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.

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 * 1.1?

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* 1.2, &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

  Serm. 2. p. 93, &c.
• * 1.2

  Lightf. Third Part of the Harm, in loc.