A vindication of the sermons of His Grace John Archbishop of Canterbury concerning the divinity and incarnation of our B. Saviour : and of the Lord Bishop of Worcester's sermon on the mysteries of the Christian faith, from the exceptions of a late book, entituled, Considerations on the explications of the doctrine of the Trinity : to which is annexed, a letter from the Lord Bishop of Sarum to the author of the said vindication, on the same subject.

SECT. I.

Of the Deity of our Saviour.

THE Author of the Considerations having taken a liberty of dispersing the mat∣ter before him without any just order, doth accordingly often repeat things of the same kind; making some ven∣tures upon a Point in one place, and taking it up again in another; so that his Reader is often rather amused than satisfied. Tho withal, he takes occa∣sion to quicken his Matter (which would otherwise have proved nauseous and heavy) with several part Remarks and Reflections. But being my design is not like

a Man of Mystery (as he scoffingly represents it) to darken the Cause, or to cast a mist before the Eyes of the Reader; I shall gently lead him by the hand, and endeavour to put what I have to say, into that order, that whatever force is in it, the Reader may soon discover; or what defects may be in it, he may be a∣ble to detect.

This Author allows His Grace to be open and ingenuous in de∣claring his Opinion of the Trinity; and is pleased to allow him 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 Con∣troversy.

Before I proceed to which, I shall briefly state the Point, and shew what are the distinct Opinions of the Orthodox, the Arians, and Socinians, concerning it; for into one of these, is the whole to be resolved.

The Orthodox hold, That Christ the Word, and only begot∣ten of the Father, was truly and really God from all Eternity; God by Participation of the Divine Nature and Happiness toge∣ther with the Father, and by way of Derivation from him, as Light from the Sun; and that he made all Creatures, and so could no more be a Creature, than it is possible for a Creature to make it self. Thus A. Bp. p. 23, 37, 38.

The Arians conceive, That sometime before the World was made, God generated the Son after an ineffable manner, to be his Instrument and Minister in making the World. And this Son is called God in Scripture, not in the most perfect Sense, but with respect to the Creatures whom he made. So our Au∣thor, p. 46. a

Socinus held, That the Son was not in Being till he was the Son of the Virgin; and that therefore he was a God, not in Nature, but by way of Office, Mission, or Representation, as Moses, and others, are called God in Scripture. So our Au∣thor, p. 48. b

Against these two last, his Grace directed his Discourse, and took them up in order; and in the first place founded his Ar∣gument upon the First Chapter of St. John's Gospel.

Here his Adversary labours with all his might to put by the force of those Arguments. Doth the Archbishop reason from the Context? If you will believe this Author, this Text is alledged impertinently by him for the Trinitarians, which it doth not favour, no,

not in the least. That his Grace can raise the Expressions no higher than Arianism, p. 46. That as for the Historical Occasion assigned by his Grace, there is no Historian (he is sure, no Ancient Historian) assigns it. And that many of the Ancients did believe that Cerinthus was the true Author of the Gospel imputed to St. John; and that the Ancient Unitarians did reject the Gospel, Epistles, and Revelation now attributed to him, p. 49, 50.

This is the Sum of what he has said; all of which will be com∣prehended under the following Heads.

1. I shall consider the Authority of St. John's Gospel, and other Writings ascribed to him.

2. I shall consider the Authority of those Vnitarians who, he saith, rejected those Writings.

3. If St. John proves to be the Author of the Gospel, I shall consider the occasion upon which he is said to have written that Book.

4. I shall defend the Orthodox Explication of it, given by the Archbishop.

1. I shall consider the Authority of those Writings, which are usually ascribed to St. John, viz. The Gospel, Three Epistles, and the Revelation.

It's much, that we should be put upon the proof of this at this time of day, and by one that professes himself to believe the Christian Religion; of which inconsistency, I think it's much more difficult to give an account, than of the Writings of that Apostle, called in question by his dear Friends, the Ancient Vni∣tarians.

It is certain, that there was not the least occasion given him from the Point in dispute to enter upon this matter, where both sides agreed, or would be thought to be agreed about the Au∣thority of the Book they reason from: And which he saith, is with great Colour alledged for the Arian Doctrine, p. 46. and that Socinus's Explication of it, would perfectly agree to the Lord Christ. But I must confess, he has given too great reason to suspect, that he is in this Point of the same mind with the Ancient Vni∣tarians; and would allow Cerinthus, or Simon Magus, or any of the like Rabble, to be Author of those Writings, rather than that Divine Apostle. But as he wisely observes, that those An∣cient

Vnitarians that had rejected them;

Yet, because they saw it begun to grow into Credit among the other Denominations of Christians, many of which had been seduced by the Platonick Philosophers that came over to Christianity; therefore they were careful to show them, that it was capable of a very allowable Sense; and that it doth not appear, that either St. John, or Cerinthus, intended to advance a Second God, p. 53. a

That is, in plain and honest English, they themselves did not at all believe those to be the Works of St. John; but because there was no going against the Stream, and that among the other Denominations of Christians these were universally received, they would then swim with it; and then whoever was the Author, whether St. John or Cerinthus, was no Trinitarian. And if they could have made this out to the satisfaction of the adverse Party, and there had been nothing wanting but their Approbation of the aforesaid Works to have made the Christians of other Denominations intirely theirs; then they that at first held, that Cerinthus, and not St. John, was the Author; and towards an Accommodation, came so far, as to say for convenience sake, St. John, or Cerin∣thus, to remove all rubs out of the way, and to have com∣pleated the design, would without doubt have intirely come over so far to them, whatever they themseves thought; and they would have consented that St. John, and not Cerinthus, was the Author. But alas! that was too hard a task, for St. John him∣self would not bend and comply, and could not be made a Vnitarian. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God, &c. was as stable as a Rock; and therefore if St. John would not be for them, they would not be for him. And then all the Vnitarians with one consent reject the Gospel, Epistles, and Revelation, and give the Honour from St. John to Cerinthus, who should be said to write them, to confirm this Heretick's Cabalastick and Platonick Notions about the〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Word, and his Jewish Dreams about the Millenary King∣dom, p. 50.

Now which part our Author will take to, whether that of the Ancient Vnitarians, Who, he saith, were Contemporaries to the First Fathers of the Church, and were Older than any of those Fathers whose Works are now extant (if we will believe him); whether, I say, he will take to them and reject these Books, or whether forsake his Friends, and side with those Fathers whose Works are

now extant, and the rest of the Catholick Church in receiving them, I am not able positively to determine; for he holds us in suspence and saith, He will affirm nothing in the matter, but should be glad to see a good Answer to the Exceptions against these Books, which we receive as St. John's, that were made by the Ancient Unitarians.

I do not think my self obliged to enter into the merits of that cause, unless he will yield those Books of St. John to be for the Trinitarians, and therefore calls their Authority in question: But when he professes St. John not to favour, no not in the least, the Trinitarian Doctrine, and to be wholly Socinian, What need is there to prolong the time and postpone the Consideration of the main Cause, and that I must be put upon the Proof of this, and hew my way through all those formidable Arguments of the Unitarians against St. John's Writings, before I must be ad∣mitted to Argue the Point in Debate? Which is, as if when his Grace had said, That the first Chapter of Genesis might as well be Interpreted of a new Moral Creation, as the first Chapter of St. John; before he would allow me to proceed to the Proof of this, he should require me to shew that Moses wrote the Book of Genesis, and oblige me to Answer all the Arguments of Aben∣ezra against it.

But how impertinent soever this may be, yet to shew my self a fair Adversary, I will return him his Complement (since I have time for it) that he shall not (as he saith to his Grace) put that question, which I will not satisfy, if I can, and reasonably may.

Let us then See (for he has undertaken to shew us them) what were the Allegations of the Unitarians out of Eusebius, but especially out of St. Epiphanius, who hath Written very largely of this matter (as he saith).

For these Arguments this Author refers us to Eusebius and Epiphanius, but as for Eusebius, he says nothing of these Argu∣ments our Author cites him for; and as for what are in Eusebius, they are not the Allegations of the Unitarians, but of some of the otherwise Orthodox against the Apocalypse, as I shall shew.

As for Epiphanius, our Author saith, He hath written very largely of this matter: but if he has, it had become him to have ob∣serv'd that it was because of the Answer he has given to the Arguments which the Alogi (in our Author's English, the Unita∣rians)

alledged against St. John's Writings, in which that Hi∣storian is very particular; and not to propose them as if they had stood the shock of several Ages, and to this day wanted a Reply; for after this manner he introduces them, I should be glad to see a good Answer to the Exceptions of the Unitarians, against the Books which we receive as St. John's. But perhaps in his esteem what Epiphanius hath said, is not a good Answer; and as impertinent and ridiculous as that he makes for him in the case of Thyatira, of which more anon.

It's time now to examine them.

Object. 1. The Unitarians said, That it was the current Opi∣nion and general Tradition, that Cerinthus, and not St. John, was Author of the Gospel, Epistles, and Revelation, that go un∣der St. John's name: for as to the Revelation, it was scarce doubted by any to be the Work of Cerinthus; and as such, was wrote against by divers Learned men of the Catholick Persua∣sion, as 'tis now called.

A. The Answer Epiphanius gives to that Clause about Cerinthus, is,

How could Cerinthus be the Author of that which was direct∣ly opposite to him: for Cerinthus would have Christ to be a meer and late-born man, whereas St. John saith, the Word always was, and came from Heaven, and was made flesh.

Now I conceive this Answer of Epiphanius to be good, unless they would have Cerin∣thus to contradict himself.

As to the other Clauses of our Author's Objections, (for they are not in Epiphanius) nothing is more false, than that it was the current Opinion and general Tradition that Cerinthus was the Au∣thor of all those Writings; and that the Revelation was scarce doubted by any to be his, and was wrote against, as such by di∣vers of the Catholick Persuasion: For,

1. There were some Books of St. John, of which there never was any question in the Christian Church, which Eusebius calls 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.1 such is his Gospel, which Irenaus, and Euse∣bius from him, say he published, while at Ephesus, at the In∣stance of the Asian Bishops,* 1.2 and as such is often quoted by the Fa∣thers. This Sandius,* 1.3 a late Author of the Unitarians acknowledges, who saith, The Gospel was always accounted Canonical. Such again is the first Epistle of St. John,* 1.4 which, saith Eusebius, is ad∣mitted by the present as it was by the ancient Christians with∣out dispute. So St. Jerom; upon which Grotius saith, That it was never doubted to be St. John's. So Sandius again.

2. Those Books that were not so generally receiv'd as St. John's, were yet for the most part receiv'd as Canonical. Such were the 2d. and 3d. Epistles; of which some would have another John, call'd John the Presbyter, to be the Author, as St. Jerom saith, and Grotius from him; but for the most part it was believed to be St. John the Evangelist* 1.5: Against which (it seems) the Ancient Unitarians had nothing particularly to object; for else we should have learn'd it from our Author.

Of this sort is the Apocalypse; of which, saith our Author, it was scarce doubted by any to be the Work of Cerinthus. Eusebius indeed saith, Some do question it: But who and how many were they on the other side that did not doubt of either its Autho∣rity or Author, even such as Justin Martyr, Irenaus, Tertullian, &c. † 1.6 some of which interpreted it, (as St. Jerom saith) and say that St. John wrote it when in Patmos. But I shall refer our Author for the rest to Grotius and Sandius; the latter of which charges them with Blasphemy that would attribute it to Cerinthus.

Lastly, saith our Author, The Revelation was as the Work of Cerinthus, wrote against by divers Learned men of the Catholick Persuasion.

A. Dionysius Alexandrinus was of the number of those that questioned whether St. John the Evangelist were the Author; and for this indeed he offers several Reasons, but of so little force, that if our Author hath seen them, as he has not so he could not have the confidence to propose 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 some others of the Catholick Persuasion, that Dionysius spoke of in the same Book, (as Eusebius Eccles. Hist. lib. 5. cap. 24. relates) that would have the Apocalypse wrote by Cerinthus; but they were few, and such as were trou∣bled with a sort of Millenaries, Followers of Nepos an Egyptian Bishop, (of Repute for his Learning, Faith, and Knowledge of the Scripture) who for their Opinion quoted the Apocalypse. And it seems, as the Ancient Unitarians rejected St. John's Wri∣tings, because they favour'd the Divinity of our Saviour; so those (otherwise Orthodox) would, it's likely, have rejected

the Apocalypse, because it favoured (as they thought) the Cause of the Millennium.

Upon the whole it appears, That it was the current Opini∣on and general Tradition, that St. John, and not Cerinthus, was the Author of the Works attributed to that Evangelist.

Object. 2. They objected, he saith, 'That this Gospel is wholly made use of by the Cerinthians and Valeminians, the two chief Sects of the Gnosticks, and for this he quotes Irenaeus, as well as Epiphanins.

A. What is this brought to prove? Will it prove Cerinthus to be the Author of that Gospel? Then it may as well prove Valentinus to be the Author of it, as Cerinthus, since the Valenti∣nians wholly made use of it, as well as the Cerinthians.

Or will it prove that the Gospel is a Valentinian, a Cerin∣thian, or Gnostick Gospel? Then so would the other Scriptures be such as the Sects were that quoted them, that corrupted and wrested them, to serve their purpose. And thus Irenaeus tells us the Gnosticks did, as he gives Instances enough, Haer. l. 1. c. 15, 16, 17. Nay, Cerinthus himself owned the Gospel of St. Mat∣thew, at least part of it; will it therefore follow that the Do∣ctrine of Cerinthus was favoured in that Gospel,* 1.7 or might be proved from it?

But his Grace saith, This Gospel was wrote against Cerinthus; and then, saith our Author, how came the Cerinthians to use it?

A. They used it as the other Hereticks used that and other Scriptures. And Irenaeus applies this to another purpose; for, saith he, By this means they give Testimony to us.

And this they might so much the rather do, as the Evange∣list makes use of several Terms of theirs (as his Grace and Grotius have shewed) such as Life, Light, Fulness, which the Followers of Cerinthus (who were willing to catch at any thing, as appears from Irenaeus) finding there, would chal∣lenge for theirs; and this our Author himself intimates, when he thus expounds Irenaeus, That they, the Gnosticks, greedily used this Gospel as a Proof of their Eons.

Object. 3: 'The other Three Evangelists suppose all along that our Saviour Preached but one year, and therefore they reckon but one Passover; but (the pretended) St. John counts Three years, and Three Passovers; Which, saith our Author,' seems to me an unaccountable contradiction; and yet it is granted on all bands, some finding a 4th year and Passover.

Answ. It is an unaccountable Contradiction indeed, if the other Three Evangelists had said, that our Saviour Preached but one Year, and that there was but one Passover, when St. John saith there were three Passovers, and consequently three years, or thereabouts. But the question is, whether the three Evangelists gave any such account; I am certain they do not. And if one will but consider the occurrences in the time of our Saviour's Preaching, as it's impossible (morally speaking) it should all be done in one years time; so he that will but consider the way of computation, as Epiphanius hath done Haer. 51.22. will see that what St. John saith must needs be true.

But what then will become of the other Evangelists? Must they be excluded out of the number of the Canonical? No surely. But we are to consider when each Evangelist begins, and what he takes in hand to pursue, of which Epiphanius gives a very good account.* 1.8

And if we take this course, we shall find the latter Evangelists often to supply the Omissions of the preceding.* 1.9 And so St. John, who lived the longest, and wrote last of them, doth in the Case before us, and distributes the time of our Saviour's Ministry into Annals, or Passovers, after the Jewish way of Computation, beginning his Account from our Saviour's Baptism, and connect∣ing it to John the Baptist's Imprisonment (where the other Evan∣gelists begin) by which means the History is made compleat, and the Evangelists are found to agree, as Eusebius, and St. Jerom ob∣serve. The Omission of which, by the other Evangelists, makes it no more a Contradiction, than when St. Matthew begins the Genealogy of our Saviour with Abraham, St. Luke carries it to Adam, and St. John makes him to exist before the World. Omis∣sions are no Contradictions, and such as these no unaccountable Omissions. And as for that single Passeover, the other three speak of, it was not, as that was a Chronological Character of Time, circumscribing the whole space of our Saviour's Ministry; but a remarkable Point, denoting the special Season he suffer'd in, with

relation to the great Type under the Law, and for which he is sometime called our Passover. This, I say, no more describes the compleat Time of his Ministry, than it will follow that because Pontius Pilate was then said to be Governor of Judea, that he was Governor but one Year only.

Object. 4. 'The other Evangelists agree, that immediately after his Baptism our Lord was led into the Wilderness to be tempt∣ed Forty days. But Cerinthus, who knew not the Series or Order of our Saviour's Life and Miracles, says in the Gospel, which he has, say they, [viz. the Ancient Unitarians] forged for St. John, that the next day after his Baptism, our Saviour spake with Andrew and Peter, and the day after went to Galilee, and on the third was at a Wedding in Cana, and after this de∣parted with his Mother and Brethren to Capernaum, where he abode some time.

A. Our Author saith, The next day after our Saviour's Baptism, he spake with Andrew, &c.

I answer, 1. There is no mention at all of our Saviour's Baptism in that Chapter, but the History of that being particularly rela∣lated by the other Evangelists, St. John supposes it, and refers to it, V. 15. John bare witness — This is he of whom I spake, that is, formerly; and when that was, St. Matthew 3.11. shews, which was just before his Baptism.

2. Accordingly, all the way there is an observable difference of Phrase between St. John and the other Evangelists. Matthew saith, He it is that cometh after me, that is, he that is to come. St. John saith, Ver. 26. There standeth one among you, he it is that coming after me, [as I have said.] So ver. 29 John seeth Jesus coming; — he spake of him, as one then known to himself, but that was not till his Baptism, ver. 33. So again, ver. 30. This is be, of whom I said, [formerly] Ver. 32, 34. John bare record, saying, I saw the spirit, — and it abode upon him. The Phrases, said, saw, bare record, abode, do shew that it was a certain time past, which he refers to. From whence it appears, (1.) That the Phrase, the next day, has no reference to our Saviour's Baptism (for that St. John is not relating) but to the Discourse then in hand; as the same Phrase, Ver. 29. had.

(2.) That there was a distance of time between our Saviour's Baptism, and that time that John the Baptist had the Discourse

with the Pharisees at Bethabara, ver. 19, 24, 28. which was the day before he met Andrew, ver. 35.

3. It's not at all unreasonable to suppose, That our Saviour's Temptation in the Wilderness, &c. did fall in with that time; for after his Baptism he immediately went into the Wilderness, Mark 1.12. And John the Baptist may well be supposed to have spent 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 Evangelists, as well as our Saviour's Baptism.

But the Learned Reader may consult Epiphanius, Haer. 51.13, &c. and Petavius's Notes upon it. And I will refer our Author to Schlictingius's Note on John 1.26.

Object. 5. 'He has feigned an Epistle, as from St. John, to the Bishop and Church of Thyatira, &c. But it's certain and notori∣ous, say the Unitarians, that there was no Church at Thyatira, till a long time after St. John's Death. 'Tis a very ridiculous Answer made to this by Epiphanius, who being sensible (because he was of Asia) of the truth of this Objection, is forced to be con∣tent with this vain Elusion, that St. John writes Prophetically of this Church.

A. 1. 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 same Stile; and it may be as well said, there was no Church at Ephesus, as at Thyatira, if the way of writing is to be regarded.

2. It's not probable that there should 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 understand Epiphanius, he is far from granting it: All that he saith, is,

(1.)

Supposing it to be so* 1.10, what will follow? why, 'These very Persons are forced from the things which they object against it, by their own Confession, to assent to the truth; that St. John foretold things to come by Divine Inspiration, concerning the Corruption of that Church, and those false Prophetesses that should arise in it Ninety three Years after our Lord's Ascen∣sion.

(2.) He positively saith, There was a Church there in St. John's time; for saith he,

St. John foresaw that after the time of the

Apostles, and of St. John, the Church would fall from the truth into Error, even that of the Cataphryges, of which were the pretended Prophetesses, Priscilla, Maximilla, and Quin∣tilla.

So again,

He wrote by Prophecy to those Christians, that then were there in Thyatira, that a Woman, who would call her self a Prophetess, should arise among them.

So that our Author is as wide of the Sense of Epiphanius, as his Unitarians were of the Truth, that would so many years af∣ter affirm there was no Church at Thyatira in St. John's time. I suppose our Author took it up at the second hand; for I per∣ceive Pererius, and perhaps others, mistook Epiphanius.

It seems that the Church there had been either destroyed by Persecution, or corrupted by the Cataphryges, out of which Con∣dition it having recovered a Hundred and twelve years after, (as Epiphanius saith) the Alogi ignorantly concluded there never had been a Church there till that time; or however, made use of this pretence to countenance their impious Design of over∣throwing the Authority of that Book: A design that our Au∣thor hath shewed himself too great a well-wisher to, by so for∣mal a Repetition of those sorry, and so often baffled Objecti∣ons; and by adding what force he (under the name of the An∣cient Unitarians) could to support them. Which brings into my mind an unhappy passage in Serm. 2. of the Archbishop, con∣cerning the Doctrine of Socinus, and his uncoucht way of manag∣ing of it.

It was only to serve and support an Opinion which he had entertained before, and therefore was resolved 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 last have called in question the Divine Authority of St. John's Gospel, rather than have quitted his Opinion.

It was evidently so in the Case of the Alogi or Ancient Unita∣rians; and what doth our Author want of it, that thus rakes into the Dirt of that Generation, and would have them the best part of the Christian Church? But that remains to be con∣sider'd.

II. Who are the Ancient Unitarians, that our Author at all times speaks so venerably of, and that thus rejected the Books usually ascribed to St. John?

This name of the Unitarians and Ancient Unitarians, is a Title much made use of, of late; and it is a term of Latitude, that to those 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 of it with the Catholick Church, whether Arians, or Photinians and Socinians; though at the same time they disagree, as well among themselves, (as I shall shew) as with us, and particularly in the point in question, viz. the Authority of St. John's Gospel, &c. Our Author often speaks of the Ancient Unitarians; and if we would know how ancient they are, he tells us, they were Contemporaries to the first Fathers of the Church, and were older than any of those Fathers whose works are now extant, p. 50. that is, St. Clemens himself contemporary to St. Paul.

Now whom should we so soon fix upon for his Ancient Unita∣rians, as Cerinthus and Ebion, for they were Ancient, as Contempo∣raries with the First Fathers of the Church; and were both of them Unitarians, as they both held that our Saviour was a meer Man? But here our Author interposes, and because he confesses he has met with these two names in the Church History; and when he did, to be sure finds no passable Character of them; therefore he will not have Ebion a Person, nor Cerinthus a Unitarian; and for the proof of the latter, offers no Testimony (the way for proving matter of Fact) but an Argument of his own; For, saith he, if Cerinthus held the Unity of God, and denied the Divinity and Pre-existence of our Saviour (as his Grace and the Moderns suppose) neither it should seem, would the Unitarians have reckoned him a Heretick, nor have rejected the Books which they supposed to be his; namely, the Gospel, Epistles, and Revelation, now attributed to St. John. As if a Person might not be Orthodox in one Point, and Heretical in others; and the Unitarians might not reckon Cerinthus a Here∣tick (who held Jesus was not born of a Virgin, but was the real Son of Joseph and Mary, and that Christ descended upon Jesus after his Baptism, and leaving him again, returned to Heaven; and so it was Jesus, and not Christ that died; with more of these whimsical dreams) though he agreed with them in denying the Divinity and Pre-existence of our Saviour. The matter of Fact is beyond all contradiction, that Cerinthus was a Unitarian, as Church-History would have informed any smatterer in it, (as Irenaeus, Eusebius, Epiphanius, &c. abundantly testify) but it is his own Argument that is, in his Pharse, obscure and puzzling.

But he is not so willing to part with Ebion, the name I mean, and will have it given by some to the first Christians, because of their Poverty; and then because the Ebionites were Unitarians in one sense, therefore they must be Hereticks in none. But herein he is as unsuccessful as in his former attempt; for besides their agree∣ment with the Unitarians in denial of Christ's Divinity, they held the Observation of the Law of Moses necessary, were Cir∣cumcised, and rejected St. Paul as an Apostate, &c.

Both of these then must be Unitarians, and Ancient Unitari∣ans; but then comes a very obscure and puzzling part of his History; For whatever Cerinthus himself thought, yet our Author tells us, that the Gospel of St. John was wholly made use of by the Cerinthians, his Followers. And then though these were Unitarians, yet being not of the number of those that wholly rejected St. John's Writings, we are much at a loss to find out those of them that were Older than any of those Fathers whose Works are now extant. I doubt we must come a step lower, and from being Older than those Fa∣thers of the Church, whose Works are now extant, they will prove at the most Contemporaries with, if not after several of them, about the close of the 2d. Century, as is computed. Our Author himself points to them, and they were the Alogi. so termed by Epiphanius, because they denied Christ to be the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Word, and the Son of God; and would have him a meer man. But now though these are Unitarians, and the most like to the Socinians of all the Ancient Unitarians, if not the only ones that are so (as Sandius would have it, p. 146, 147, &c.) Though they agree with his Character again, that they rejected all the Works commonly ascribed to St. John; yet they seem to be the only Unitarians that did anciently agree in disowning the Authority of all those Books; and then it will follow, that the Unitarians were not more Ancient than those Fathers, whose Works are now extant; though he saith, it is certain and confess'd by them all, that the An∣cient Unitarians from the Apostolick times to the Nicene Council, or thereabouts, did reject them. So that I see no remedy, but if he will be positive in it, that he must be contented to let the Cerinthians as well as the Ebionites, pass for Unitarians, to make his Sect thus ancient as the Apostolick times: But how he will do to find out those that did thus professedly reject all those Writings of St. John

before them, and from the Apostolick times to them; and yet were older than such Fathers of the Church, as Clemens Romanus, Polycarp, Ignatius, &c. some of whose Works are now extant; I must leave to his Consideration.

Thus much shall suffice to have said about the Authority of St. John's Writings, and particularly of his Gospel. But there is another Point yet to be debated; which is,

III. To consider what was the occasion upon which St. John Wrote his Gospel. This is one of the first things his Grace doth take into Consideration; as the knowledge of this seem'd to him to be the only true key to the Interpretation of this Discourse of St. John and the neglect of which was one of the grounds of Soci∣nus's great and fatal mistake, as he saith.

How! Socinus mistake! rather let St. John's Gospel, and all his other Works, labour and sink under the Exceptions of the An∣cient Unitarians; and lye by the walls till the world can give a good Answer to them. Rather let St. John take up words by chance (as our Author saith, p. 49.) and use the words Life, Fulness, Only begotten, as they came in his way, with∣out any design, than the great Socinus should be blamed. St. John, indeed, may be said to use words by chance; but So∣ciinus, formed, and thought, and concluded, and understood; and according as he formed, and thought, and concluded, so it must be meant. He was the man that saw plainly, (as he words it again, p. 48.) And if his Grace, in Vindication of St. John, and in compliance with the Ancient Historians, will adventure to Inter∣pret him from the occasion of his Writing, he deserves to be treated with contempt. The Serene Republick owns none of these Titles, Bishop and Archbishop, &c. Thus scoffingly and boyishly doth he introduce this serious Argument.

O he! says his Grace, How strangely has this man [Socinus] mistook for want of the Light of Ancient History! thus he Interprets Scripture by Scri∣pture, and by Reason and Wit, not by the Fathers and the old Historians of the Chruches Party, &c.

I could find in my heart to Transcribe what his Grace has Wrote upon this case; his words are these:

It was the great and fatal mistake of Socinus, to go to Interpret Scripture merely by Criticising upon words, and searching into all the Senses that they are ca∣pable of, till he can find one, though never so forced and

foreign, that will save harmless the Opinion which he was resolved beforehand to maintain, even against the most natural and obvious Sense of the Text which he undertakes to inter∣pret. Just as if a man should interpret Ancient Statutes and Records, by mere critical Skill in words, without regard to the true occasion upon which they were made, and without any manner of knowledge and insight into the History of the Age in which they were written, p.. 18.

And that this was the way Socinus took, our Author's own ac∣count of it will manifest, 〈◊〉〈◊〉, where he chalks out the method his great Master observed, in interpreting that Evangelist, and that is, by laying down certain Propositions, which he resolved to accommodate all to; such was the Unity of God: and therefore, saith he, when the Word is called God, it Must be meant in a Sense of Office: And whereas it is said, all things were made by him; those things Must be the Spiritual World, &c. And then farewell Fa∣thers, and Historians, Occasions, and Scripture too, rather than the Reason and Wit of Socinus be called in question.

Well, but supposing that our Author is content to have the Historical Occasion of St. John's Writing inquired into; yet, as for that assign'd by his Grace, it was, he saith, below the Gravity of the Apostle to confute the Wild Gnosticks, &c. And if you will take his word for it, he adds,

I am of opinion, That there is no Historian (I am sure there is no Ancient Historian) who assigns that Historical Occasion of St. John's Writings, even the Gnosticks and their Eons, mentioned by his Grace. In short, he hath not very justly blamed Socinus, for not knowing an Historical Occasion, which is mentioned in no Historian, p. 49.

This is very positive, no Historian, no Ancient Historian, and mentioned in no Historian.

We have gained before (if it be worth the while to prove it) that Cerinthus and Ebion (supposing him for the present a Per∣son) did deny the Divinity of our Saviour, according as his Grace represented it.

The next thing is to shew, That these their Opinions was an occasion which St. John took for the writing his Gospel, in the Judgment of the Ancient Historians, and Fathers of the Church.

Here our Author interposes, and saith, the account given of this matter by the Ancient, is very different from this of his Grace.

For they say, according to our Author's antique Translation,

That the other Evangelists having committed to writing on∣ly the Gests of our Saviour, during one Years space: There∣fore the Apostle John, being thereto requested, declared in a Gospel according to him, the time that was passed over by the other Evangelists, and what was done by our Saviour therein* 1.11.

It is very true, That the one of these is different from the other; but tho they are different, they are not contradictory and inconsistent. For then, not only the Archbishop would contra∣dict himself, who elsewhere gives the same account, and tells us from Eusebius

That St John wrote his Gospel last, and that on purpose to supply the Omissions of the other Evangelists† 1.12;

but the Fathers also would contradict one another, and often themselves; who sometimes give the one, and sometimes the other, and sometimes both as the reasons of St. John's writing, (as I shall presently shew). By which way of arguing, Epipha∣nius, Eusebius, and St. Jerome, &c. will closh one with another; when the first of these saith, St. John wrote his Gospel* 1.13 by the impulse of the Holy Ghost; and the other says, it was at the instance of the Asian Bishops. But now, as these two may well be accommodated, and are consistent; so it is in the Ac∣count given by the Ancients of the occasion of St. John's wri∣ting the Gospel; therefore St. Jerom† 1.14 joyns them together, and after he had said, That St. John wrote it in Confutation of Ce∣rinthus, and other Hereticks; adds, there is also another Cause, and then falls in with Eusebius.

So Irenaeus expresly* 1.15 So Epiphanius.

And thus Sandius doth acknowledg, That against the Heresy of Cerinthus and Ebion,* 1.16, St. John (as we have it by Tradition) wrote his Gospel.

Thus far then we are safe, and have the suffrage of Antiqui∣ty on our side, that St. John wrote his Gospel against the He∣resies of Cerinthus and Ebion. And indeed, by our Author's reply to this part, we may guess, That when he met with these two Names in the Church-History, he met with nothing against it. For thus he goes on.

First, As to Ebion, concerning him, It is, saith he, doubted by the Criticks, whether there was any such Man: Nay, a little after, he is got above the Criticks, and positively affirms, That Ebion

never was. Now, supposing his Modern Opposers, and among them the Archbishop, for want of consulting the Indexes of Names in Church History, had mistaken; yet, how will that confute his Modern Opposers, who use to quote Irenaeus, Epiphanius, &c. for their Assertion, that St. John wrote against the Ebionites? For tho Ebion never was, yet the Ebionites were an early Sect, and as early as they make him.

But saith he, This Name was given to the first Christians, because of their Poverty, according to the signification of the word.

A. Then indeed St. John was in the wrong for writing against these first Christians, whom St. Paul refers to, as our Author would have us understand, 1 Cor. 1.26. or at least, all those Fa∣thers were mistaken that would have St. John write against the Heresy of the Ebionites, or that reckon that among the number of Heresies. For what Heresy is there in simple Poverty?

But if they that would have the name an Appellative, say it was not because of their Poverty, but because they thought, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, poorly and meanly of our Saviour, as they would have him the Son of Joseph and Mary, as some of them; or of Mary, as others; but all of them agreeing that he was a mere Man. So Eusebius. What if Ebion at last is found to be a Person? So it's affirmed by Tertullian, Praescript. c. 33, &c. Hie∣ron. in Isai. c. 1, & 3. Hilarius Epist. de Trin. l. 1. Origen in Matth. 5, &c.

So Epiphanius expresly,* 1.17 Ebionites were so called from Ebion; whose Followers, saith he, would be so called from their being poor like the Apostles: But, saith that Father, This is a Fiction of their own; For Ebion was a proper Name.

As for Cerinthus, all that he has to say, is, That the Gospel of St. John could not be wrote against Cerinthus, because Cerin∣thus was said to be Author of it. But this is to reason about matter of Fact. It's plain, the Ancients, to whom our Author appeals, did assert, That it was written against Cerinthus; and it's as plain, That Cerinthus held these Opinions, against which St. John is supposed by them to have written. To which he has nothing to reply, but that Cerinthus is said to be the Author of it; but that I have already consider'd before. Thus far then, I hope, 'tis pretty evident, That there are Historians and Ancient Historians, that do assign the same Historical Occasion of St. John's Writings, as is assigned by his Grace.

But it's likely he will reply, That these words of his, no Hi∣storian, and to be sure no Ancient Historian ever assigns that occasion men∣tioned by his Grace, are to be limited to the Gnosticks. What∣ever he may say, yet I doubt few Readers will suppose it; for he has so artificially mingled all these together, that what he affirms may be applied to all; and yet, it examined, he can restrain it to this or that particular. And therefore, that I may shew how little he is acquainted with this Argument, or how little he consults Truth and Candor in it, I shall consider it with respect to the Gnosticks.

He cannot deny, but that the Terms, Word, Light, Fulness, Only Begotten, are the Phraseology of the Gnosticks, or else he must never have read Irenaeus; which also are used by St. John. Now the question will be, Whether St. John hath used them by chance, as our Author imagines? Or that in Opposition to these Dreams, St. John shews all these Titles did truly belong to our Saviour, and to which there is a Perpetual Allusion, as his Grace affirms. I verily believe, That if a Gnostick had accidentally light upon that Chapter, as the Platonick Amelius is said to have done, he would no less have been convinced there was this Al∣lusion to their Hypothesis, than that Philosopher was that the Evangelist did Platonize. Hence it was, That the following Gnosticks would have confirmed their Conjugations and Eons from thence.* 1.18

But saith he, It was below the gravity of the Apostle to confute the wild Gnosticks, and their Chimerical Eons.

Why so? When this Sect so far prevailed, That during the Lives of the Apostles, it grew to a great height, to the great Prejudice and Disturbance of the Christian Religion, as his Grace observes; for whose Purity and Preservation it became even this great Evan∣gelist to be concerned. And tho our Sage Philosopher may call them, Chimaera's and Sickly Dreams, (as in truth they were) and so too trivial a Subject for the Apostolical Pen to write of; yet, when we consider how far those Heresies spread, how long they continued, and what mischief they did (as may be seen in Irenaeus, Tertullian, Epiphanius, &c.) we may agree to what Epiphanius saith upon this occasion. Neither, saith he,* 1.19 let any one contemn these Dogmata, as full of folly; for foolish People are per∣swaded by foolish things. Nay, prudent Persons may decline from the right way, if the mind be not exercised in the way of truth; as that

Father gives an instance of himself,* 1.20 when likely to be perverted by the Gnosticks.

But lastly, saith our Author, I am of opinion, that there is no Historian, I'am sure no Ancient Historian, who assigns the Historical Occasion of St. John's Writings, even the Gnosticks and their Eons, mentioned by his Grace.

I answer, That what has been before said is sufficient, when there is a Perpetual Allusion to the Phrase and Opinions of the Gnosticks; and very often in the Apostolical Epistles, as has been observed by many Learned Persons.

But to put this past dispute, besides what is elsewhere, let our Author turn to Irenaeus, and he will find that Ancient Au∣thor expresly affirming,* 1.21 That St John wrote his Gospel against the Error of Cerinthus; and a little after, that St. John took away all ground of Dissention; and by the words, the World was made by him, he confuted the Gnosticks. So that if our Author was of that Opinion, it was without any ground.

IV. It's high time we now proceed to enquire into the sense of St. John. The Ancient Unitarians finding (as I have observed) the Gospel of St. John not reconcilable to their opinion of Christ's being a meer man; like Alexander, at once cut the Gor∣dian knot, which they could not fairly untie; and rejected this and other pieces now attributed to that Evangelist, as Uncanonical and Heretical. But an after-generation (whom our Author dignities also with the same title of Ancient Unitarians) more wary than the former, seeing that Author, whoever he was, to grow into credit among the other denominations of Christians, were care∣ful to shew them, that it was capable of a very allowable sense, as our Author saith, p. 53. a.

And this seems to be the case of Socinus and this his Defen∣der, who must not quit St. John, and with the Ancient Unitarians, call his Gospel the Fiction and Forgery of Cerinthu, (as our Au∣thor saith they did) for it has been too long in credit with the other denominations of Christians, to admit of such despiteful usage and violence: and therefore they will undertake to shew them it's capable of a very allowable sense; but by such pitiful and wretched shifts, by such precarious and arbitrary suppositions, (as his Grace rightly terms them) and an invention which no indif∣ferent Reader of St. John, that had not been prepossessed and biass'd by some violent prejudice, would ever have thought of, p. 58, 65, &c.

And this will appear, if we try it by any of those ways by which the sense of an Author is to be obtained; such as the Oc∣casion, the Phraseology, the Scope, Design and Context.

As for the Occasion, if the Authors alledged above, are of any Authority, it's so far unquestionable.

As for the Phraseology, that is to be understood by the com∣mon use of the Words, or the Subject, or Science they relate to; and accordingly were these Phrases in St. John applied in their proper and ordinary signification, as not only the Orthodox Chri∣stians, but even the Arians, and Amelius the Platonist did understand them, (as his Grace observes from Eusebius) and our Author is forced to confess as much; for in the account he gives of the Historical occasion (viz. of Socinus's new Project) he thus intro∣duces it,

Socinus finding it to be the first of all God's Declara∣tions, I am the Lord thy God. &c. he understood in the beginning, to be in the beginning of the Gospel state; and the Word was a God in a sense of Office; and the World he made, a spiritual World.

Now what is this, but to carry off the words from a plain literal to a figurative sense, and so to acknowledge their Doctrine is not favoured by the Phraseology of it?

But supposing it to be so, yet, saith our Author,

Socinus observed, that the Scriptures abound with such Metaphors and Figures even when they speak of God, as when God is said to have Eyes, Arms and Bowels, &c. to denote the sight, power and mercies of God.

P. 49. a.

It's granted; but withal, as he saith, the Scriptures therein trust to the judgment of the most common Readers, and question not but the most ordinary capacity will so understand them. But then how comes this to pass, that from the time of St. John downwards, not the most common and ordinary, nay, the most accurate Readers, and extraordinary Capacities, were ever so happy as to make this discovery before the fortunate Socinus? And why were not they as well able to find out in this discourse of St. John the Ministerial Deity of our Saviour, the beginning of the Gospel state, and the spiritual World, (the only Key, it seems, to unlock the sense of that Divine Writer) as they were by the Hands, Eyes and Bowels of God, to understand his Power, Sight and Mercies? It's evident that the most ordinary Capaci∣ties did, generally speaking, by these Corporeal Members, un∣derstand

the abovesaid Attributes of the Deity to be described. And it is also evident that for Socinus's explication of that Evan∣gelist, the most famed Expositors, and much more common Rea∣ders, no more thought of it, than the Ancient Navigators did dream of that new World, which Columbus two Ages ago was so happy as to discover. So that it evidently appears, that there is not the same reason to interpret the Phrases, In the Beginning, and the Word was God, and all things were made by Him, in a me∣taphorical and figurative sense, as there is for the understanding the Corporeal Organs of Speech and Action, &c. after that man∣ner, when applied to God: but that rather they must be under∣stood properly and literally, as the Orthodox, the Arians, and all others have understood, and his Grace has expounded them.

But hold, saith our Author, 'His Grace himself, when he comes to interpret the particular expressions, can raise them no higher than Arianism, (viz. that the Son was generated some time before the World) though he alledged them to prove Trinitarianism. p. 46. b.

Well, supposing this, yet if his Exposition hold so far good, the Socinian Hypothesis, that will not allow our Saviour to have any existence 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 pleases, what Irenaeus, Eusebius and Epiphanius say; they are Books few understand, and fewer have: but methinks he should be a little more cautious when he uses the same liberty in a Book published but the last year, and that has the good hap to be gene∣rally well received and read. How then can he say that his Grace can raise - the expressions no higher than Arianism? when it's the first of his Corollaries, viz.

The Word here described by St. John, is not a Creature. And then follows, This Conclusion is directly against the Arians,

who affirmed that the Son of God was a Creature. p. 39.

And there is not a branch of those Verses which the Arch∣bishop doth not alike interpret. Thus he saith of Christ the Word, that is, the eternal Son of God. P. 6, 59.

In the Beginning, that is, he did exist before any thing was made, and consequently is without Beginning, and eternal. P. 19, &c.

Was God, that is, from all eternity. P. 24, &c.

But perhaps, he will say, this his Grace has attempted, but not prov'd.

That remains to be tried by what he has to object against it; and then he only offers somewhat as a Reply to his Graces's Ex∣position of the Phrase, In the Beginning, leaving all the rest that was said in exposition and defence of the other Phrases of the Evangelist, to continue as they were; and if we may judge of what he could have said of the rest, by what he has said of this, it must needs have been very insignificant: For thus he argues.

1.

In the Beginning, is interpreted without Beginning, which two are distinctly contrary. P. 48 b.

A. I answer; This is not directly laid down as the interpre∣tation of that Phrase, but is rather the consequence of what his Grace had said just before, as the preceding quotation shews, In the Beginning, that is, he did exist before any thing was made, and consequently is without Beginning, and Eternal.

2. Granting he had thus explain'd the Phrase, In the Beginning, to be without Beginning, yet they are not directly contrary. To have a Beginning, and to be without Beginning, are directly contra∣ry, and more than so, a Contradiction. But to be in the Begin∣ning, and to be without Beginning, are so far from being contrary, that they are very well consistent, for else God himself would not have been in the Beginning. Thus it is, Gen. 1.1. In the Be∣ginning God created the Heaven and the Earth. By which Phrase is shewed, that the Heaven and Earth had a Beginning, and so were not in the Beginning, (for then they had been before they began to be) and so it could not be said, In the Beginning were the Heavens and the Earth; for then they had, as God, been with∣out Beginning. But it's said, In the beginning God created them, that is, he that himself had no Beginning gave a Beginning to them. After this manner doth the Wi••••man express it, in the place quoted by his Grace, on this occasion, The Lord possessed me [Wisdom] in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was, Prov. 8.22, 23. So that to Be in the Beginning, was to be before his works of old; to be without a Beginning, and from Ever∣lasting.

2. He objects,

Though he [Archbishop] cannot find the Coeternity in the words of St. John, yet he can interpret his

own interpretation of his words, so as to make out the Co∣eternity: For he saith, in the Beginning, that is, the Son-already was, when things began to be; and by Consequence, the Son was without a Beginning; for that which was never made, could have no Beginning of its Being.

And then he smartly returns upon him,

How, Sir, is that a good Consequence, or any Con∣sequence at all? For supposing the Son was when the World began to be, which is not yet Six thousand years ago, will it follow, that therefore he was absolutely without a Beginning, or was never made? &c.

Answ. If his Grace had left this Consequence to stand upon its own foot, without offering any proof for it; yet any one but competently acquainted with the Scripture-Phraseology, would not have questioned the reason and force of it; and if not with respect to his Adversary, yet for a salvo to his own ig∣norance, would have forbore his How, Sir, is that a good Conse∣quence, or any Consequence at all? But I much question his igno∣rance; for his cautious Adversary, that had been us'd to write with a due guard as well as strength, took care to prevent this Objection, and fortify his Consequence with the best authority, that of Scripture.

For thus he goes on immediately after the words quoted by this Author, (and so he is the more inexcusable) The Son al∣ready was when things began to be, and consequently is without Be∣ginning, &c. And so the Jews used to describe Eternity, before the world was, and before the foundation of the world, as also in seve∣ral places of the New Testament. And so likewise Solomon de∣scribes the Eternity of Wisdom, The Lord, says he, possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old, &c.

So that if the Consequence be not good, or if it be no Consequence at all, the Scripture is to be blamed, and not his Grace for fol∣lowing it in a line of Argumentation. According to the Scri∣pture way of speaking, that which was before the world, is ac∣counted eternal: And therefore what was in the Beginning had no Beginning; and so the whole Cause of Arianism, that would have Christ to be part of the Creation, though before the world was, must unavoidably miscarry; which was the Case in hand, and what his Grace undertook to prove. But this was fit to be conceal'd; for otherwise our Author would have had as little to say to the Archbishop's Explication of the Phrase, In the Beginning,

as he has to the other Phrases of the Evangelist. Therefore he chuses rather to wind off with a bare Repetition or two, to the Socinian Hypothesis, to try whether he can with better success encounter his Adversary upon his own Principles, than upon those of the Arian. p. 47. a. b.

Socinus being a person of a sharp and piercing wit, soon per∣ceived that the Arian Scheme was not consistent with St. John; for since there was nothing in the world but Creator and Crea∣ture, that which was the Creator (as the Arians did admit the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Word to be, and as St. John's words, if literally un∣derstood, do import) could not be the Creature. And there∣fore, either he must, with our Author's Ancient Vnitarians, forgo St. John's Authority, or find out some other Explication than had yet been thought of; and that constrain'd him to fly to a Mi∣nisterial God, and a Spiritual World, as the Archbishop had shewed, Sermon II.

All that our Author has to say upon the Socinian account, is with reference to a double Charge brought against it; and that is, the unreasonableness and the novelty of this Explication.

As to the first of these, His Grace saith, Sermon II. p. 75.

Ac∣cording to this rate of liberty in Interpreting Scripture, it will signify very little or nothing, when any Person or Party is concerned, to oppose any Doctrine contained in it; and the plainest Texts for any Article of Faith, how Fundamental and necessary soever, may by the same arts and ways of In∣terpretation be eluded and rendred utterly ineffectual for the establishing of it. For example, if any man had a mind to call in question that Article of the Creed, concerning the Creati∣on of the World, why might he not, according to Socinus his way of Interpreting St. John, understand the first Chapter of Genesis concerning the Beginning of the Mosaical Dispensation; and Interpret the Creation of the Heaven and the Earth, to be the Institution of the Jewish Polity and Religion, as by the New Heavens and the New Earth, they pretend to be understood the New state of things under the Gospel, &c.

It is certain that it was not Phrase of St. John misled Socinus, or gave him any occasion for his novel Interpretation, but a pre-conceived Principle (as has been before observed); for indeed the Phrase of St. John bears such a conformity to that of the First of Genesis, that one seems to be a key to the other; and in the be∣ginning

God created the Heavens and the Earth, is so like to in the be∣ginning was the Word, — and all things were made by him; that one is naturally led to think that as they in words seem to relate to the same state of things, so that the Word that thus was in the beginning, and made all things, was truly God; and that the whole Phraseology of it is as properly and literally to be understood in St. John, as in Genesis; and that the one can no more admit of a Moral and Allegorical Interpretation, than the other.

This is so pertinently alledged by His Grace, and the Parallel so lively represented by the Bishop of Worcester, in a Discourse there referred to, that our Author seems perfectly at a loss whe∣ther to grant or deny it; and so from admitting the case as it is proposed, would advance another Scheme of it; for thus he saith, 'Let His Grace put the case, as it usually is, and I am con∣tent to join issue with him upon the instance he hath here given. The first Chapter of St. John speaks of a certain Person, namely of the Lord Christ, who is confess'd to have been a Man, and yet it saith of him, All things were made by him, — So if the first Chapter of Genesis imputed the Creation there spoken of to Moses; if it said, In the beginning Moses Created the Heavens and the Earth, it would be not only absurd, but absolutely neces∣sary, to interpret the Chapter Allegorically and Figuratively; and to say that the Heavens and Earth are the Jewish Polity and Religion, the Church and the Discipline thereof, &c.

Now this Answer of his contains somewhat absurd, somewhat untrue, and is also besides the case.

1. It contains somewhat absurd, which is, To conceive that it's possible for Moses an Inspired Writer, to have delivered himself after that manner; and that when he was to Write of the first Institution of the Jewish Polity and Religion, he should thus describe it, In the beginning Moses created the Heaven and the Earth; and the earth was without form, &c. and Moses said, let there be light and there was light, &c. And yet our Author, to salve Socinus's wild Interpretation of St. John, is contented to grant this; we, saith he, say it, we affirm it, that if the first Chapter of Genesis imputed the Creation to Moses, it ought to be so interpreted.

2. It contains somewhat untrue, as when to make out his Pa∣rallel, he saith, The first Chapter of St. John speaks of a certain

Person the Lord Christ, who is confessed to have been a man, and yet it saith of him, All things were made by him. For he knows very well, that the Person there spoken of, is not confessed by any of his Adversaries to have been a Man, when that is spoken of him, that all things were made by him. For then he was the Logos, the Word, the only begotten Son of God; and was not a Man, or made Flesh, till about Four thousand Years after the Creation.

3. The Case as he puts it, is not the case put by the Arch∣bishop; which was to this effect, supposing such a one as Spino∣sa, that would have the World not to be Created, but to have been ab Aeterno, finding the Book of Genesis to be in such credit with his Countrymen the Jews, and the several Denominations of Christians, that it was not to be gainsaid; he is therefore care∣ful (as our Author saith some of the Ancient Unitarians were in the case of St. John's Gospel) to shew that it is capable of ano∣ther and an allowable sence; and so in order to their satisfaction expounds it, of the Jewish Polity and Religion, of Spiritual Heavens, and an Intellectual Light (in our Author's phrase).

Now the Question upon this is, Whether Spinosa might not as speciously thus expound the First of Genesis for the advantage of his Hypothesis, as Socinus did the First of John to serve his design?

And that any one that compares the one with the other, Gene∣sis and St. John, will be able to discern.

Indeed as absurd as the supposition of his concerning Moses is, it might as allowably be said of him, as Christ the Word have that said of him in St. John, if the Word was no more than Moses, a Ministerial and Temporary God, and had no more been in the beginning than Moses.

And then the Book of Genesis might as well have begun in the same Phrase with Moses, as St. John with the Word; after this manner,

In the beginning was Moses, and Moses was with God, and Moses was God [or a God, as he will have it]. The same 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 sorry shifts are those drove to that first resolve upon an Hypothesis, and then are to seek how to maintain and defend it.

The only Point remaining with our Author is,

That the Evan∣gelist

, who was a Jew, speaks here of the Messias, in the usual Stile

and Language of the Jews, who were want to say, and say it in al∣most all their Ancient Books, that the Messias should make a New World, he should abolish Paganism and Idolatry from among the Nations; and thereby (as the Prophets also speak) Create a New Heaven and a New Earth.

Answ. I acknowledge the Scripture sometimes calls a Political or Moral Change in a Church or People, by the Term of New Heavens and New Earth: But, in our Author's way of speaking, it trusts to the Reader's Judgment and common sense, in a matter that it's not well possible for him to doubt in, or to question what are the Heavens and Earth there spoken of, as Isaiah 65.17, 18. 66.22. 1 Peter 3.13. &c.

But here is no intimation given in the Evangelist, that the Phrases should be Translated from a Natural to a Spiritual sence; nor can it possibly be without great violence, as their own Ex∣plication of it will shew: For they are forced to understand Christ to be Personally the Word in one Clause, and the Gospel to be the Word in the other, as Socinus doth, In the beginning was the Word, Christ; and the Word, that is the Gospel, was with God. Or for the avoiding of that difficulty, others of them make Christ to ascend Actually, Personally, and Bodily into Heaven before his Ministry (though the Scripture speaks not one word of it) that they may put a colour upon the Phrase; The Word was with God, as His Grace has shewed Sermon II. p. 62. of which more anon.

But now if we take the words in their natural and pro∣per sence, there are several other places to confirm it, as His Grace has shewed, p. 101, &c. and which it shall suffice for the present to refer to.

The next thing to be considered is, the Novelty of this Exposition of St. John by Socinus, of which saith the Arch∣bishop, it is quite to another sense, and such as by their own confession was never mentioned, nor I believe thought of by any Christian Writer whatsoever before him. Sermon II. p. 57. which he more largely prosecutes, p. 64, &c.

What saith our Author to this?

Suppose this; Why may we not own that time and long consideration do improve all sorts of Sciences, and every part of Learning, whether Divine or Humane? I do not think it to be any Diminution of Socinus, that it may said of him, and

of this Context, he hath rescued it from that Darkness in which it long lay.

A. This Observation of his had in reason been prevented, if he had well weighed what his Grace had said upon it, who thus pursues his Argument.

1. That the literal Sense was so obvious, that the Orthodox, and even the Arians and Platonists (as Amelius) agreed in it. But here our Author, like a flying Tartar that dares not in a Pursuit look behind him, throws a spiteful Dart at his Ad∣versary.

As to Friend Amelius, I think it sufficient to say, That the Credit of the Trinitarian Cause runs very low; when an uncertain Tale of an obscure Platonist, of no Reputation ei∣ther for Learning or Wit, is made to be a good part of the Proof that can be alledged for these Doctrines.

This is spoke at all adventures; for if he had read Eusebius * 1.22 upon it, he would have found the Platonist to have deserv'd a better Cha∣racter, and neither the Person to be so obscure, nor the Relation of it such an uncertain Tale, as he would represent it † 1.23.

But he that can make Historical Occasions out of Propositions, and will prove matter of Fact by reasoning upon it without Authority, may be allowed to make Characters at his pleasure, and stamp what he will upon a Quotation.

Let him however take or refuse Friend Amelius, it's a small part of the proof depends upon that Tale; the use made of that in concurrence with the Judgment of the Orthodox and Arians, was, that not one of them ever imagined 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 consider∣able in this Case, that the most Ancient Christian Writers, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, &c. and even Origen himself, are most express and positive in this matter, &c. And if this Interpre∣tation of Socinus be true, it's almost incredible that those who lived so very near St. John's time, and were most likely to know his meaning, should so widely mistake it. And then that the whole Christan World should for so many Ages together be deceived in the ground of so important an Article of the Faith; and that no man did understand this Passage of St. John aright before Socinus. This very consideration alone, if there

were no other, were sufficient to stagger any prudent man's Belief of this Misrepresentation.

3. And as his Grace goes on,

That which makes the mat∣ter much worse, is, that the Religion which was particularly design'd to overthrow Polytheism, and the belief of more Gods, hath according to them been so ill taught and under∣stood by Christians for so many Ages together, and almost from the beginning of Christianity, as does necessarily infer a plurality of Gods. An inconvenience so great, as no Cause, how plausible soever it may otherwise appear, is able to stand under the weight of it, p. 73. And which the Reader may there see admirably enforced.

For which reasons it cannot well be suppos'd, that either Time or long Consideration, would place a man in so advantagi∣ous Circumstances, that he should beat out that Track, which all Christians for 1500 years together, were not able before him to descry. But after all, this shall be no Diminution to Soci∣nus, as our Author will have it.

But tho in words he will not allow it a Diminution, yet he in Fact betrays it; and after all, is not willing to own the Charge. For thus he argues,

Why doth his Grace say, That not only all the Fathers, but all Christians have for this Fifteen Ages, agreed in his Interpretation of this Context? Have there been no Christians in the World for 1500 Years, but only the Arians and Trinitarians?

This is a little too gross, for he knows full well, that this is not asserted by the Archbishop; therefore he makes another at∣tempt.

Or was Socinus the first (for that (it may be) was his Grace's meaning) who departed from the Arian and Trinitarian Sense of the Context?

What an obscure 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 last he is so unfortunate as to mi∣stake it.

For his Grace doth no more say, That Socinus was the first man that departed from the Arian and Trinitarian Sense of the Con∣text, than he saith, That not only the Fathers, but all Christians have for Fifteen Ages agreed in it. For he knew full well, that

there were Cerinthians, and Ebioniter, and Photinians, and others, that went under the General Name of Christians, that differ'd as well from the Arians as the Orthodox, and would allow our Sa∣viour no other Existence, than he had as the Son of Mary, and so could not with consistence to their Principle, expound St. John, as the Orthodox and Arians expounded him. But let his Grace speak for himself, viz.

Not only all the Ancient Fa∣thers of the Christian Church, but, so far as I can find, all In∣terpreters whatsoever for Fifteen hundred years together did understand this passage of St. John in a quite different Sense, [from Socinus] 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 proved it beyond Contradiction by the Confession of his great Oracle Socinus, and his Advocate Schlictingius, that own the true Sense of these Words was never before rightly explained * 1.24.

And indeed, what our Author himself alledges, is a tacit Confession of it; for he produces nothing from Paulus or Pho∣tinus, or the Ancient Vnitarians, of the Word that was God by Office, or of the beginning of a Gospel State that Word did exist in, or of a Spiritual World he made, or of the Word's be∣ing with God in the Revelation of the Gospel, or of the Per∣sonal Word's being with God before his Ministry to receive that Revelation: But on the contrary, he tells us that accord∣ing to them, the Word was God, as his Generation was Di∣vine, and was from the beginning with God, in God's Decree and Intention; and that the World was not made by him, but for him; a quite different Explication from that of Socinus.

Thus far then it's evident, That his Grace has sufficiently shew'd the Novelty of the Socinian Explication of St. John's Gospel. This was a tender point, and what our Author had no mind to touch upon, but something must be said, for else the Cause would have suffer'd, and he had lost the opportunity of shewing his Reading about their Patriarch Paulus, and their Metropolitan Photinus, (Titles, it seems, owned in their Com∣monwealth of Learning) and the whole Provinces possessed by their Followers, p. 53.

But if our Author is of any Credit, they did not only possess whole Provinces, but Ages too, the two first undoubtedly (as he suggests).

And saith he,

We are ready to dispute it in the presence of the Learned World, that the Fathers mentioned by his Grace were less of the mind of the Trinitarians, than of ours. They held the Doctrine that was afterwards called Arianism, p. 52. b. 54. a.

The first false Step he makes, is, That he takes it for grant∣ed, that his Grace allows the two first Ages of Christianity to be for the Socinians, or at least not against them. For, saith he, if of Seventeen Ages, we have (as we have undoubtedly have) the two first, much good may do his Grace with the other Fifteen. He must not deny us the two, nay, the three first, generally speaking. It seems his Grace must not, nor indeed can deny him if he in∣sists only upon the last Fifteen Ages as his Period, for then he quits the two first. But now any indifferent Reader will soon see, that when his Grace speaks of Fifteen hundred years, it's with respect to the Ages intercurrent from the Apostles to the time of Socinus, whose Exposition he charges with Novelty. [So p. 64, 73, &c.] And who lived in the last Century.

The second false Step, is his way of proof, which is this,

We will [saith he] wrest it from all the World, that the Apo∣stolick Creed, which was the only Creed of the three first Ages, is wholly Vnitarian, and perfectly contradicts that In∣terpretation of the beginning of St. John's Gospel, which his Grace seeks to advance, p. 52.

How that is, we must seek further, viz. p. 53. b. where he takes it up again. In the Apostles Creed,

The Lord Christ is uncontestably spoken of, as having no Existence before he was generated in the Womb of the Blessed Mary, by the Spirit of God.

Not to insist upon that, that it was the only Creed of the three first Ages, it will require a more than an obstinate Re∣solution to wrest it out of the possession of the Trinitarians, who both from the distribution of the Creed under its three General Heads, do assert a Trinity, and from the Character given to our Saviour of being the only Son of God, do maintain his Di∣vinity. But for this, being he has offer'd no proof, I shall re∣fer him to Bishop Pierson upon that Point, which he has at large explained and defended.

3. His next false step is, That whereas his Grace particularly names Ignatius, Justin, Athenagoras, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Origen, as of the same mind with himself; this Author affirms, That contrariwise they held the Arian Doctrine; where yet he fails in his main Point, which was to clear Socinus's Explication, and his Doctrine, from Novelty: But instead of that, all he attempts is to shew that the Ancient Fathers were for the Arian Doctrine; which is to say they were not for the Socinian: And yet even there he fails again; as has abundantly been proved by Dr. Bull; and which I shall look upon as unanswerable, till I see the Book he promises us in Answer to it.

Having all this while been employed in Vindication of the Au∣thority of St. John's Gospel against the Ancient Vnitarians that questioned it, and our Author that proposes their Arguments; and in Vindication of the Orthodox Exposition of it, against the Arian on one side, and the novel one of Socinus on the other; I shall now proceed to the Consideration of those Texts of Scri∣pture which the Archbishop occasionally made use of for the Ex∣plication of St. John; and they are, Heb. 1.1. And Col. 1.15.

His Grace has alledg'd Heb. 1.2. several times in his Sermons, twice in his First, for the Explication of St. John, and Col. 1.16. And thus far our Author goes along with him in the bare quo∣tation; but he manifestly wrongs him, when he thus triumphs as he goes off from the Text; Would a man build the belief of more gods than one, contrary to the whole current, and most express words of the rest of Scripture, on a Text so uncertain as this is? p. 51. b. I say he manifestly wrongs him; for he knows very well, that his Grace agrees with the current and express Words of Scripture, in asserting the Unity of the Godhead; and so could never at∣tempt to build the Belief of more Gods than one, upon any Text whatsoever, unless he would contradict himself.

What is it then his Grace alledges this Text for? Why, it is to justify St. John, when he saith, That all things were made by the Word; and consequently the Word that made all things must be God. The Proposition is St. John's, the Consequence is in∣deed his Grace's, but what will necessarily follow, as he has proved it from Heb. 1.2. I perceive our Author needs to be re∣membred upon occasion: For tho this is the use his Grace makes of that Quotation in Sermon First, yet our Author is to know there is a Second Sermon, where his Grace doth not criticise upon

Words, and shew how they may be expounded this way and that way, and leave it, in our Author's Phrase an uncertain Text; but fully shews, That this Verse, and Col. 1.16. must necessarily be understood of the old Creation of the Natural World and not of the Moral World, and the Renovation and Reformation of the Minds and Manners of men by the Gospel. And this he not only at large con∣firms, but also gives a particular Answer to the Comment of Schlictingius and Crellius upon it; Sermon II. p 103, 106 &c. Now our Author in reason should have interposed to the behalf of these his deserted Friends, and have given a just Reply to their Adversary; but his business is rather to propose, and re∣peat, and make some sudden fallies, than grapple with his Op∣ponent, and come to downright Blows.

The first Adventure he makes is, That the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which we render Worlds, more usually and properly signifies Ages; and its so translated by St. Jerom; and therefore divers of the most Learned Criticks understand this Text of the Gospel Ages; of which the Lord Christ is (under God) the undoubted Author.

A. It seems the Learned Criticks go different ways, and our Author dares not lay too much on their side, that understand this of the Gospel-Ages; for he saw that the Phrase, he made the Ages, was harsh, and as unusual as it is usual for the Greek word to sig∣nify Ages: And which is worse, that the word Ages in the Jew∣ish and Scripture-Stile, ordinarily signifying the Age before and the Age under the Messias, it must follow, That the Lord Christ must be the undoubted Author of both the Ages; of that from the Foundation of the World to the Gospel, as well as that from the Gospel to the End of the World: And if so, he must have been existent before the Ages; for else how could he be the Au∣thor of them? This he that has been so conversant in the Learn∣ed Criticks of the Trinitarians, cannot be ignorant of: And because I have not a List of them at hand, I shall for the present refer him to Dr. Hammond on Luke 1. p. &c.

Whether he foresaw this or no, I cannot divine; but how∣ever, he has another answer in reserve. For thus he goes on;

But, saith he, let us say 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 here is World, yet Grotius gives very good reasons why we ought to render the word thus, For whom he made the Worlds; i. e. God made the World for the Messias, or with intention to subject it to him in the fulness of time.

A. But supposing it may be so rendred, yet there is no such salvo for verse 10. where it's said of Christ, (as the Archbishop hath unanswerably proved) Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth, &c.

2. The Greek Phrase, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is the very same with what is used, John 1.3. All things were made by him; where the ordina∣ry Translation is allowed; and as far as the Phrase will go, it may as properly be applied to our Saviour, as the efficient, as the final Cause, i. e. That the World was made by him, as for him: And that it is here to be understood of the former, his Grace has shew'd.

3. The Apostle, Col. 1.16. uses these two distinctly, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉by him; and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for him. But to this our Author has some∣what to say.

For the Archbishop having made use of that place of St. Paul to confirm what he had before produced out of St. John, the Opponent thinks himself bound in honour to attack him: But in his usual way: For whereas his Grace had spent about twelve Pages in both his Sermons upon the Explication of this Text, and in Answer to the most considerable Objection against it; our Author replies, He urgeth that Text. — He observes moreover, That in the foregoing Verse the Lord Christ is called the First-born of every creature. And he seeks to prove, I think he has proved it, That First-born here is as much as to say Heir or Lord of every creature. P. 51. b.

A. He speaks as coldly, as if he durst not trust his Reader with his Adversary's Arguments, or so much as suggest for what reasons or upon what grounds the Archbishop urged that Text. Only he grants, That when his Grace had shewed that by First-born was principally meant an Heir, he softly answers, I think he has proved it. And if he has, he has so far wrested none of the least of the Texts produced both by the Arians and Socinians, out of their hands. Arebb. p. 33, 34.

But he goes on, if I may call omitting so.

I will omit, That the greater number of Criticks and more Learned Interpreters, of his Grace's own Party, and among them, Athanasius himself, translate and interpret that Text, not of real Creating, but of the Modelling of all things.

A. 1. I hope he will admit those to be Criticks that are in the Critici Sacri, or those whom Mr. Pool has inserted into his Sy∣nopsis; but if we may pass a judgment upon the Learned I••erpre∣ters

by them, we shall be far from finding a Number, and I be∣lieve it will be a Number of one, if he will be so favourable to us as to allow Grotius to be one of his Grace's Party.

As for Athanasius, I had the curiosity to consult him (though it's too hard a Task to put upon his Reader to turn over two Folios to search for a Quotation) but could find no such Expli∣cation of the Apostle, as he suggests. But on the contrary, from that place he shews that all things were created by him, and so he could not be a Creature. So in his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and his Synod. Nicenae Decret.

A. 2. He saith he will omit this, that is, as I thought, give it up; but I find rather it is that he will not be obliged to defend it: He finds the Archbishop had made the Point of a Moral Creation a little too hot to be maintain'd; but being it's what he himself has a great liking to, he goes on to say all he can say, in hopes his Reader may think as favourably of it as himself. But he comes off as to himself, as I said, I will not insist on this Concession.

He therefore comes to another Retrenchment, and that is the Account given of it by St. Chrysostom (as he will have it) in the Opus Imperfectum, who reads it thus; For him were all things created. So saith he, the Sense is, all things were originally created by God for the Lord Christ; namely, to subject them, in the fulness of time, to him, and his Law.

A. As for what he saith of the Opus imperfectum of St. Chry∣sostom, whoever was the Author of it, it's granted by the Learned that it is not St. Chrysostom's. But let it be whose it will, I am pretty confident that there is no such Exposition of that Phrase in the Book (though it consists of 54 Homilies.) And besides the turning it over, I am confirm'd in it from what is said there, Homil. 30. upon that, Who is my mother, &c. I, who before the constitution of the world, created the world, know no such worldly Pa∣rents, &c.

Indeed this Version of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for him, is merely to serve the Hypothesis that he is advancing. For when he can apply it to a Moral Creation, he admits it, as John 1.2. and so it's necessary to be understood here, v. 20. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by him to reconcile all things to himself.

And accordingly as the Apostle begins, so he ends the Verse with the same Phrase; By him were all things created; and as one would think to prevent all cavil, uses Phrases as distinct as the efficient and

final cause, for so he closes the Verse, All things were created by him, and for him; by him, as the efficient; and for him, as the final cause. But here our Author would fain find out an evasion, and that is by translating 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to him; and then it shall be, All things were created for his use, and to his service. And if any one should ask what is the difference? he answers immediatly, that the latter, to his service, is exegetical and explanatory of the former, for his use. This, he saith, is probably design'd by the Greek, and yet he knows how (by a peculiar Rule of Logick) to crowd more into the Conclusion than is in the Premisses, and out of what, in his own opinion, is but probable, to infer a necessity; for thus he concludes, the Greek word being probably design'd as exegetical: Therefore the sense of necessity is, for him, and to him, i.e. for his use, and to his service. Just as if I should say, it's probable that he never read the Opus imperfectum, that calls it St. Chrysostom's; and therefore it's cer∣tain he has not.

To conclude, Tho he would as to this Text fairly, if he can, get rid of this moral Creation, and Athanasian spiritual modelling of things, for a reason he knows; yet he is still within the inchanted Circle; for at the last his probable Explication leaves him there; and what was it else when he says, All things were originally created by God for the Lord Christ, namely, to subject them in the fulness of time to him, and his Laws? And how doth that differ from the modelling and changing all things in Heaven and Earth, to a new and better estate? on the Earth, by abolishing Paganism, and Idolatry, &c. and in Hea∣ven, Angels and heavenly Powers being put under his direction, &c. as he tells us in the Column of those things that are omitted.

Lastly, It's not probable that his is the just Explication of this place, and that for a Reason or two.

1. Because the Apostle discourses this afterwards, v. 20. Ha∣ving made peace through the blood of his Cross, by him to reconcile all things to himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.

For the clearer understanding of which, I shall take liberty to set before the Reader the connexion of a few Verses. The Apo∣stle, v. 14 speaking of our Saviour, in whom we have redemption through his blood, &c. proceeds to shew who this Redeemer was, and that in a two-fold capacity. First, in respect of his Divine Nature, who is the image of God, the first-born or heir of the whole

creation: And then gives the reason of such his preheminence, and why he bestows so great a Title upon him; and that is v. 16, 17. For by him were all things created, &c. From thence he proceeds to discourse of him as to his Human Nature, and the station he is in, v. 18. And he is the head of the body &c. And this done v. 20. he returns to the point where he set forth, v. 14. And accordingly his Lord∣ship's Explication is very easy and natural, p. 34. Who is the image of God, the heir and Lord of the whole creation; for by him all things were created.

2. This Author's account of this place is not probable; for Christ's being the Head over all things, was not till his Death and Resurrection, when his Mediatory Kingdom began; where∣as our Author says, That all things were originally created by God for the Lord Christ; and without doubt as for his use and to his service, so for the advantage of them that were under his government and direction. But what a v••st solitude was there, a Chasm of 4000 years before his Birth and Being? and in what a condition was the whole World of Intelligent Beings, till our Saviours Resurrection and Ascension? What Service could he challenge from them, when he himself lay in the Embrio of nothing? And what advantage could they have from him that was to come into the world for the Redemption of Mankind 4000, 3000, &c. years after? Where was the Paganism and Idolatry he in that dis∣mal Interval abolished? Where the Angels and Heavenly Powers that were put under his direction, and by him employed in defence and succor of the faithful? What was it to those unhappy souls, born so many ages before his time, under the Constellation of Paganism and Idolatry, that some thousands or hundreds of years hence should arise the Lord Christ, who in the fulness of time was to be actually set above all Thrones and Dominions, &c. and in whom as in their Head, all things should be united and consist? as our Author words it.

Of the Pre-existence of our Saviour.

THat the Word described by St. John had an Existence be∣fore his Incarnation, and his being born of the Virgin, was a Conclusion his Grace inferred from the Phrase, In the Beginning. Serm. 1.

This he confirmed by several Texts of Scripture, which he ranked under the two following Heads. Serm. 2. p. 84.

1.

Those which expresly assert 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 World.

2.

Those which affirm that the World and all Creatures were made by him.

Of the first sort are Joh. 3.13. 6.62. 8.58. 13.3. 16.27. 17.5. 1 Joh. 1.1. in which it's said 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 those which say our Saviour was in Heaven, and came down from Heaven, our Author returns some general Answers, (as for method's sake I shall consider them.)

First, He answers in general, That these Texts, in their most literal sense, amount to no more than this, that the Lord Christ is a Messenger, really come forth from God to men. As much is true of every Pro∣phet, and the very same is used concerning St. John Baptist, Joh. 1.6. There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.

Answ. 1. If these Texts amount to no more than this, that the Lord Christ is a Messenger from God to men, then can no more be concluded from thence, than that he was no more a Prophet, and no more with God, and no more sent from God, than other Prophets, or than John the Baptist.

And if as much as this is true of every Prophet, then it may be said of every Prophet, and of John the Baptist as well as our Sa∣viour,

that he ascended into Heaven, and came down from Heaven, and was with God, and had a Glory with him before the World was, &c. But where do we find the Scripture to express it self af∣ter this manner of any but our Saviour, no not of Moses, as much a Friend of God, and conversant with him, as he is af∣firmed to be?

2. If these Texts amount to no more than this, that Christ is a Messenger from God to men, then how will our Author be able to make use of any of these Texts for that new Doctrine of theirs, concerning Christ's Ascension into Heaven, before he began his Ministry? For if as much is true of every Prophet, then our Sa∣viour no more ascended than other Prophets; and then what becomes of his express proof for such an Assertion?

Secondly, He answers again, How little these Texts are to his Grace's purpose, would have been obvious to every Reader, if he had set down some few of the many Texts which so plainly expound to us what is meant thereby. Joh. 7.28. I am not come of my self. Joh. 5.43. I am come in my Father's name. Joh. 8.42. I came not of my self, he sent me. Joh. 7.16. My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me, &c.

A. These Texts would have not been to his Grace's purpose, if they prove no more than that our Saviour was a Messenger sent from God to men, and which is as true of every Prophet. For if our Savi∣our no more came from God than other Prophets (as far as these Texts will then signify) he was no more pre-existent than they. But these Texts are to his purpose if they expresly say, that Christ actually came down from Heaven to declare the will of God to men (as our Author in the next Paragraph, forgetting himself, doth affirm.) For if that be allowed, then all the Difficulties his Grace has urged against their imaginary Doctrine of our Saviour's Ascen∣sion into heaven, before his Ministry, will return upon them, and re∣quire an answer.

As for what he adds from these latter Texts,

Would our Sa∣viour have said he came from God, is sent by God, to deliver a Doctrine which is not the Messenger's, if he had himself pre∣tended to be God?

A. This, I am sure is nothing to the purpose; for what is this to the Pre existence of our Saviour, the present sub∣ject of the Discourse? But however, what inconsistence is there in this, for our Saviour to say, the Doctrine is not mine, but his that

sent me, tho he himself be God, and partake of the same Na∣ture with the Father, when he is the only begotten of the Fa∣ther, and was also Man? Why is this any more inconsistent, than to have it said, that he is God, and yet the Man Christ Jesus; that he was in the beginning with God, and yet born in the fulness of time; that he knew all things, John 16.30.21.17. and yet knew not the time or day of Judgment? Mark 13.32, &c.

These things are consistent upon the Principles of the Or∣thodox or Trinitarians, that hold the Word to be God and Man; but not upon theirs that hold, that he is Man and not God.

3. He answers again in general, That his Grace propounded to prove the Pre-existence of our Saviour, by the Texts that expresly say our Lord Christ ascended into Heaven before he began his Ministry, and then came down from Heaven to declare the Will of God to Men. That is, be propounds to prove the Trinitarian Doctrine, but really proves the Doctrine of the Unitarians.

A. 1. If this be so, his Grace was mightily mistaken, to at∣tempt the proof of this Point by such Texts as expresly say the contrary. A great and inexcusable over-sight, if it were true. But where are those Texts that expresly say, that our Saviour as∣cended into Heaven before his Ministry? It was a prejudice Socinus would infuse into his Reader, that there is but that one Text of St. John 1. to prove the Pre-existence of our Saviour before his Incarnation, which the Archbishop has disproved, p. 81. But here it holds; for his Texts that he saith expresly prove what he asserts, shrink all into one, viz. No man hath ascended into Hea∣ven, but he that came down from Heaven.

2. Where is it expresly said in that, or any other Text, that our Saviour ascended into Heaven before his Ministry? It is not so expresly said, That our Saviour ascended into Heaven, but that Servetus understood it Spiritually, and saith that it was so ex∣press'd, because his Spirit was from the beginning in Heaven, and that his words were heavenly. But it's neither there, nor any where expresly said, That our Saviour ascended into Heaven be∣fore his Ministry, and then came down from Heaven to declare the Will of God to Men. That is wholly a Fiction of a Case, as his

Lordship has sufficiently proved. Our Author, indeed, would represent it, as if his Grace had only found fault with them for this their Opinion; and after the having bestowed a few hard words upon it, and call'd it an Arbitrary and Precarious Supposi∣tion, (tho he himself understands the Text in a literal Sense) should then give it up.

But that this is a Fiction of their own, I may say again, his Lordship has sufficiently proved; and so much the more reason have I now to say it, as his Adversary has not dared so much as to take to task any one Argument or Paragraph relating to it. For with what strength doth his Grace argue against it from the exact History of our Saviour's Life, from the im∣portance of the matter (if true), from the Silence of the Evan∣gelists, and especially of St. John? How doth he argue against it from the Weakness of the Socinian attempts to prove it, and for which in effect they have nothing to say? How from the in∣consistency of it with Scripture? and that whereas St. John saith, The Word was in the beginning, and then was made Flesh: They say, That he was first made Flesh, and then a great while after was in the beginning with God. How, lastly, doth he ar∣gue from the disagreement in the several parts of this their Interpretation; as it may be worth the Reader's while himself to observe * 1.25?

All this our Author has prudently pass'd over; but that he may seem to say something, and have a fair opportunity to Complement where he wants a Reply; he forms a Question for his Grace, (for it's a Charge, and not a Question, Arch∣bishop, p. 92, 93.) He demands, saith he, when did this Ascension of our Saviour into Heaven happen? His Grace had indeed charged it upon them, that they themselves cannot agree precisely when; and without doubt he wanted a fair account of it. But our Author unfortunately pitches upon that time for it, which his Adver∣sary had beforehand prevented. For thus he answers, St. John hath resolved this Question in these words of his Gospel, [in the be∣ginning the Word was with God] i. e. in the beginning of his Ministry, just before be enter'd thereon; the Lord Christ was with God by ascending (as himself expresly and often saith) into Heaven. This Account of it is very precise. But to this his Grace had alrea∣dy made two Exceptions.

1. That this is not consistent with their own Explication of the Phrase, in the beginning, that is to say, when the Gospel first began to be published; which was by Authority from him (he having ascended into Heaven, and came from thence to declare the Will of God to men, as our Author saith) but that was not began to be published, till after he had been with God (in their sense.) And therefore if the Word was at all with the Father, so as to ascend from Earth to Heaven, it must not have been in the beginning, but before the beginning.

2. He sheweth, this is not reconciliable to another Opinion of theirs, which is, that Christ was not God but by Office and Divine Constitution, and that he was not so constituted and declared till after his Resurection, and his being advanced to the right hand of God; but if in the beginning, is in the beginning of the Gospel-state, then the Word was God in the same beginning that he was with God, and so must be God by Office, before he enter'd upon his Office of Publick Mini∣stry, and consequently long before his Resurrection. But if he was so constituted not till after his Resurrection, he was not God in their sense of the beginning, and so consequently was not with God, nor did ascend into Heaven before he began his Ministry. So that there is no manner of proof, either for the Matter, or the time of this Legendary Doctrine of theirs, concerning our Saviour's Ascension into Heaven before he began his Ministry, if the aforesaid Arguments hold good.

But that which our Author presses most, (without regard∣ing the Arguments against it) is the literal sense of the Phrase, No man hath ascended, &c. in which, he saith, the Archbishop doth understand it. But this is no more true that his Grace so understands it, than that it's expresly and often said in Scripture, that our Saviour ascended into Heaven before his Ministry, (as our Author affirms) unless it be when his Grace undertakes to prove that such an Ascension never was.

But supposing it were literally to be understood, yet will it not serve their purpose. For then, according to the letter of it, our Saviour must have come down from Heaven before he ascended thither. If it had been worded, that no man hath come down from Heaven, but he that hath ascended into Heaven, then he would have ascended first, and after that have descended: But when it's said, No man hath ascended into Heaven, but he that came

down from Heaven, (if the manner of speaking is to be our Guide) then he must have came down before he ascended, af∣ter the way the Apostle speaks, Ephes. 4.9, 10. Now that he ascended, what is it, but that he also descended first, &c.

I say, the order of Words then shews, that his Descent must have been before his Ascension; which is diametrically opposite to the Socinian Hypothesis, and is not to be accommodated but by the Orthodox sense of it, viz. that he that in the Beginning was with God, and had a Glory with the Father before the World was, in the fulness of time was made Flesh, and came down from Heaven, to fulfil and declare the Will of God to men. And then it orderly follows, No man hath so ascended into Heaven, and no man hath been there to understand the Will of the Father, but he that first came down from Heaven, and is in due time to ascend thither; as if he had said, (to transcribe the Paraphrase of a very learned person) from me alone are these things to be learned, for none can go up to Heaven to fetch the knowledge of them from thence, but I came down from Heaven to reveal the Will of God* 1.26, &c.

The second sort of Texts which speak of our Saviour's Ex∣istence before his Incarnation, are these, Father glorify thou me with thine own self, with the glory which I had with thee before the World was, John 17.5. And before Abraham was, I am, &c. John 8.58.

To the first our Author replies, that according to St. Austin and Grotius, this is to be understood of God's Decree, after this manner, Let me now actually receive that glory with they self, which I had with thee in thy Decree and Purpose before the World was. And if we may take his word, he saith, that he has sufficiently con∣firmed this Interpretation in the Second Edition of his Brief Hi∣story of the Unitarians.

He very seasonably refers us to his Second Edition, (which I have not seen) for in the first it exceedingly wants some Con∣firmation. All that he has to say there, is, that we in Scrip∣ture are sometimes said to have that which we have in God's Decree. From whence he infers, Therefore so also we may under∣stand, that Christ had Glory before the World was. An inference very cautiously worded, Therefore we may understand, &c. And it was not without reason, as I shall immediately shew.

A. 1. I grant that the Scripture doth often represent things after this manner, so that that which is to be hereafter, is spok••n of as if it was actually present and existent, as Isaiah 53.3. He is despised and rejected of men. And in like manner we are reputed to have that which we have by promise, as in the place he quotes, 2 Cor. 5.1. We have a building of God, &c. But then as Decrees and Promises do in the nature of them respect the future, so there must be some reason for this man∣ner of speaking, which without such reason would be absurd. Now, the reason of such Forms of Speech, is to represent the certainty of the thing, that it being thus appointed and pro∣mised by Almighty God, it shall as certainly be fulfilled in its season, as if it was now actually present. But set aside such Reason, and such Forms of Speech will be absurd; as for Ex∣ample, if I should say, all Generations that shall be to the Worlds end are now in being, and have been ever since the World was. But there is no such reason for such an Interpretation here, for this respects the time past.

2. Tho we should be said to have that which we are decreed to have, yet we cannot be said to have it before the World was; as for instance, we cannot be said to have a building of God be∣fore the World was; for that is to have it before we were. We may be said by the foresaid Prophetical Scheme of Speech to have what we that are in being, shall have in its proper time; but we are not said to have it, or to have had it before the Foundation of the World. God indeed may be said to give before the World, by virtue of his Decree and Intention so to do, because he always was, is, and ever will be, and to him all things are present in their Causes, over which he has an absolute Power. But tho we may be said to have, with re∣spect to the time to come, as well as present (in the Cases afore∣said) yet we cannot properly be, nor are in Scripture said to have it before the World was, because we are born in the World. Thus God may be said to give us Grace or Salva∣tion before the World began; in the place he cites, 2 Tim. 1.9. but we are not said to have a building of God before the world was. And so when it's said, Father, glorify me with thine own self, with the glory which I had with thee before the world was; as it doth suppose our Saviour to have been in being, and to have had a Glory with the Father before the World,

so he cannot be said to have it in Decree before the World was.

3. And that the words are not capable of such an Interpre∣tation will further appear from the Phrase, with thee, which answers to that which went before, with thine own self; and if the latter doth signify the actual Enjoyment of that Glory, then so doth the former. Indeed, the Phrase with thine own self, and with thee, (for they are both one) doth suppose the Person that is with God to be in being. As it was when God is said to be the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; thereby is implied, that those Holy Patriarchs are alive, according to our Saviour's reasoning, God is not the God of the dead, but of the living, Matth. 22.32. And if to be the God of Abraham, did imply that Abra∣ham was in being; then surely, if it had been said of Abraham, that he was with God, it must also imply that Abraham actu∣ally was. For he could no more be said to be with God, and not be; than God could be said to be his God, and he not alive.

And accordingly it might as well be said of Abraham, that God was his God in Decree and Intention, as Abraham might be said to be with God, and yet be no otherwise so than in God's Decree. So absurd is it, with our Author, to allow our Savi∣our to have had no Being before the World was, and yet to say he was with God before the World, which is in the same breath to say he was not, and yet he was. A difficulty our Au∣thor, with those he follows, found to be so great, that they chose rather to give a new interpretation of the Phrase, in the beginning, John 1.1. (as has been before shew'd) and so to al∣low the Word to have then been actually with God; rather than to maintain, as some others before did, that the Word was with God in his Decree, contrary to the plain and evident meaning of that Phrase.

4. I may add, If the sense of this Prayer of our Saviour is, Father, glorify me with thine own self, with the glory which I had with thee in thy Decree and Promise before the world was; then (according to what our Saviour saith, ver. 22. The glory which thou hast given me, I have given them, the like Glory being promised to and decreed for all the Faithful) every good man may use the same Prayer with our Saviour, and say, Father, ••lorify me with thine own self, with the glory which I had with thee before the

World was. But I suppose St. Austin, (who our Author saith was for this decretal sense) would not have presumed to do so.

I confess I have done more than in strictness I was obliged to, when he refers us to another Book of his, and to another Edi∣tion of that Book; but I am apt to think this Answer will serve for either Meridian.

The second Text produced by the Archbishop, is John 8.58. Before Abraham was, I am:

The obvious sense of which words (saith his Grace) is, That he had a real Existence before Abraham was actually in Being, p. 86.

But on the contrary, the Socinians say, That he was before Abraham was, in the Divine Foreknowledge and Decree. This his Lordship took to task, and shewed,

That this is nothing but what might have been said of any other man, and even of Araham himself; 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 signified the Eternal Duration and Permanency of his B••ing. Which he confirms by several other places.

To this our Author has nothing to reply; but would insi∣nuate as if his Grace had only proposed the place, without any manner of Proof; for after this ridiculous manner doth he re∣present it: His Grace will not hear of this [about the Decree]; we cannot help it; but we know the reason to be, because he taketh it as a ground of his Interpretation of this Text, that our Saviour was (not only in God's Decree, but) in actual Existence before his Progenitor Abraham; but that is the Point which his Grace had to Prove, not to Suppose as a ground of Interpretation. This person writes, I per∣ceive, for a Party, and presumes his Readers will never consult the Books he pretends to answer; for else he would not so bold∣ly venture thus to impose upon the world, and to tell us that his Grace only supposes, but does not prove what he proposes; and accordingly he himself slips over the Argument, and runs from it as far as he can.

2. He replies, Here again I must mind his Grace, that none of his Proofs, in their utmost stretch, run higher than Arianism.

A. Proofs: He should have call'd them Suppositions, if he had not forgot himself.

But what if those Proofs run no higher than Arianism? they are sufficient: For all his Grace was under any obligation at this

time to prove, was our Saviour's Pre-existence, against the So∣cinians, Serm II. p. 56, &c. (having in his former Sermon main∣tained the Point of our Saviour's Deity, against the Ari∣ans, &c.) And if he has proved that, he has gained the Point under Consideration.

All that our Author has further to say, is, To give us his Opinion of this Text over and over, and ushers it in with a Magisterial Authority: But if we can, let us make both Arians and Trinitarians sensible what is the meaning of these words, Before Abra∣ham was, I am, from the Circumstances and Context.

But if I may not too much incur his displeasure, by laying aside his Supposals for the present, I will venture to propose the Case as the Evangelist relates it, and then discourse with him upon it.

In Vers. 48. Our Saviour replied upon the Jews, Your Father Abraham rejoiced to see my day; and he saw it and was glad. To this they captiously object, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? That is, Was't thou coexistent with him, and born in his time, who has been so long dead? Whom makest thou thy self? [ver. 52, 53.] To this our Saviour an∣swers, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. Which Text, according to our Author, is elliptical and imper∣fect, and wants somewhat to supply it: Which he thus at∣tempts, I was long before Abraham's time in the decrees and promises of God.

Now supposing it so to be, Why must it thus be supplied? O, saith he, it cannot be true in any other sense, being spoken of a son and dependant of Abraham.

Supposing that to be spoke of such a one, why may it not as well fall upon the former as latter part of the Clause, and so be read, Before Abraham was the Father of the Gentiles, (signified in Isaac) I am, or I was in the world?

Or why may it not be said, Before Abraham was, I was in being? For though our Saviour was a Descendant of Abra∣ham according to the Flesh, yet he was the begotten Son of God (as none of Abraham's Posterity was) that was in the be∣ginning, and before the World with God; and so he might literally say before Abraham was, I was or am.

But supposing we admit his Explication, that before Abraham was, I was in God's decree.

Would this prove what was to be proved, That he that was not fifty years old, had seen Abraham, or that he was Co-exi∣stent with Abraham? Suppose we take it as he would have it, independent of what it was to p•••••••• what a mean 〈◊〉〈◊〉 was it for our Saviour to alledge, I was 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Abraham, namely, in God's Decree? For,

Might not the Jews then reply, So Abraham was before Adam, and so both Abraham and Adam were before the World?

Might they not say, so were we then before Abraham; Abraham before himself, and we before we were they, might they not say, Is any thing before another 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Art thou before Abraham, or Abraham before us, since all would then be co-existent alike in Decree, being the Decrees are alike Eternal?

Might not our Saviour as well have said, I have seen Abra∣ham, reserving to himself, in the Book of Genesis; as say, be∣fore Abraham was, I was, reserving to himself, in the Book of God's Decree?

Lastly, If our Saviour had said, Before Abraham was, I was in God's Decree, or had been so understood, where was the Blas∣phemy for which the Jews would have stoned him?

It is apparent that the Jews presently understood him being a Title known to all, and known to belong only to God, as well known (by reason of that noted place it relates to in Exodus) as Jehovah, and so immediately they took up stones to cast at him.

But his Grace hath not so done with this Text, but goes on to fortifie it with other parallel places, as to the phrase and significa∣tion, p. 100. as Hebr. 13.8. The same yesterday, to day, and for ever. And Revelat. 1.8, 17. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty, Rev. 22.13, 16.

This our Author declines, and instead of proposing it as it lay in his Grace's Sermon, he takes up the latter of these places in the close of his Discourse upon this Head after this manner, The last of his Grace's Texts to prove the Pre-existence and Divinity of our Saviour, is Rev. 1.8. p. 58. b.

Though out of its place, I am content to take it as he proposes it; and especially because I may hope now, if ever, to make a Convert of him; for thus he answers, When his Grace proves that these words are spoken, not of God, but of Christ, I will thank him, and give him the Cause.

Fairly offered, and fit to be accepted.

In the first place, I take it for granted, that I need not re∣mind him of what his Grace has observed, That these Expressions are the common Description which the Scripture gives of the Eternity of God, whose Being is commensurate to all the several respects of Dura∣tion, past, present, and to come. For this is the reason why our Author denies this to belong to our Saviour, since that would be to a∣scribe such a Being to him, as is commensurate to all these Du∣rations. Therefore with his usual assurance, he affirms,

That they are not spoken of our Lord Christ, seems to me as clear as Meridian Light, from what is said v. 4. From him which is, which was, and which is to come, and from Jesus Christ. Where we see plainly, that Jesus Christ is distinguished as a different person from that Almighty who is, and who was, and who is to come; therefore he cannot be intended in the Descrip∣tion, v. 8.

Answer. I suppose that he intends this as a general Answer to the several places of the Revelation quoted by his Grace; and then it's as much as to say, that since Jesus Christ is distinguished from him who is, and was, and is to come, v. 4. therefore he cannot be intended at v. 8. nor 17. nor Ch. 22.13, 16. That is, that these Ex∣pressions, which are the common Description the Scripture gives of the Eternity of God, are never applied in any of those 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 unanswerably follow, that if Jesus Christ is, and was, and is to come, then he is alike Eternal as the Father, and parta∣ker of one and the same nature with him.

2. How doth it follow that Jesus Christ is distinguished as a dif∣ferent person from him who is, was, and is to come; therefore he cannot be intended in the Description at ver. 8.? For he may be a different person from the Almighty Father, who is described by that Character, v. 4. and yet as the Son have the same property Essential to the Divine Nature ascribed to him. This we con∣tend for, and this I shall endeavour to prove.

I shall begin with v. 8. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. All the question is, who is the Lord that thus saith of himself, I am Alpha and Omega, &c? For this we must consult the context, and then the Character will ap∣pear

to be his that cometh with Clouds, v. 7. That made us Kings and Priests unto God and his Father, v. 6. the first begotten of the Dead, the Prince of the Kings of the earth, that loved us and washed us in his blood, even Jesus Christ, v. 5. So that he is no less the Alpha 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 same manner describing our Saviour, v. 11. I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last. And that it's given as a Cha∣racter belonging to him, is evident, for he is the same that commanded St. John to write, and whose Voice he heard, the Son of man that he saw in the midst of the seven candlesticks, v. 12, 13. So again, v. 17. he that saith of himself, I am the first and the last, is the same with him that saith of himself, v. 18. I am he that li∣veth and was dead, and behold I am alive for evermore. So again, he saith of himself, chap. 2.8. These things saith the first and the last, which was dead and is alive. And as St. John begins, so he ends this Prophetical Book, cap. 22.13. I am Alpha and Omega, the be∣ginning and the end, the first and the last; viz. the same with him that saith, ver. 12, & 20. Behold, I come quickly; — Jesus that sent his Angel to testify these things, v. 16.

From all which laid together it is very manifest, and as clear as the Meridian light, that these Phrases 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 commensurate to all the several re∣spects of Duration, past, present, and to come? And what a presumption would it be in a Creature that had a beginning, to say of himself, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last? So that our Author must in the conclusion side with his Antient Vnitarians and deny the Revelation to be Canonical; or be as good as his word, and give his Adversary the Cause, and write a Retractation.

The last place our Author touches upon (omitting several other material Texts cited by his Grace) is 1 Job. 1.1, 2. That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, &c. which he thus expounds (calling into his aid Grotius and Vorstius, in his Opinion two the ablest Interpreters the Church has yet had.)

1. The Word of Life, that is, the Gospel.

2. Eternal Life, i. e. the Immortality therein promised.

3. From the beginning, that is, they were always intended and purposed by him, but not manifested till reveal'd in the Gospel.

4. We have seen and handled, is to signifie their knowledge of it was most assured and absolute. For the Hebrews are wont to declare the certainty and clearness of things by Terms borrowed from the Senses.

Ans. Though the Hebrews are wont to express the certainty and clearness of things after that manner; yet I don't find that the Scripture is wont to speak thus of the Gospel, viz. The Gospel which was from the beginning, which we have seen with our Eyes, and our Hands have handled, and which was with the Father. But I find that Saint John in his Gospel speaks of our Saviour in the like terms, for thus he saith of him, In the beginning (which is the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 here, as his Grace observed p. 19. and Grotius before him) was the Word, and the Word was with God, v. 4. In him was life, v. 14. We beheld his Glory, and he is said to be manifested, Joh. 14.21, 22. and 1 Joh. 3.5, 8.

Now what can be more evident than that when the Author is the same, the phrase the same, and more agreeable to the Subject under consideration, that it should be alike under∣stood in one Book as the other, and so that which we have heard, and seen, and looked upon, and handled, and was with the Father, should be the Son, and not the Gospel of God?

But saith our Author, Grotius and Vorstius think otherwise; and he goes on, I know not why his Grace overlook'd this Interpreta∣tion of two of the most learned and judicious Criticks of this or any other age.

Answer, I answer in his phrase, I marvel much how our Author should know that his Grace overlook'd it, for it's likely that he might not have the same opinion with this Writer of these two great men, so as to think them the ablest Interpreters the Church has yet had: Vorstius for many reasons, and Grotius for his posthu∣mous Notes (I should rather call them adversaria) come not up to that Character. Besides his Grace knew very well what both the Antient and learned and judicious Criticks of latter Ages, thought of this Text. In the number of the former is Tertul∣lian, adv. Praxeam. c. 15. Amongst the latter is Erasmus; and even Grotius is inconsistent with himself, when he goes off from the Gospel to the Miracles that attested it, in his Explication of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which we have looked upon.

Before his Grace leaves the Argument of our Saviour's Deity, he takes notice of a usual plea of the Socinians, that they glory they have Reason clearly on their side in this and the other point of the B. Trinity; and that the Difficulties and Absurdities are much greater and plainer on our part than on theirs, A.B.p. 115.

To each of these his Lordship made a distinct Reply, and shew'd particularly as to the Doctrine of the Trinity, that tho' it was above, yet it was not contrary to Reason; that though there were Difficulties, yet no Absurdity in it. This our Au∣thor thought fit to pass over in silence.

As to the latter, his Grace undertook to prove that the Opi∣nion of our Adversaries hath greater Difficulties in it, and more palpable Absurdities following from it, than any they could charge upon the Orthodox.

As when they say, That the Son of God is a meer Creature, not God by Nature, and yet truly and really God by Office, and by Divine Appointment and Constitution; to whom the very same Honour and Worship is to be given which we give to him who is God by Nature. p. 123.

In which his Grace observes two Difficulties and Absurdities. 1. That

they hereby bring Idolatry by a back-door into the Christian Religion, as they give Divine Worship to a mere Creature, and as they willingly admit two Gods, the one by Nature, and the other by Office.

2. That they cannot vindicate themselves in this point in any other way, than what will in a great measure acquit both the Pagans and Papists from the charge of Idolatry.

This our Author saith, is not an uncommon imputation on the So∣cinian Doctrine, and thus far he is in the right, for besides Mo∣dern Writers, the stream of the Fathers charge the Arians with Idolatry as they Worship Christ, whom they suppose to be a meer Creature. Thus Athanasius, Gregory Naz. and Nyssen. St. Basil, Epiphanius, &c.

And this Charge our Author doth rather avoid than deny; for which purpose he divideth the Vnitarians into two sorts:

Such as give Christ no Divine Worship: Of these he saith, It is certain we have wrote no Book this seven years, in which we have not been careful to profess to all the world, that a like Honour or Wor∣ship (much less the same) is not to be given to Christ-as to God. And then he will by all means have this Charge of worshipping our

Saviour, to be a soul Calumny thrown on them by the Trinita∣rian Preachers. Do the Trinitarians think, saith our hussing Controvertist, they may devise a Religion for us, and then come up into their Pulpits to declaim against the Schemes that are purely of their own Invention? In good time we shall have a Pulpit Socinia∣nism, as there was in the late Reign a Pulpit Popery; for this Author writes in the very way and Phrase of Misrepresentation and Representation. But after all, is this a Misrepresentation? Did never any Vnitarians or Socinians give Honour and Worship, a like and even the same to Christ as to the Father? Is that Charge a Device of the Trinitarians? Our Author will under∣take for himself, for that is the We in this Book, the Author of the History of the Vnitarians, the Author of the Criticisms on Mr. Milbourn, &c. and so for Seven Years backwards. We, saith he, have wrote no Book this seven years, in which we have not been careful, &c. But were there no years before the last Seven, that can be looked into? He knew what the Arians, and what Soci∣nus and his Followers held and do hold. But he and his, for whom we want a Name, (for they are in this neither Arians nor Socinians) unless we will call them Francisco-Davidists, are herein very reserved and cautious, that they may not give the same nor alike Honour to our Saviour as to God. Indeed if they were of another mind before the seven years past, they have done well to change it, to ease themselves of a troublesome Charge of giving Divine Worship to a mere Creature, as did the Ari∣ans and Socinians; and of as troublesom Adversaries as Socinus found Franciscus David to be, that would not allow Divine Worship to be given to Christ, because he was a Creature, and that by so doing they should be guilty of Idolatry.

But after all his suming, and his talk of a Devised Religion, and declaiming Pulpits, and Schemes purely of their own Invention, he is forced to own that there is a second sort of Vnitarians that give Divine Worship to our Saviour; and that's an Objection in his way. But his Grace will say perhaps, Why? Do you not pray to Christ? And to close the Objection, Do you not then give the like, nay the same Honour to Christ as to God?

His Answer to this is well worthy our Observation.

1. There are indeed some Vnitarians who pray to the Lord Christ. But why Some? Did not the numerous Arians, and did not Socinus, and generally all called after his name do so; and did

they not think themselves obliged so to do, inveighing against those that did not?

2. He adds by way of Excuse, They pray'd to him indeed, but it was to him, as that Mediatory King, who is (say they) appointed by God to succour us in all our straits and wants. But is not this to equal him with God, to whom alone we are taught to direct our Prayers? Nay, is not this to attribute to him the Divine Properties of Omniscience and Omnipotence, when he is supposed to know and succour us in all our straits and wants? No, saith he, for they own that his knowledge either of our wants or Prayers is only by Revelation from God; and his Power by which he relieves us, is wholly of God's giving.

But is not Prayer a part of Divine Worship, 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 Worship belonging to the Creator? And can any Divine Ap∣pointment make that not to be Idolatry, which in its nature is so? (as the Protestants use to maintain against the Church of Rome). And besides, don't those Socinians that worship our Saviour, af∣firm that they worship him as God? Thus Socinus himself pleads, Vt pro Deo ac Domino suo venerentur, Tom. 2. p. 631. That they worship him as their God and Lord. And much more to the same purpose. And what is it to worship him as God, but to give him Divine Worship?

The Second Difficulty and Absurdity his Grace charges upon them, is a Plurality of Gods, the one by Nature, the other by Of∣fice, a Creature-God, a God merely by Positive Institution.

All that he has to say to this, is, Will he deny positively and di∣rectly, that the Lord Christ is a God by Representation and Office? And then steals off with, Let his Grace give it under his hand, That the Lord Christ is not a God in these senses.

A. This is much as if when charged with Idolatry for giving Divine Worship to Christ, if a mere Man, he should say, Will his Grace deny positively and directly, that Christ is a Man? For though he denies not Christ to be a Man, yet he affirms, That Christ, if no more than a Man, is not to be worshipped with Divine Honour. So tho he should not deny Christ to be a God by Representation and Office, yet he affirms that one who is so and no more, cannot be the True God, nor be worshipped as God; for that would establish a Plurality of Gods. But his Grace

on the other hand took not himself concerned, nor doth the Case require, that he should positively assert, That Christ is a God by Representation; for that is more than our Author himself dares to do, who faintly enough concludes, That as Moses is called a God, so also Christ may be called a God by Mission, Representation, and Office.

Now how unreasonable a thing is this, That he should put it so hard upon his Grace, to deny positively and directly, what this Author himself dares not positively and directly affirm? for he cautiously saith (for fear a Proof should be required), So also may Christ be called a God. But our Author is too spa∣ring and modest in his expressions, for the Socinians are not back∣ward to acknowledge, That our Saviour is True God, and that there are more True Gods than one; and that to say there is One only Supreme Independent God, and to worship one God by Nature, is Ju∣daical, and a renouncing of the Christian Religion. Vid. Smalcius Exam. Cent. Err. & Refutatio Smig. de novis monstris, &c.

To conclude, His Grace had said,

That the Socinians cannot vindicate themselves in this Point any other way, than what will in great measure acquit both the Pagans and the Papists from the Charge of Idolatry.

This our Author calls a Thunder-clap; and truly by his own Pleas he makes good the Imputation. For,

1. He saith, They pray to Christ as a Mediatory King, who is appointed by God to succor us in all our straits: And of this kind were the Dii Medioxumi among the Heathens; and so are the Mediators of Intercession, the Saints and Angels, in the Church of Rome, who they say are appointed by the Supreme God to hear and succour us.

2. He saith, That the knowledge our Saviour hath either of our Wants or Prayers, is only by Revelation from God; and his Power is wholly of God's giving.

So the Romanists say, That the Saints have their Knowledge of our state, either by Revelation, or in speculo Trinitatis, in the Glass of the Trinity; which is much the same.

3. Our Author saith, The Worship given to Christ is not the same which is given to God. So the Church of Rome hath their Superior Worship, Latria, which they give to God; and an inferior, Dulia, which they give to Saints.

4. Our Author saith, Though these Socinians pray to Christ, yet they don't hereby equal him to God. This is the very Plea made by the Church of Rome for the Worship they give, and the Prayers they offer to Saints and Angels.

From all which we see how much Modesty as well as Truth there is in what his Grace observes, That they cannot vindicate themselves in this Point any other way, than what will in a great mea∣sure acquit both the Pagans and the Papists from the Charge of Ido∣latry.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Eccles. Hist. l. 3. c. 24. & 25.
• * 1.2

  Iren. l. 3. c. 1.
• * 1.3

  Euseb. l. 5. c. 8.
• * 1.4

  Hieron. Ec∣cles. Script. Sandius de Script. Ec∣cles.
• * 1.5

  Euseb. l. 7. c. 24.
• † 1.6

  Iren. l. 4. c. 37. & 50. Euseb. l. 5. c. 8. Tertull. ad∣vers. Mar∣cion. c. 4. Hieron. Script. Eccles. Origen. Homil. In principio.
• * 1.7

  Ephiphan. Haer. 28.5. Philostrius ••ar.
• * 1.8

  Haer. 51.5, 6.
• * 1.9

  V. Wolze∣gen in loc.
• * 1.10

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. which the Latin Tran∣slator has not reach∣ed.
• * 1.11

  Euseb. l. 3. c. 24.
• † 1.12

  Serm. 2. p. 94.
• * 1.13

  Haer. 51.12.
• † 1.14

  Script. Eccles.
• * 1.15

  Advers. Haer. l. 3. c. 11.
• * 1.16

  V. Epiphan. Haer. 51.2, 12, 13.
• * 1.17

  Haer. 30.
• * 1.18

  Iren. l. 1. c. 1. l. 3. c. 11.
• * 1.19

  Haer. 27.7.
• * 1.20

  Adv. Haer. l. 26. c. 17.
• * 1.21

  Adv. Haer. l. 3. c. 11.
• * 1.22

  Praepar. p. 540.
• † 1.23

  V. San∣dius, p. 115, 119.
• * 1.24

  V. Archb. Serm. 2. p. 69.
• * 1.25

  Serm. 2. p. 93, &c.
• * 1.26

  Lightf. Third Part of the Harm, in loc.