And to encourage them * in this, they are to know, that Fauftus Sccinits had caufe to thinks, * that his IXnkle L that is, for. * an Accident to be made a Subfiance. Id Anfwey to this our Author faithj , 3. By. ^ifho^ 0/ W9rcc/lerV Sermon. prr I. 5y th; TVord me do not tindtrfh>id God the Son\ the rather, bicaufe Hofnch fttjon is once njerttioHed in all Holy Scripture. jinjw. If that were a Rejfon fufficient why the Word in that Propofl- tion, The Word was made Fli'Jh, fhould not be undeiftood of God the .Son ; then 'tis as much a Reafon why the Word vi the firft Ferfe fhould not be underflood of God tlie Son ; But if notwithftanding that no fuch perfoii is once mentioned in Scripture as God the So?i, yet the Word in Ferfe r, is to be underftood of a peilbn ; then notwithOanding that, lyerfe to. may as well be undeiftood in like manner of the Perfonal Word But is no fuch perfoa ever mentioned in Scripture, as God the Son"? What is the Word but the Son of God, and when the Word and the Son are the fame, what is the diffe:5^nce between God the Word, and God the ^oti ? And when the Son is called God in Scripture, what is th» difference between God t!>e Son, and the Se?} that is God? 2. But what do they uiiderfland by the Word, when the Word is faid to be made Flejh ? He anfwers, The Power and Wtfdom of God. Now if fo ; wliere then is the Fault, when the Bifhop charges it upon them as a Mypery beyond atl Comprehenfion, that they fay that an Attribute of God, his Wifdo7n or Power, is made Flefh ? Here he comes in again with iiis. We do not mean hereby, as his Lordfhip Tfould tnjinuate, that the Wifdom or Power of God was turned into Fiejh, or Man. Now this is more than his Adverfary charges them with : But what Ao they mean ? Why, f^e mean, faith hfe, as th( Trinitarians thereby alfo inean^ that the Word "was Incarnate, tabernacled in Fkjb, abode on the Man Chriii Jeftu iit more ample wanner, and much largtr meafure, than on former Prophets. y4nfw. If they mean. By rmde Flefh., as f/;* Trinitarians themfelv?s alfa vtean ; then they mufl me.Tn, that the Wii'dom and Power of God is In- carnate, and took upon it the Flefh and Niture of Mnn ; or elfe they do not mean by that Phrafe as the Trinitarims do. But fuppofe we give him back again what he has granted, and allow that they do not mean as the Trinitarians mean, when they fay, the Word was Incarnate^ but that they mean, the Wo)d abode on the Man Chrifi Jefus ; that is, the Word, Power, or Wifdom, abode on the Word Chiift ; -yet how comes he from the Wurd's tabernacling in fit jit, or was made flcjh, to interpret It, abode in Chrift. Methinks there is much of Myflery ia this. But I have not yet done ; for tho he faith, The Language and ExprrJJion of St. John is always mean, yet I apprehend St. "John to be confiftent with himfelf, and to write intelligibly. But our Author brings r^.llthis into queftion , by a forced Interpretation, and fetdng up his own meaning againft that of St. John ; as will appear * to any indifferent man, from tlie CorJneftion and Order of this Chapter; whether it be the part before verfe 14. or that which follows. Before ; for thus the EvangelifV proceeds, In the Bcgiwrn-g was the Word, ——And that M'^ord was the true Light. ——And the Word was made Flcjh. So that the WW that was made Fkjh, Was the fame that was the true light, and that was in the beginning. And therefore if by the Word that was L 2 mU.c 7^ A ^indication' of the made Fleflj, is to be underftood the Potoer and Wifdem of God, then Co it is to be underftood when the IVord is fa id to be in the beginning , after this manner ; In the Begianing was the Power of God, and the Power of God was with God, and tlie Power of God was God Let us confult the Words following the Claufe, [ the Word wa: made fiej})] and it will be yet more evident ; The word was made fisjh, and dwelt Among us, andwe beheld his glory, the glory of the only begotten of the father, 8cc. ^ohn bare witnefs of him, and cried, faying, This was he of whom I fpake, &:c. So that the fame IVurd that was made-^eth, dwelt among them ; the fame IVord that was made flefh, and dwelt among them, and whofe Glory they faw, was the only begotten of the Father. The fame Word chat was made flefh, and dwelt among them. w?s he of whom Ja^w bare witnefs. Now if the whole Tenor of that Difcourfe,- before and after, belong to the Perfonal Word, then fo doth the Claufe between ; or elfe he will make St. John write fo as no Intelligent Writer can be fuppofedto write. 3. The Myftery on the fide of the Orthodox, is, That the Son of God 'came down from Heaven. zx\A. took our Nature upon him. The Myftery on the other fide is, ' ThiXChriH jhould be rapped np into Heaven. This Myftery of theirs our Author will have to be no more difficult than St. PanCs being caught up into the third heaven : And fo far he is in the right; for that was no more impofiible than this, and Chriftltnight have afcended before his Miniftry, as well as after his Refurreftion. But this is not the Myftery that his Lordfliip lays his hand upon ; but it is this. That in a matter of fo great Confequence, and fo remarkable a Partof Hiftory ( if it had been true) the Scripture fliould be wholly filent ; that when it is fo punctual in the relation of Mofes^ Converfe with God at the giving of the Law, and of our Saviour's Forty Days Temptation in the Wildernefs, and his Transfiguration, &c. that there fliould be no more faid of this Afcenfion of our Saviour, than of the Virgin Mary''s Aflumption, tho ( as they would have it ) it was to re- ceive Inftruftions in the Will of God concerning the Gofpel-Difpenf&tion ; and when he was conftituted and made a God, (as fome of them fay.) This is a Myjiery. But I acknowledge that the invention of this is a new Myfte- ry ; it being apparent, that it was by them thought neceflary to make feme tolerable fenfe of thefe words, He came down from Heaven, as his Lord' p,ip obferves of this before. As for the Myfiery on the other fide, we acknowledge it to be fo, but not for the Reafon he gives, becaule to defcend or afcend belongs only to Limited and Finite Beings. Since notwithftanding that, God in Scripture is faid to^o dawn, that that is not to be underftood of a local Defcent, but of a manifeftation of the Deity. And the Son of God is faid to come down from Heaven when he became Man, becaufe he took the Humane Nature into Union with the Divine j and where the Humane was, there was alfo the Divine. 4. The Myftery on the Orthodox fide is , * That God fliould become * Man by taking our Nature upon him. The Myftery on the other fide is, * That Man fliould become God, &c^. la- ^tp?op of Wo|rcefterV Sermon. yj In the former, an Infinite is united to a Finite ; in the latter, a Finite be* comes Infinite. Our Author faith, the Bifhop found it necejfary to mi/interpret thir Do- Sirines, before he could find My ft eries hi it. A. But furely he doth not mifrepdrt their Do£lrine, when he fairh, That they make a Man to be God. Our Author is very tender in the Point, and faith he may he called a God ; and faith, That it cannot be fat is- fa^orify proved, that any Atithentick Copies of the Bible do give to him the Title, God. But Soc'mw, and his Followers, are not fparing to call him a ' True God, and to give him Divine Wordiip as fuch (as has been fliewed) ; and I tjueftion whether our Author can fiy more about the Authentick Co- pies than Sandiuf, which has been fufficiently confuted before he publifhed his Brief Hi ft ory, 2. As for what our Author faith concerning the cafe of Mofes, Magifirates and Angels being called God : I ask, whether any of them may be called a Irue God. For if Mofes was, for example, as much a God as Chrift,he might have, and challenge the fame Divine Worlhip as is given, and is due to Chrift. y. Th^^ftery on the fide of the Orthodox is, * That Chrifl fuffcr- ed for oi^^kes ; as a voluntary Sacrifice of Expiation of the Sins of Mankind, and not for his own fake. The Myflery on the other fide is, * To make him fufTer as one wholly * innocent ; which is, to make the mofl innocent perfons as apprehenfive * of fufFering as the mofl guilty. Here our Author interpofes, and faith, H// Lordfliip/e^w; 7tot to under- ftand the ft ate of the i^if/?«K;becaufe he had faid,'r/V more reafonable to believe that Jefus Chrifi fufered for our fakes, than for his own. Whereas hefuffW'd for both ; for his own fake, to obtain a glorious reward., Sec. Anfw. It is plain, that when his Lordjhip faith, ChnBJufa-^d for our fake, snd not for his own ; he means thereby, not for his own fake, as he did for ours ; for our Sins, and not for any of his own : fo it immediately fol- lows, We f^re all agreed, that the Sufferings of Chrifi were far beyond any thing he defervd at God^s hands. 2. He faith, Th^ Unitarians never denied, as his Lordfhip here fancier^ that Jefus Chrifi made himfelf a voluntary Sacrifice for Expiation of the Sitn of Mankind. Anfw. L-^t us fuppofe this, what is it then they deny ? They deny, he fairh, that this Sacrifice was by way of true and proper S.itisfaifion, or full and »detjuate pa)metit lo the Juftice of God. A. That there might be a Sacrifice of Expiation where there was no full and adequate payment to the "juftice of God, is true, becaufe »? w not p of- Jible, faith the Apoftle, that the blood of bulls and go.its Jhould take ^waf fins. But the cafe is not the fame in this Sacrifice, (for that which is denied to the former, is yet granted and giveato the SacArificeof Chrift, f/f^. lo. 4, ro.) which may not improperly be called a SatisfaBion and Paymenf; and if fo, in regard of the Dignity of the Perfon , may be faid to be/«// and adequate; fince as Sins are called Dibts-, fo Sinners are Debtors CO r7^ A Findicdtlif'n' df the to the Juftice of God*s Law, in refpeft of which we are faid to be redeemed by the Blood of Chrift, as Captives or condemned perfons were redeemed by Silver and Gold, i Pet. r. i8, if. But yet we are not come to the bottom of their Doftrine ; for when we might reafonably hwe thought the controverfy to be at an end (fince they grant that Chrift was an Expiatory Sacrifice for ottr Sins ) they take all away again by an Explication that makes the Sacrifice no Sacrifice, and the Expiation no Expiation. For he thus determines the Point. '3. iVe fay this Sacrifice' {as ail other Sacrifices) xoas mily an Oblation or' yipplication to the Mercy of God. Or as it follows, He fuff ere d for our fakes, that he 7night recommend m to the Mercy and Forgivenefs of God. A. I have faid before, by this account of an Expiatory Sacrifice, the Ex- piation is no Expiation ; for the Definition here given of an Expiatory Sa- crifice, is this, that ^tis only an Oblation, /ipplicationy -tj fuppofe that Gad himfelf juiferd in our fteads, as xoell as took on him the Fortn of aStrvant. Now to fay the truth, his Lordfliip had not this Scene in his eye under Myftery the 6^^ ; for in that he is fpeaking of the Incarnation of our Sa- viour, when he took on him the Form of a Servant ; but it was in Myftery the 5 "^ that he fpoke of Chvift's Sufferings and Saaifice.. His Lordfhips words are, The Son of God took upon him the Form of a Servant ; fo that he Was fo far from faying, God fnfferd in our ftead, &c. that he did not fo much as fay, the i-on of God fuf'er^d in our ftead, ( though it be true. ) But will he fay, Is not this all onp, when he that fuffer'd and died, is, in our opinion, God as well as Man ? I anfwer No, with refpe£t to his Obfervatiohs. Vox remote Son of Cod to its place ( aS it is in his Lordftyip ) inftead of J Gpd, and then we Ihalt fee the difference. As I; 'Tis more reafonable to fuppofe with the Unitarians, that God hath admitted us to Terms of Pardon for his own mercy's fake, &c. than that -hii Son fhould fuffer in our ftead, to reconcile us to God. 2. It's an Incomprehenfible Myftery, that God fhould rather chufe to fend his Son to fuffer for us, than to forgive us. 5. 'Tis a Paradox, for the Son of God to pay the Debt of the DebtOf-* to God, and to fatisfy for the wrong done to Him. How is the Scene changed upon this ? And where doth the Abfurdity lie ? While indeed he put God in the place of the Son of Cod, it look'd fomewhaf fpecioufly ; but reftore the term Son of God to its place inftead of God, and the pretended Abfurdity lies apparently at his own door. Bur may he urge. Don't you acknowledge the Son of God to be God? And then it may be as well faid, Cod himfelf fufth-'d m our ftt.td, &c. as the Son of God fuffer d, &c. I anfwer, God (as that fignifies the Divine Nature in Chrift) could net fuffer; All that we fay is, That the perfon that took upon himfelf the Form.of a Servant was God, and not Man, before fuch an Allumprion of ■ llununev 80 ^ Vindication of the, See. Humane Nature : ttiat when he aflumed that Nature, he was God as well as Man ; and that perfonwho wisGod fuffer'd in Humane Nature, but the Godhead or God no more fuffer'd and died when Chrift died, than the Manhood could be Omniprefent and Immortal, becaufe the Godhead was fo ; or the Soul die, when the Man is faid to die. 2. lanfwer further. That the Son of God is not the Father ; and that there being fuch an incommunicable perfonality, if I may fo fpeak, thofe things belong to the Son that could not belong to the Father. And as the Father was not Incarnate but the Son, fo the Son became refponfible, and paid the price of our Redemption to the Father ; and therefoie it was the A£t of tlie Son that was God, and not of the Godhjad, as com- mon to three perfons to reconcile us to God. As to the Myftery on their own fide, the Worlhip of a meer Man, it has been already confidev'd, only he fhouM have hadfome moderation in his Charge, when he faith his Lordfhip might- as well have accused them of So- dowy or Witchcraft , as of giving proper Divine lVurj]np to a Cfcature, to the Man Chrift Jefta ; when his Party owns it, and he himfelf makes a feeble Excufe for ir. For, fairh he, if it u a miftake, ''tis flmple Error, mt tvtyftery^ much lefts Idolatry. Now, methinks, 'tis an unintelligible Myftery, that there P^ouldbe a proper Divine Wbrftip, peculiar to God ; and yet there be no Ido- latry in giving the fame to a Creature. 'Tis an Incomprshenfible Myftery again to {jty, the giving proper Divine IVorftyip to a Creature, is fiot Idolatry, 'Tis a Myftery again. That the Church of Rowe fhould be charged with Idolatry, for giving Divine Woiftiip to Creature- Mediators, and yet in thefe perfons 'tis fimple Error. 'Tis a Myftery again. That Chrift fliould be efteemed by them a God, and fo conftituted by God, and yet there be no [mall Inconvenience mtk re- jpeB to the Vulgar to have him fo called. 'Tis a Myftery again, That St. Paul blames them who do ftervice to fuch as are not Gods : And yet if Godhimfelf had fet them up^ and given them the Uame above every Name, and they had not miftook in the kiud, nor exceeded in the degree of tbat ftervice they did to them, they jhould not have been blaxned^ And fotheSaints and Angels might have been made Objefts of Worlhip as well as Chrift, and the Virgin A/<3ry might have been eftablifhed §lueen oft Heaven, and a H)perdulia accordingly given to her. So that he has made as pretty a Defence in this Part for the Creature- WorChip of the Church of Rome, as their heart can wiQi, and as he has made for Travftubftantiation In the next Part. 3** Propolltion is, ' The way or manner of faving Sinners by Chrift, * taught by the Church, is more for the Benefit of Mankind, than the So' ' cinian Hypothe/is. This I Ihall be as flidrt upon as he ; and till I fee an AaCwet to what his Lordfhip has faid, and was alfo faid by the Archbilhop upon that Ar- gument, I fhall reft contented, and not think the Propofition evertheleft true or pertinent, for his faying 'TiV neither true, nor to the purpfte. T O f 8i To the Reverend Dr. W i l l i a m s. Reverend Sir^ IUnderftand that you are now about a Vindication of the late Arcbbifhop of Cznterhary^s Sermons concerning the Trinity y in Anfvper to the .^inimadverfions that vpere made upon them. I am very glad fo great an Argument is in fo Good a hand : But ilnce the Animadverter gave a late Vifcourfe of mine a (hare of the fame Book, I think it may be proper, that fome- what in Juftification of what I writ, fliould accompany this Pertbrmance of yours: And becaufe every Man is naturally more the Mafter of his own Thoughts than another, though in other refpedts he may be much Superior to him j 1 (hall there- fore give you a particular account of what occurs to me, with relation to my Vifccurfe on this Subjed, and (hall leave it to you, either to Publilh it with your Book, in the fame fimpli- city in which I am forced to Write at this dirtance from my Books and Colledions, or which will be much to the advan- tage of what 1 am to offer to you, though it may put you to a little more trouble, I leave it to you to draw fuch things out of this Paper as feem of the greateft weight, and mix them with your own Compofition. By this they will appear with thofe foiid Charaders of true Judgment and Learning, by which all your Writings are diftinguilhcd. I (hall without any farther preamble, enter upon the matter that is before me -, and (hall in the firft place offer you fome ge- neral Confiderarions, before I come to what is more particular and Critical. The Foreign Writers of this Author's Perfua- fion, have indeed in their way of Writing, fet a pattern to the world : Their Stile has been Grave and Modeft, free from Re- flection or Levity. They have purlued their Point with a Strain that deferves great Commt ndation. But thofe who have taken M great •K'' i Zi The ^ijhop of Simm's Letter great liberties with them, have faid, That this was only an Artifice to (o(ten the Horror that their Opinions were apt to give ; and to poffefs the world with fach favourable thoughts of their Perfons and Dodrines, as might both remove Preju- dices, and dirpofe all m( n to believe well of thofewho feemed full of a Chriltian Spirit ; and they have been apt to fufped, that as their Numbers and their Hopes might encreafe, they would change their Stile, and raife their Spirits.^ This Writer has done what lay in him, to julHfy thoie (ufpicions. It feems he thinks the Party is now fo itrong, that the hard words of Nonfenfe, Contradiakn, and Ahfurdity, may be let fly liberally •, though upon fo grave a Sub je6t, Modefter Words would have imported full as much, and would have had a much better ap- pearance. He loves alfo to divert himfelf as oft as he can; i». 90. I had in the general part of my Difcourle faid, that fince there may be My(hries in the Divine Ejfence that are far beyond all our Ap- prehehfions 't therefore if God lets out any hints 0/ any fuch tout, wa are to receive them in fuch a plain fen fe at the words do naturally bear. From hence he runs divilion upon the word hint 5 and Itudies Co»r. p 10 ^o "^^^^ ^^^ whole appear ridiculous : Though when I come to 21. ' treat of the proofs that ought to be relied on in this matter, I had laid this down for a ground, that in fo fublimea Pointy P. 109. fj^gyg Qj^gi)t to be a greater fulnefs of exprefs rvords^ than for bare pre* cepts of Mirality^ or more eaftly received Notions : And that n>e ought not to fuppofe^ that if God intended to Reveal any thing to us that fhould pofe our V uderjiandingt ^ he would only doit in hints, or in Words and ExpreJJioas of doubtful Signification , and that therefore thofe who denied Myfteries , had a right to demand full and Copious Proofs of them. The taking notice ot this would have been more fincere, but fome of the mirth into which hints led him, would have been fpoiled by it. I mention no other Strains of this fort, though he does often with the fame Candour and Modejiy endeavour to make thofe he writes againft look Ridiculous j which is purfued me have been Modelling the com- mon Bibles far above Ivoelve hundred years. This is the very Plea of the Mahometans , who do not deny the bulk of the v hri- ftian Religion, which is acknowledged in the Alcoran^ they on- ly (ay that the New Teftament is much altered from what it was at firft, the Chriftians having put in and left out a great deal of it : Or to ufe this Writers word, they having modelled it anew. If this be as true, as it is boldly aflerted, there is in- deed very little regard due to that Volume, about which he thinks there has been fo much difhoneft Dealing? and that for fo many Ages. The opening this matter, he thinks would rafe the very Foundations of Babylon j He might have rather faid ot the Chriftian Religion. For if the Books that are the Text of it are fo m.angled, what certainty is there left about any part of it ? He does not feem to defign this as a service to the Church of Kome j where the currant Dodrine is, that no Sub- miffion is due to the Scriptures, but as they are attefted and explained by the Church 5 tho' the great Pains he takes to excufe to the Reverend VoBor Williams- 8 J excufe Tranfubftantiation, looks very kindly towards them. The true Confequence of this mull: be, that the Scripture may Cperhaps) contain many good things : But that we are fure of nothing concerning it; fince it hjshad fo ftrange a fate up>n it for fo long a time. This is to be anfwered only by attacking him as a downright Pe//?, by proving that we have the Scriptuies Genuinely conveyed down to us. The At- tempts of a Mercenary Cr it ick^ on this Head ought not to pafs upon us 5 who know how little regard he has to any Reli- gion. No doubt there was anciently great Care taken to com- pare the M inufcripts of the Bible In iome Copies, MarginalNotes and OlcfT'^s mght have been raixt with the Text ; and Copied out as a part of it : And that might be difcovered by other more Corred Copies. This is all that can be gathered from Epiphanim^s words j how much further foever an impious Cri- tick may endeavour to ftretch them. *There is no harm done by attacking our Trjnflation ; or by (hewing the various Rea- dings of fome Copies , and endeavouring to eftablifh the true Reading, from ancient Copies or Quotations : but it ftrik fs at the whole, to accufe all the Copies now extant, as haviig been long vitiated by Fraud, and on Dclign. I fhall oflfer you but one other general Coniideration, on that part of this Writers Book, in which he thinks he has the greatert advantage given him. Becaufe there have been fome different C^w/". p. 18. Methods taken, in explaining the Trrniry, in which fome fcem to have adhered fo much to the Vnity of the Deity, that their Trinity feems unconceivable ; while others haveaflerted fucha Trtnity as feems inconlfiftent with Vnity^ he reprefents us all as. fo divided and broken, that we agree in nothing , but in the maintaining of fome Terms and Phrafes againlt them : ia which we have very different Apprehenlions from one ano- ther. This feems to givj Scandal to fome good minds, as well as advantage fo bad om^s ; and therefore it ought fo be well ex- plained. There i* then a great difference to be made between that which is a part of our Religion, and thofe Conceptions by which we may more diltindly fct it foith,both to our felves and others. To make this more lenlible by Inltances that are forreign to this Matter : Many Proteftants have different Appreheniions concerning the manner of Chrih's Prefence in the Sacrament i, 8^ 7 he ^ijhoj^ of Simm^ Letter Sacrament 5 fomc aflerting Confuhfiantiationy others a real Ttf fenccy and others only a Figurative one : But all agreeing, That this is a Sacred Inftifution of Chrift's, accompanied with a Di- vine Vertueand Blelfing, to thofe who worthily receive it, by which the Benefits of the Death of Chrift are conveyed to them-, they are all of the fame Religion, who do agree in this, tho' they have different Methods of apprehending and ex- plaining the matter. In like manner, as to the Decrees and Providence of God ^ fome think that all arifes from the An- tecedent and rixed A6ts of God ; whereas others believe that a foreiight of all future Events is to be confidered as Antece- dent to thofe Ads :Upon thefe two Suppofions, there feem to be very different Ideas formed of the Voiver^WifdomyJuliice Good- neff^ and Tr^Aof God, and yet all who confcfs a Providence, who adore it, fubrriit to it, and depend upon it, are of the fame Religi' n j for in thefe contiUs Religion with Relation to Providence. Religion being the Senfe that we have of God and Divine Matters, by whi<.h our minds go towards him, ia Ads conform to it. Therefore all thofe who do worthily rc-v ceive the Sacrament , or fincerely acknowledge Providence, have the fame Religion upon theie Heads , how different foe- ver their Explanations of them may be. So as to this great Point, all thofe who ^yor(hip God as 0«e, and who do alfo worfliip the Son^dnd the Hv/y 6 ^'di of Scripture cannot give us fuch an afTurance con- cerning pretended Myllcries. But all that I aimed at in this ^""/P- J9» part iji my Dilcourle was, that if any fuch things (hould hap- pen to be revealed to us in the Scriptures, that then wt (hould be bound to believe riiem ^ notwuhftandrng all Objedioi s to the contrary : as we believe the Objcds of Senfe and Reafon, the' we cannot anfvver all thofe Difficulties that arife about them i for if we are once fure that fuch Bo( ks are come from God, and that they are faithfuliv handed down to us; then, unlefs we will fubmit to an infallible Tribunal, we muft truit our own Reafons with the hnding out of the tiue and plain meaning of them ; When that is tound our, we are as much bound to believe it, as we can be to believe any of the Ob- \t6ts of Senfe : lince this is laid down for a truth, contcfied by none, that God is theGo^ of Truths and cannot Ik, There lies no Exception againrt any parr of this Difcouife ; fnce it runs all upon the Suppofition, that the thing is clearly reveal- ed in the Scripture ; and that yet there lie as unanfwerable Difficulties againl} it, as againil ihcfe Truths which cur Senfes or Realbns do atteit to us. The cxcurlion made by him to excufe Tranfubftantiation, ,- is not fo much meant in favour of it, as in oppolition to thefe 2a. ' (pretended ) Mylieries ; but indeed it is fo little to the pur- pofe, that It feems tome not to deferve to be examined. My P. J4. words are not iai-'hfully reported by him 5 for whereas 1 had faid, Thit we had the fttUeli "oidence of fenfe again(i it, in an ob- jeliof jenfe\ he ha.- left out/«l/e/f, and then diverts himfelf by (hLvving hosv the fcvidenccot *I)?«/e may be miftaken ; as in an Ojr that appears crooked in Water, with other Inihnces cf the like force , whereas all this had failed, if he had confider- cd the Importance of the word fiillf(i, that i^, an Evidence gi- ven with all the Exa<^ners, and atter all the Corredions that Senfe c?n lay be re us, Sefe it felt h«s led us into a whole Theory of Reftadtions, accjiding to the Median through which 88 Y?;e !Bifhop of ^arum'i Letter which we fee an Objed pafs ; What he fays about Accidents, is too flight to be remarked ; We fee the fame Objeds in the fame manner after their pretended Tranfubnantialion, that wc faw betore it ; therefore either our Senfes are not irjfalUble in their ftridelt application to their proper Objects, or they are as true after Tranfubftantiation as they were before it. The Infe- rence after all that he would draw from what he fays upon this Head, fhall be eafily acknowledged by me 5 That where the Evidence of Reafun is as plain and full againft an Objedl of Seafon, as the Evidence of Senfe is here concerning an Objed: (/i Ssnfe, that there we have very good ground to reje6J: it. If it were pretended that God were both One and Three in the fame refpedt, the Evidence of Reafon againil: this is fo clear, that I acknowledge that no Authority whatfoever ought to in- ' ^'* dace us to believe it : , But if it is revealed that the fame Being is both Owe and three., then fincethe Notion of Vnity is capable of fuch difference, fince alfo that of diver fity is of the fame largenefs, and iince the fame Being may be One in onerefpe6f, and More in another ^ this oppofition between fuch Vnity and , fuchTrif2?<)i, is no proper Object of Rm/^/;, nor can Ke<»/(?« give --^^ us a full Evidence, much lefs thefuJIefi againft it. I think there remains nothing to be confidered on this Head, except the Scorn with which he treats me ; which 1 thank God I can very eafily bear, and will make no returns. He might after all, treat thofe Matters for which fo many Perfons of Worth and Learning have fo particular a Veneration, with more Modefty. It feems he thought a Boldnefs of ExpreiRon, and a Scorn of his Adverfaries, would have fome effed on ordinary Readers 5 which very probably it may have ; but better Judges will put another Conftrudion upon it. 1 wifli him a better Temper, and fo I leave him, to come to the main Argument on which I had chiefly relied. I will only fay this for an Introdudion to it. That the beft Rule of Criticifm is to conflder the whole Thread, Strain, and Phrafeology of a Book, and not to defcant upon the vari- ousSignifications that theWords themfelves taken feverally may be capable of. The not confidering this aright, feems to have given the occaiion to all the odd Comments of the Socinians, The to the Reverend DoHor Williams. 8^ The Name Jehovah was the peculiar defignition that tvas appropriated to (3od in the Old Difpenfation. This the Seventy have rendred quite through their whole Tranflation, iLveiQ- ; and through the whole New TeiUment this is thedefignation that is given to Clirift, fometimes with, and fometimes without the Article, and other emphatical Words: From which, fincc the greateft part of the New Teflament was particularly and in the firft place addrefTed to the Jtw/, great numbers of whom Read the Old Teftament at that time moft commonly in Greek ; this conformity of Stile feems very plainly to demonlhare, that Chrift was the true Jehovah j or at leaft that the true Jehovah c«w/. />.ij, dwelt in him. In Anlwer to this, he denies that Jehovah was ^4' the peculiar defignation of God and fets up an Argutnent for this, of which 1 had made no ure,and then he pretends to Anfwer it j for after he has quarrelled with our Tranflation of a Verfe In the Pfalm, and has laid afide fome other Tranflations of thofe Words, he at lads fettles on this as the true one, Thou whofe Pf. 83. 18. name is Jehovah^ art alone the moii high over all the earth. 1 will at prefent accept of this Tranflation ; for it yeilds all that I pre- tend to, That Jehovah was the known Name of God in that difpenfation, I will not enter into the Rabinical Niceties con- cerning it, as whether it ligniiied the EflTence or Eternity of God, or whether it imported only God's being in Covenant with them, and the truth and (lability of his Promifes : What- foevcr might be the proper fignihcation of the word Jehovah , it was at tirft delivered to Mofes in fuch a manner, that there was no need to go to any of the Pfalms to find out that it was the Name by which God made himfelf particularly known to the Ex.3./rs with the words that accompany it, on which I had chiefly built ; of hi x giving peace in that place, and of his fljaking the Heavens^ and the earthy and all Nations : To that he has not ' thought tit to make any fort of Anfwer ; and yet either thefe are only pompous words that fignify nothing, or they tnuftfig- rify fome what beyond any thing that can be afcribed to what Herod did. That which is the only key by which we can be led into the fenfe of thofe words, I meanthe words of Exodus and Kings, does in no fort belong to it : Whereas the Prophecy was literally accompli(h?d by Chrift's coming into the Mountain of the Houfe, if the Sheck^nah lodged in him in a more emi- nent manner than it had done in Solomon's Temple. So, I think, no partof this Argument isftiaken. To this I (hall add another remark, which in fome fort be- longs to this matter, though in his Book it rtands at fome di- ftancefrom that which I am now upon. He infults much upon the advantage he thinks he has, becaufein a place of the Romans ^ it is inpur Bibles, God blejfed for ever y whereas he thinks God !ew»/^.29. is not a part of the Text. I will not at prefent enter upon the difcuffion of that, but (hall only obferve, that the force of the Argument from that place, lies chiefly upon the v/oxd, hleffed forever. After the Jetvs began to think that the Name J^kvah was fo Sacred, that it was not to be read, inlkad of it they ufed this Circumlocution, the H4y^ and the Blejfed^ fometimes both together, fometimes the one, and fometimes the other. ai; of Chrift is as fully fet forth in the Ntw Teftamenr, as anyone part of tlieChri- liian Religion whaffoevcr. Invocation mult imjort both Omnifcience , and Omniprefcnce >, as well as Omnipotency. We call on him as fuppoling that he is near us, that he hears us , and both will and can help us. Now this Writer had bed confider how all this can be offered to a meer Creature. The Honour or Woriljip that we give to the Father, is the acknowledging his Infinite Perfedtions, toge- ther with the tender of our Homage to , him. This cannot be offered to a Creature, without manifell: Impiety: Kor can any fuch Worlhip become ever the matter of a Divine Precept; becaufe there is an eflential Incongruity be- tween thefe h&.s and a created ,Objedls and by confe- . quence , there is an eflential Immorality in them. Now that all Idolatry fhould be fo feverely forbid in the New Tcrtament, and yet fo grofly pradtifed in it, tnufi be indeed a very firong Argiiment againft the whole Chrifrian Re- ligion, if Chrifl was a meer Creature, which cannot be cxcu-fed by any foftenings whatfoevcr. But Gnce this is a Confideratlon fo much infiHed upon, it may be proper to open it with its utmoh force,: Vhen the New Teflament was writ, there were i^riUr. forts of men that could only be confidercd by the Pen* men of it 5 i/l. Tne Jiws ^ to whom it was to be offered in the firft place. They were lirongly po/TcfTed againfi all the . appearances of Idolatry ; and had never Prayed to M;fef nor Elijih^ the Chief of their Prophets. 2dly, The GeniiUs^ they were abandoned to all the fcveral forts of Idolatry, from all which they were to be reclaimed, and to be taught to Serve and Worlhip none but the Living God. ^dly. The falfe Chriftiaos , that began early to corrnpt Chriilianity, p/5 The ^t[l70p of Sarum'5 Letter ChrifiiaiVity , and to fuit it wfth Judalfm and Paganlfm : They fet thsmfelves againft the Apoftles, and ftudied to raife their own Credit, by derogating from theirs. The ^th. were the true Chrlfttans , who were generally weak and ignorant, who needed Milk , and were not capable of hard or fublime things. With reijped to all thefe, we ought to believe that fuch a Point, as at firft view might offend the Jem, and harden the Gentiles in their Idola- try i as might give advantage to falfe Chiiftians, and be a Gambling- block to the true ones , was to be plainly and fimply delivered \ not in pompous cxpreiTions ^ or figures that might feem to import more than was meant by themi but in meafured and fevere words. The nature cf man carries him too eafily to Idolatry ; (^o that this inclination was to be reiifted and not complied with; and yet St. John begins his Gofpel with a folemn fet of Phrafes, that are as it were the Frontifpiece and Introduction to it : which if the Expofition of thefe men is to be admitted , muft be only a lofty faying of ordinary matter in very high- 6own Exprellions. Such likewife muft be the Second Chap* ter to the Fbilip^ianf , with a great deal more of the fame drain. If it was meant by all this to worQiip Chrift as the true Jehovah, that is, as having the Eternal Werd^ and the fulnefs of the Godhead dtvelling in him , then the matter was properly expreffed , and fuitably to the Dodrine and Pradice of the Old ieftament, and was delivered in a Phrafiology agree- ing with it. But if a new Dodrine was introduced concerning a man that was made a God , that was fo called , and was to be worlhipped as fuch, here was fuch a Humbling- block laid in mens way, and fo little care taken either to reftrain thofc Exceflfes into which Humane Nature is apt to run , or to explain the Scruples and Difficulties that muft naturally aiife upon it \ that it feems to be fcarce conceivable how any can entertain this, and yet retain any value for that Religion 5 I. muft confefs I cannct > and it is fo natural for a man to judge of others by himfelf, that I do not think others do it, or indeed can do it. I men- to. the (o well as he did the Creeh^^ (o that he confidering the Creek^ Phrafeology more than that which had arifen from the Behrew and Siriacky might often miftake. Therefore the diverfities among; Criticks concernmg particular places , does not weaken the force of thofe Inferences that are drawn from them; much lefs the Evidence that aiifes out of the whole, when laid all together. a: J , ^c thinks r rvouid have done a Generous thing if I had icQttainted the Enghftl Reader vrith the douhtfuhefs af that pajfage in St. John'/ Epijilei df the 'three that bear vPttaefs m heavtn, I cannot oblige any man to read all that I have writ, and fo do not charge him for not doing it: I ha"ve done that more fully than any that I yet know of, jitid that in a Book , which of all thofe that I have yet writ was the moft uaiverfally read by the moil different forts of People : Nor has my dobg that fo copioufly , and in a Book of fuch a nature , leaped (bme kvtte, but unjuft cenfures. I tviU not lye for God^ nor fupprefs a truth that may become an honeft man to own. Thus I have gone over all that feemed material, and tb^ need explanation, on the firft Head concerning the CHvinity of the Son of God. I muft only explain one thing, with which he concludes thofe his Confideratiohs. I had lllu* Orated this matter by the indvoeHing of the Cloud of Glory , Ow/.jp^3i. and had explained from that, the fulnefs of the Godheads dwelling bodily in Chriji: From thence he fancies this to be Ne^orim*s Dod^rine, and that it is alfo theirs, who own 7kat God {by his Spirit or Energy} teas in the Lord Chrifi m a very efpecial and powerftil manner : and fo he pretends that they fitbmU to my VoUrine. I can aflure him, that both the fpirit with which he writes, and the VoUri/jet wtuch he efpoufes, are foch, that I reckon this the faeaviet^ of r h the ^&vsrend DoHor Williams.' 99* of all the Imputations that he has laid on roe -, but it is M juft and true as the reft are. We do not certainly knotv what Nefimm\ Do(ftrine was , if it was no more than that he did not allow the term of the Mother of God to be due to the Blcfled Virgin^ as fome pretend i and that all that was further charged on him , was only a confeqaence drawn from that 5 this was no heinous thing-. But whatever Nejhriuf himfelf might be, che Opinion charged on him , and- Condemned by the Church , was. That the e$ernal word in Chrift, was only of the nature of an affixing Power, like the Spirit of Prophecy in the Pro- phets-, but that It was not fo united to him, as to make One Perfon with his Hdtn^n Nature, In this fenic 1 have &Ily condemned chat Dodrine; for as the Soul is united to the Body, and dwells in it, in another manner than a man dwells in a Houfe \ and as the Soul ad^uates the Body, in another manner than a man a6hiatcs fuch Tools as he works by ^ fo the Union of the Human and Divine Nature in Chrift is reprefented in Scripture as the com- pounding one Verfon^ as much as in other men the Union of Soul and Body makes one Man. II he fubmHt to this Vo^irine , I (hall be glad of it } for then he fubmits to a DoUrinz which , I thhik , is very ex- prcfly Revealed in Scripture: But for any hdwe^ingy like that of the Spirk of Prophecy , even in the eminenteft degrees imaginable , the Epiftle to the Hehretrt does fo ^^ a plainly carry this to much higher , to a thing of quite ^ ^^ ^\ another nature ; and dates fuch an oppoiuion between Chrift and all Prophets, even Mofes himfelf, like that of a Son and a Servant^ that t think the reading that with due attention) will foon fatisfy a man , that this Indwehn^ is a vital one, like that of the SotHt dwelling in the Bot an aififting one, like Infpiration , or the gift oi Tongues, or of Miracles. When Chrift Commanded all to be Baptized in ihe nam ^g j^^ tf tbe Father , Sm , and Hdy Ghofi \ he plainly mentioned i^. thret : If therefore I , to adhere to Scripture ternvs , had avoided the frequent ufe of any other word but the Tfyret^ 1 thought how much focvci this might oftend others, Cf«/.^.iy, O 2 who ]t. leo 7ht 3'tjhop of Sztum's Letter who might apprehend that 1 fcemed to avoid tnentloning of Tr «rt>, or Ferfons (which yet I fhewed flowed from no diilike of thofe mrds, but merely that I might ftick more txaCily to ScripHn- terms) yet I had no reafon to think that mtn of the other fide would have found fuch fault with this. Falher, Son, and Holy Gboji , are the three o^ whom I Difcoutfe ; fo inftcad of repeating thefc words at eveiy time, 1 (hortned it by faying the Bleffed Three : Nov«r it is a drain particular to this Writei to enlarge on this. I go now to the fecotid Head, concerning the Death of Chrif\ : Here this Writer affirms that , which if it flows from Ignorance, as in Charity to him 1 hope it does, then certainly he ought not to have Writ concerning a matter, to the Hii^ory of which he was fo great a aranger. He fays, that the Dod^rine which I propofe concerning the Propitiation by the Death of Chrift , as an Expiatory Sa- r crifice for the Sins of the World , has been the very Doariae ' af the Socinians, tvhich they have owned from the beginning in aU their Bookt. To feem to juftify this, he fets down fome. of my words , leaving out, with his ufual candour , thofc that were moft Critical y for whereas I had faid , That Cbriji bad fuffered on our aecomt and in our jiead ; he leaves out thefc laft words, ««5 nor does he mention that with which 1 concluded the Perbd ; y^ad He ( God ) mO have MS in all our frajers far Pardon, or other Favours^ claim them through that Death , and owe them to it. Such an unfaithful recital of my words, gives no advantageous Cbara^er of the reft. It is indeed a ftrange degree of amirance to make us believe , that the Sociniant have at all times owned this Dodrine s fincc not only all their firft Writers denied it, and die Kaeovian Caiecbifm is exprefs to the contrary ; but after to the %0^erend Doiflfor Williams. loi after Grotius had managed fhe Controverfy merely in or- der to the affertlng the Expiatory Vcrruc of (he Sacri- fice of Chrlft's Death , without infifting on the Metaphyfi- cal Notions which had been brought into it ; yet CrelliMf not fatjsfied with thi<;, endeavoured to Anfwer that whole Book, and adhered tiiW to the firft Notions of Sodnus. I do not deny, but that lince that time fome of their Followers have come off ffom them, and have acknojylcdged the Expiatory VerfUc of that Saaifice: Therefore though 4 have no mind to encreafe the number of Controverlre^; and am very glad when any do forfake their Errors, efpe- cially fuch heinous ones ^ yet it is a peculiar ihrain of confidence to fay, That this vpas their Vo^rim from the be- ginning. As for the Niceties with which the Primitive Church j^ ^^j ^^ was not acquainted , and which were not (Parted before Deusho- Anfelmi time in the end of the XI«I>. Century , concern- mo. ing the Antecedent neceflity of a Satisfadion> and the Subtleties that the Schoolmen did afterwards devife con- cerning Equivalents ^ I do not think tl^y belong to this matter, as it Hands Revealed to us in the Scriptures, and therefore 1 did not infitl on them. It is no part of the Do^rine of our Church \ and Dr. Otrtram's Learned Per- formance on diis Subjed, has been fo univerfally applauded and acquiefced in, that I thought all men were fatisfied from thence , what is the Dodrine generally received among us. Our Articles are the only ftandard to judge of our Dodrine , as far as they go \ but they have deter* mined nothing in this matter , but reft in the general Notions of Expiation and of Reconciling us to God. I have now done with all that part of the late Book which falls to my (hare i and have made thofe Explana- tions and ReHedions upon it, that feemed neceffaiy. I have faid this once for all , and (hall no more return to it, upon any new provocation whatfoever: Such crude and bold Attempts, arc oftener to be negleded than Anfwered, Thefe men are at beft the Inftruments of the Deifts, who delign by their means to weaken the Credit of the Chri- Aian loi the fBiJhop of Sarum^ Umy fed (lUa Reltgion^ and of thofe Books that arc the ftandards of it. I hope they do not know whofc work they arc doing, nof what «nds they are fcrving. I pray God give them a better dircerning , and more ferious Tempets. I wifli you may be happily fuccefsful in your- Attempts to undeceive th?m , as well as in all your other Labours , in which Ypu lay out your Time and Studies fo worthily fo« the Service of the Church ; for which gteat is your reward m heavtn. I pray God to Bkfs and profpec you in them t and am with a very particular cftecm. 'Reverend S/r^ Tour Affe^iomte Brother, JTeJhnkfer, 4»d mofi humble ServAnt^ Gf« Sakum» T H B THE CONTENT?. OF the jiuthtrity of Sf, Johns Writing. Pag. 3 ^0 Anfmtr to tie OijtBuns of our Author's Aocknt Unitarians, ogainH the yiutho- rity tf it. John'/ Writings, psvticitlarfy the Go^tl «nd the Rtvelatim. 6 XXf the Haitu Unitacuns. 1 3 C4 Ebion aid Cerinthus. 13,18 0/ the Alogi i* Epiphanius. J4 0/ the Ouapen t>j 5r. JolmV writiTig hit of SocinusV Expojttien jf the Begi7$nmg of ^t^Jcha'jGa^l. ai Jke UnriJifunahUwfs jmd NmifUj ^^at Eeepo/itin. 25 The Archbifbop*s Expojttion of Hcbr, i. I. snd CoL I. i6, vinittcaied. 3) 0/ the Prt-exifieace of our Saviour. 35^ of ChriJTs coming dorponfiom Heaven ; and the modern Socinian Expojition of Chrifi's ■frrfennl Afcent int« Heaven before his Miniftrj. ibid. jS Vindication of kit Grace'; Expo/ttitn of John 17 5. John 8. 58, Revel. 1. 8. tfs^John I.I. 47 0/ the Di^uUiis and jShfurdities in the Socinian Hypai hefts. fS 0/ the Incamatton of our Saviottr. 5 7 of the ylrgumtnt for the Ijuarnation, taken from the Perfonal Union of Soul and Be^. ibid. fc-^i^.j; nr ,h;H V.lni -tr noii-W t'ton, and of thefulnefs oftme for it. 60 Aymdicatien cf the Bijhop of WorcefterV Sermon. 6j of ThtTtgs Jvcomprehenfikle* 64. of the Author' i Se^contradiSlion. ibid. of GocCs Eternity, and htt heing of Him- fi]£, andpofpffing aS atonce. 68 Several Queries about God s pojfejfhtg aU at once, anfwerd. 70 Socinian Myfieries. 7 J The Bifliop of Sar«»s Letter to J. PT. of the Socinian way of managing Centra- verjies. 8 1 0/ thif .Author's way of Calumniating. 8 j Hit Charge of the Corruptions tn the Sacred Text eonfiderd. 84, 0/ the different Opinions concerning the Trinity ; and that the TriniDrians may norait branding be faid to be of the fame Religion, 8 7 Tf>e Name Jehovak pecuharfy appropriated to God, and yet given to our Saviour. 89 of the Name Lord ; and *i V "*''i t'^"^ Books M' Books Utdy F rimed for Richard Chifwell. f Emoirs of the moft Reverend THOMAS CKAUMEk, ArchbiAop of C*»* _ J ttrbtiry. In Three Books. Colleaed chiefly from Records, Regifters, Authen« tick Letters, and other Original Manufcripts. By "John Strype, M. A. Fitl. 1694. Dr. John Couant*s Sermons. PubliOied by Dr. mUiamt. 1695. Bvo. •Of the Government of the Thoughts. ByGto.TulIy, Sub-dean of nr 4. The Second Edition. Svo. KJ94. .-/... t ^ ^ » . «.„ A Commentary on the Fiift Book of Mofet called Gme/tf. By Simon Lotd Bilhop of£/y. 4«o. 169^. .^..-,A« TheHiftory of the Troubles and Trial of the moit Reverend U^tLLIAH L A UD, Lord Archbifhop of Canurhury • wrote by himfelf during his Impri- fonment in the Taver. To which is prefixed, the Diary of his own Life faithfiilly and entirely published from the Original Copy j and fubjoyned a Supplement to the preceding Hiftory ; The Archbifhop' s Laji IVtli; His large Anfwer to the Lord Sm/s Speech concerning Utwgies ; His Annual Accounts of his Province delivered ta the King, and fome other things relating to the Hiftory. PubUflied by Henrji Wkarton, Chaplain to Archbifhop Sana-oft, and by his Grace's Command. Folio. Bilhop oiSarums Sermon at the Funeral of Archbifliops Tittetfon 1594. His Sermon preached before the King at St. 7 ami's Chappel on the i«th of February , itfpl being the firft Sund/^ in Lent, on t C«r. ^' ,1^ M *l*p?^ •*"«^^Jj*i] ♦. Lib 1 JH «i^.*j • **l