Remarks on several late writings publish'd in English by the Socinians wherein is show'd the insufficiency and weakness of their answers to the texts brought against them by the orthodox : in four letters, written at the request of a Socinian gentleman / by H. de Luzancy ... De Luzancy, H. C. (Hippolyte du Chastelet), d. 1713. 1696 Approx. 409 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 100 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. Text Creation Partnership, Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) : 2014-11 (EEBO-TCP Phase 2). A36731 Wing D2420 ESTC R14044 13142091 ocm 13142091 97967

To the extent possible under law, the Text Creation Partnership has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above, according to the terms of the CC0 1.0 Public Domain Dedication Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. This waiver does not extend to any page images or other supplementary files associated with this work, which may be protected by copyright or other license restrictions. Please go to http://www.textcreationpartnership.org/ for more information.

Early English books online text creation partnership. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 2, no. A36731) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 97967) Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 415:2) Remarks on several late writings publish'd in English by the Socinians wherein is show'd the insufficiency and weakness of their answers to the texts brought against them by the orthodox : in four letters, written at the request of a Socinian gentleman / by H. de Luzancy ... De Luzancy, H. C. (Hippolyte du Chastelet), d. 1713. [8], 189, [2] p. Printed by Tho. Warren for Thomas Bennet ..., London : 1696. Advertisement: [2] p. at end. Reproduction of original in Bodleian Library.

Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.

EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.

EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).

The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.

Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.

Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.

Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.

The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.

Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).

Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site.

eng Socinianism. 2020-09-21 Content of 'availability' element changed when EEBO Phase 2 texts came into the public domain 2013-08 Assigned for keying and markup 2013-08 Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2013-10 Sampled and proofread 2013-10 Text and markup reviewed and edited 2014-03 Batch review (QC) and XML conversion

REMARKS On Several Late Writings, Publiſh'd in Engliſh by the SOCINIANS: Wherein Is ſhow'd the inſufficiency and weakneſs of their Anſwers to the Texts brought againſt them by the Orthodox.

IN FOUR LETTERS. Written at the Requeſt of a Socinian Gentleman.

By H. DE LƲZANCY, B. D. Vic. of Doverc. and Harwich.

LONDON, Printed by Tho. Warren, for Thomas Bennet, at the Half-Moon in St. Paul's Church-Yard, 1696.

THE PREFACE.

THE deſign of the following Letters was to inſtruct a private Gentleman, who by reading Socinian Books, had got a mighty prejudice againſt the Sacred Doctrines of the Holy Trinity, and Incarnation. He deſir'd that he might have the liberty to communicate my Papers to ſome of his Friends of that perſwaſion. But this being lyable to many inconveniences, it was thought much fitter at once to expoſe them to publick view. Whether he will be convinc'd by theſe Writings muſt be left to God, who beſt knows the ways of working upon the minds of men. Whether there is matter enough to convince him, is left to the judgment of the World?

The general means to clear a Controverſy are Reaſon, and Authority. I humbly conceive, that the firſt has nothing to do in this diſpute. For how can we argue from the Principles of natural reaſon in a point wholly Divine and Supernatural? and how can the Philoſopher of this World conclude with any certainty, in that which is above all the inquiries, and deciſions of Philoſophy. I ever thought the Socinians extreamly in the wrong, with their pretended contradictions in the belief of our Holy Myſteries, and the Letter to both the Ʋniverſities, much the worſt of all their Writings: It being certainly neither juſt, nor candid, to uſe Topicks, though never ſo ingeniouſly turn'd, altogether foreign to the matter in diſpute; and to give an air of probability to that which when truly ſtated, and conſider'd, is of another nature than the thing propos'd to us. I take it for granted, even by theſe Gentlemen themſelves, that Faith and Reaſon are two different things; and conſequently that that which is the object of Faith, cannot be the object of Reaſon. Of what uſe then can thoſe Arguments be which are call'd Demonſtrations againſt the Doctrines of the Holy Trinity, and Incarnation; Thoſe perpetual deſcants upon the impoſſibility of Three being One, and One Three; of the ſame ſubſtance unbegotten, begotten, and proceeding; of a part of God being incarnate, and another not incarnate: All this, and ten thouſand Objections more are a fallacy, and an impoſition on Mankind: The caſe here being of another nature, not tryable at the Bar of our corrupt Reaſon; but call'd to another and a more infallible Tribunal.

On the other ſide, though it looks much like Charity and Condeſcenſion; yet it is certainly an Inadvertency, to have pretended to anſwer theſe Gentlemen in their own way, and to run with them upon the ſame falſe ſcent, of reaſoning on thoſe things which we ought only to believe, and adore. The Socinians may write till Doomſday to prove the Ʋnr aſonableneſs; and their charitable and learned Anſwerers may do the ſame, to prove the Reaſonableneſs of our Chriſtian Doctrine; I mean, keeping ſtill within the compaſs of natural reaſon; and yet this great truth will never be clear'd; becauſe indeed neither of them embrace the true Method to clear it.

The way then of Authority is both the plaineſt and the ſafeſt. It has that advantage, that the other is even reſolv'd into it. For there is nothing ſo highly rational as a ſubmiſſion of our Reaſon to an Authority which all ſides own to be infallible. We all agree that the Divine Scriptures are the rule of our Faith. We all acknowledge them to be the word of God: and this very name commands naturally, and of it ſelf a veneration, which no human Writings, though of never ſo much ſtrength and clearneſs, can force from us. It is then from thence, and only from thence, that we ought to reaſon, and conclude in this Sacred Controverſy. The conſent of the whole Chriſtian World muſt be a ſtrong inducement to a modeſt Socinian to miſtruſt all his Arguments. To oppoſe all that has been, and is Great and Good in the Church of God, in a point of Faith, is too much for the most preſuming Diſputant. But when the Authority of God, ſpeaking in thoſe Scriptures, which we all contend to be the Revelation which he has made of himſelf to us, is ſuperadded to the univerſal conſent of the Church, all the reaſons which we can pretend to oppoſe to this, ought to be no more to men of ſence, than talk and noiſe.

The Church aſſerts the Ʋnity of the Divine Nature, in which three diſtinct, and equally adorable Perſons ſubſist, The Father, The Son, and the Holy Ghoſt, of which the ſecond was Incarnate, and in the fullneſs of time became Man. To ſay that this is falſe, becauſe incomprehenſible, is a lamentable conſequence. Nor is it ſufferable to reject the belief of theſe Mysteries, becauſe our poor, narrow, and corrupt Reaſon is pleas'd to ſtate contradictions in a ſubject ſo far above our capacity; and to ſay, as thoſe Gentlemen urge vehemently, that we cannot believe that of which we can have no notion, or Idea, is much worſe: ſince, beſides that we have little or no knowledge at all of the ways, operations, and manner of Exiſtence of an Infinite Being; to ſuppoſe a notion or an Idea of the thing propos'd, is to deſtroy Faith, which Heb. 11.1. is the evidence of things not ſeen: that is, an aſſurance and certainty of that which is imperceptible to us, becauſe above the reach of our underſtanding; ſupplying by the Authority of the Revelation, that notion or Idea of which theſe Gentlemen argue an abſolute neceſſity.

The only way then to ſatisfy our ſelves is to hear what the Scripture teaches concerning this. For if the Church ſpeaks the language of the Scripture, it ſpeaks as God has taught us; and to ſpeak after God is the moſt certain and excellent way of ſpeaking in the World. The Challenge of the great Athanaſius to the Arrians, and of St. Auſtin to the Hereticks of his time, was the moſt reaſonable Propoſition in nature to a people who own'd Christianity; and that is, that laying aſide human reaſoning, and relying upon the veracity of the Divine Oracles, they ſhould inquire, not what man propos'd, but what God has ſay'd in the matter. If the Scripture is poſitive that God is one; and yet aſſerts the Father to be God, the Son to be God, and the Holy Ghoſt to be God: If it ſays that the Son has taken our nature upon him; The Church ſpeaks as the Scripture has taught, and the Doctrine of the Trinity and Incarnation, is the Doctrine of the Church; becauſe it is firſt that of the Scripture.

Being perſwaded then that the diſpute muſt at laſt be put upon that Iſſue; and ſenſible that any thing elſe that is propos'd of both ſides, though it ſhews the great parts and abilities of the Diſputants, can yet give no ſolid ſatisfaction; I have endeavour'd to walk in the old way, and aim'd at theſe two things. Firſt, To prove the Divinity of our Bleſſed Saviour, and of the Holy Spirit, which proof really implies all the reſt. For if the Son is God, and the Holy Ghoſt is God, The great objection is anſwer'd, that Three Divine Perſons deſtroy the Ʋnity of God, which is the ſtate of the queſtion. Since if it does appear that it is ſo; there is a Trinity of Perſons without a deſtruction of that Ʋnity which is inſeparable from the Divine Nature.

Secondly, I have attempted to ſhew the inſufficiency of theſe Gentlemen's Anſwers to thoſe ſubſtantial Texts on which our Belief reſts. For I muſt beg leave to ſay, that it is almoſt incredible, that ſuch thin, ill-built, unwary Anſwers, ſhould drop from Perſons undoubtedly of great Learning: and it is a ſtrong confirmation of thoſe very proofs, when mighty Adverſaries have ſo little to ſay to them.

If the whole is not mannag'd as it ſhould be; I hope that the Sacred Cauſe which I maintain, will not ſuffer for it; and if the Perſon, for whoſe ſake theſe Letters are written, is not ſatisfy'd by what I have done; It is his and my Misfortune, that I can do no better. Whatſoever is in theſe Papers is with the humbleſt ſubmiſſion offer'd to the Judgment and Cenſure of the Church of England.

THE Firſt LETTER. SIR,

I Have read the Books which you were pleas'd to lend me, with as much application as I could; and am now to diſcharge my promiſe of giving you my ſence of them. I confeſs it is ſomewhat a hard Province, and in particular to me, who ever was an Enemy to diſputes in Religion; and fully perſwaded, that the only way to unite diſſenting Chriſtians, is, not ſo much to diſpute, as to live up to the duties of a Religion, which we all confeſs to be as the God who gave it, holy and juſt. This would have oblig'd me to be ſilent: But ſince it has pleas'd God to make you a part of my Care, and that you deſire me to reſolve your Doubts againſt the Catholick Doctrine, which you ſay you are moſt willing to embrace, if you can be ſatisfied that it is true; I will endeavour to give you the beſt information I can, leaving all to the candor of your nature, and to that ſolid judgment which I have obſerv'd in you.

I deſign'd once to have follow'd every tract which you put in my hands: But I was diſſwaded from it, Firſt, By the length and tediouſneſs of the work. Secondly, By obſerving that your Friends ſay almoſt the ſame things over and over again: Theſe Gentlemen having the way to turn the ſame Argument into ſeveral ſhapes, and put their thoughts every day in a new dreſs.

As to their abilities, their greateſt Enemies muſt confeſs that they are not ordinary. They are Men of learning: Their ſtile is correct, exact and florid. They have the misfortune of Origen, of whom an Ancient ſaid, that Ʋbi bene, nemo melius, ubi male, nemo pejus. None can do better, where they are in the right: none worſe, where they are in the wrong.

I find alſo that ſometimes thoſe fine Pens are dipt in Gall; that they are not ſparing of the ſharpeſt invectives; and that laying aſide their fine and Gentlemen-like way of writing, they become Mortals again, and grow acquainted with all ſorts of Sarcaſms. The Preface to Mr. Milbourn is ſharp and ſcurrilous. The Reflexion on both the Univerſities, and the skill of the Bottle, do not much grace the Diſpute. The Trinity of Marcus Tullius Cicero, by reaſon of an illuſtration of the word perſon by Dr. Wallis; The Trinity of the Mobile, of ignorant and lazy Doctors; The Sabellian Targonry of Dr. South, Conſider. on the Explic. of the Doctr. of the Holy Trin. pag. 11. might have been laid aſide, and the pretended Wit that it amounts to, reſerv'd for a better uſe.

Give me leave alſo to admire, how men who are willing to be thought pious as well as learned, can turn ſolid Reaſonings into Railleries, and diſprove an Argument by ridiculing it. Indeed Tertullian in his Apologetick, asks, whether he ſhall laugh at the vanity of the Heathen and their Rites, or whether he ſhall reproach them with their blindneſs? Rideam vanitatem, qut exprobrem caecitatem? But it is quite another thing, when a Writer pretends to anſwer men of Reaſon and Learning! and when the Objections are really ſtrong and ſolid. Not to multiply inſtances, I will only point at that in a Letter of Reſolution, pag. 3, 4, 5. The Author had objected to himſelf, that the Trinity, and Incarnation are incomprehenſible Myſteries, and that when the matter is of meer Revelation, it is not to be judg'd by either Reaſon or Sence. He propoſes ſeveral things which are really above both: This is anſwer'd by making a Myſtery of that which is none, the aſſertion of Chriſt, Joh. 15.1. I am the true Vine; and the notion of God-Man, is ridicul'd by that of Chriſt-Vine or Vine-man, or Viney man. Dr. Wallis having aſſerted, That the three Perſons of the Holy Trinity are more than three divine Attributes, and that though perhaps their Perſonality may not ſo exactly be underſtood by the notion of Perſonality which we are acquainted with in created Beings; yet there is certainly ſomewhat more than Attributes. They make a perpetual deſcant upon three Somewhats, or three I know not what's, the Ʋnreaſon. of the Doctr. of the Trin. pag. 5, 6. Dr. South in his Animadverſions, Chap. 8. pag. 241. having explain'd the Modes of Being, and having told us, That a Mode is properly a certain habitude of ſome Being, Eſſence, or Thing, whereby the ſaid Eſſence, or Being is determin'd to ſome particular ſtate or condition, which barely of it ſelf it ſhould not be determin'd to— That a Mode in things ſpiritual and immaterial ſeems to have much the like reference to ſuch kinds of Beings, as a poſture has to a body, to which it gives ſome difference, or diſtinction, without adding any new Entity or Being to it: and having told us alſo pag. 242. lin 4. that no one thing can agree both to God and the Creature by a perfect Ʋnivocation, which the Anſwerer has, I hope, not wilfully overlookt, and which is enough to prevent any juſt exception againſt it; Then, Conſider, on the Explic. pag. 21. we have a ſtory of Don Quixot, and of Dulcinea del Toboſo, pag. 22. He makes the grave and learned Doctor to anſwer, That the three Divine Perſons are the Subſtance of God in three Gambols or poſtures. A little below, he thinks, it ſhould ſeem, that the Faithful muſt put their truſt in there poſtures. Thus the Declamation goes on. Poſture A begets Poſture B, Poſture A and B breathe Poſture C. I appeal to theſe Gentlemen themſelves, whether this is the way to vindicate Religion, and keep men from Atheiſm? Whether they ſeek to inſtruct or divert their Reader? Whether ſuch petulant Sallies of Wit are like to do much for an Argument?

Dr. South going to deliver the Opinion of the Church concerning the Holy Trinity, does it Animadv. Chap. 8. pag. 240. with the humbleſt ſubmiſſion to the Judgment of the Church of England. Mr. Milbourn has done the ſame. There is in thoſe ſort of expreſſions a great deal of modeſty and Juſtice. If an Author, even in a point of humane Learning, muſt not pretend to dictate; but gives an eaſie Introduction to his Reaſons, by removing all that is impoſing and poſitive: How much more in the treating of things of ſo ſacred and abſtruſe a nature? And is it not juſt that a private man who pretends to ſhew what the Church believes, ſhould leave to the Church to judge whether he has not miſrepreſented her Doctrine? This ſubmiſſion of theſe Reverend Perſons is thus taken up, Conſider. on the Explicat. pag. 20. Truly I am heartily ſorry that Dr. South has no fixt Religion of his own, no not concerning the Trinity it ſelf; but is ready to turn with the wind; is prepar'd to renounce a Doctrine and Explication which he believes to be not only true, but fundamental; if the Church commands him: and lower, We may infer however from theſe publick Profeſſions of the Writers, That could the Socinians get Mother Church of their ſide, all her Champions would alſo come over to us; for 'tis not, it ſeems, the Cauſe that they defend; 'Tis not the Trinity and Incarnation which they value, but our Mother, our Mother the Church: and in the Preface to Mr. Milbourn, pag. 7. On the ſame conditions Mother Shipton ſhould be as ſacred, and as infallible with them as Mother Church, and they would believe the Kingdom of Oberon and the Territories of Fairyland.

In a Book call'd the Trinitarian Scheme, which I can compare to nothing better than a Pamphlet, in the late King's Reign, intituled, The Papiſt miſrepreſented and repreſented, pag. 16. having miſrepreſented a Doctrine which is true in it ſelf, and that is, that the moſt wicked men are ſometimes converted to God at the laſt hour of their life, an Inſtance of which we have in the Thief on the Croſs; the Author is ſo far tranſported as to ſay, The next thing that we may expect from ſome men, is that they will write a Panegyrick in the praiſe of the Devil.

Theſe Exceptions I make to their way of writing. There is another, I confeſs I muſt make to their perſons! I mean as to the Name which they are pleas'd to aſſume to themſelves. They are pleas'd to call themſelves Ʋnitarians. To quarrel with a Name is ſomewhat extraordinary. But truly, that a handful of men who have not yet pretended to make a Body, and are only diſtinguiſht by a ſingularity of Opinions, which the whole Chriſtian World, even in their own Confeſſion exclaims againſt, is in its own nature ſtrangely extraordinary. If by Ʋnitarians they mean all thoſe who live in the belief of One only true God, they do all Chriſtians an extreme injury. Since there is none who believes in, or adores more than one only God. I will not grudge to men the pleaſure to ſay that they are of Cephas, and Apollo, though contrary to his deſign, who would have us ſay, that we are of Chriſt, and only of Chriſt. If they have ſo great a veneration for Names as to love to be call'd Calviniſts, Arminians, Socinians, and what not; let them freely enioy that imaginary happineſs. But to take the name of Ʋnitarians, as if by it they pretend to denominate a Sect, is a ſtrange ſort of Undertaking. But if by it they contradiſtinguiſh themſelves from us, by pretending to defend the Unity of God, it is an unwarrantable Invaſion of the Rights of all Chriſtians who make this the Foundation of their Faith.

They have run into another Exceſs, and call'd the Defenders of the Catholick Doctrine Trinitarians, having perſwaded themſelves, and endeavouring to perſwade the World, that we teach Tritheiſm, and by a more refin'd way of Idolatry, have brought in the Adoration of three Gods. Whereas they muſt acknowledge, that this is a Notion deteſted by all Chriſtians: that at the ſame time, that being taught from above, to uſe the expreſſion of an ancient Biſhop of the Greek Church, we aſſert three Perſons; we aſſert them in one only God: and that all that they have to ſay againſt this, is only a Conſequence ill drawn from a Doctrine which they have miſunderſtood.

The Queſtion is not between us, Whether God is one? This is granted on all ſides. The Queſtion is, Whether admitting three Perſons in that one God, does not deſtroy that Unity which we all contend for? Theſe Gentlemen ſay it does; We maintain that it does not.

Now the miſery in this caſe is, That the Socinians will not be contented with the common Topicks of arguing, which have hitherto been made uſe of amongſt Chriſtians. For when we pretend to prove what we advance, by ſuch places of Scripture as are plain and evident; then we meet with a witty Criticiſm, a pretty Paraphraſe, or a Tale by the by, as that in the Anſwerer to Mr. Milbourn, pag. 36. The moſt Illuſtrious Grotius, or the moſt Learned Eraſmus come in at a dead lift. The one who is the brief Hiſtory of the Ʋnit. pag. 11. is repreſented as Socinian all over: The other, of whom it is ſaid in the ſame place, that he would have been of the Arrian Perſwaſion, if the Church had allow'd it.

When we anſwer their Objections, inſtead of that equitable Temper which is willing to be overcome; nothing being ſo glorious as to be conquer'd by the Truth; they tell us in the Thoughts upon Dr. Sherlock's Vindication, pag. 12. One may eaſily ſee how convenient the Machine of probable Senſes is, which our Divines bring into their Diſputes, what an eaſy thing it is for them to free themſelves from preſſing difficulties! and make new Overtures with theſe famous Keys of Tranſpoſitions of words, or Clauſes, errours of Copies, &c.

When from the Authority of Scripture, we paſs to that of the Fathers, and they find themſelves preſſed with a Cloud of Witneſſes, they reply, Anſw. to Mr. Milbourn, pag. 44. That indeed their Syſtem is unknown to the Fathers, whoſe Writings are now extant; But had not their Oppoſers ſuppreſt the Works of Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, Lucian, Artemas, Theodorus, Paul of Antioch, Photinus of Syrmium, Marcellus of Ancyra, we had known their Senſe better.

When we are even willing to do more than the nature of the thing in queſtion will bear, that is, explain that incomprehenſible Myſtery, and bring that as much as we can within the compaſs of our Reaſon, which indeed is above it; This they call, Thoughts upon Dr. Sherlock's Vindic. pap. 8, 9. To have our Faith depend upon Plato's Idea's, Ariſtotle's Subtilties, Carteſius his Self, and mutual Conſciouſneſs, and metaphyſical Abſtractions more unintelligible to poor Mortals than the Tongue of Angels: They exclaim againſt thoſe Expreſſions which Antiquity has conſecrated, and the common Conſent of the learned World made venerable; Eſſence, Subſtance, Hypoſtaſis, Generation, Spiration, Proceſſion: And yet theſe Gentlemen not only pretend to Reaſon; but would ſo monopolize it to themſelves, as to make their Adverſaries the moſt unreaſonable people in the World. Reaſon in all their Writings is the Word. To it the moſt expreſs Revelation muſt be made to ſtoop; and God muſt not be Judge of what he commands man to believe. But man aſſumes to himſelf to know, whether what God commands is agreeable to the Principles of his Reaſon? I know that they would ſeem to exclaim againſt this; and that in the Letter of Reſolution concerning the Doctrine of the Trinity and Incarnation, pag. 1. they complain that they are charg'd with exalting Reaſon above Revelation. They apologize for it in the Obſervations of Dr. Wallis's Letters, pag. 16. But how can this be reconcil'd with this Aſſertion, Conſiderat. on the Explicat. of the Doctr. of the Trin. pag. 5. If Heaven and Earth were miraculouſly deſtroy'd to confirm an Interpretation which diſagrees with the natural and Grammatical ſenſe of the words, it will for all that remain a falſe Interpretation: Which in plain Engliſh amounts to this; that though Heaven contradicts an Interpretation by the moſt forcible ſort of Argument, which is a real Miracle, and ſuch as the Deſtruction of the whole World; yet if it does not agree with that natural or Grammatical ſenſe which our Reaſon makes of theſe words; The Miracle will be true, but the Interpretation falſe.

I am willing to give to Reaſon all the weight and admiration that it deſerves, it being the diſtinguiſhing Character of man, and that by which he ought to be guided in his ſpiritual and temporal Concerns. But there is a rational way of uſing our Reaſon, which when ſtrain'd beyond its bounds, is no more Reaſon but extravagance and obſtinacy. When the greateſt Authority in the World impoſes on us the belief of that which our Reaſon cannot penetrate or underſtand: It is not the work of Reaſon to reject it, becauſe the Notion is unintelligible, and in our imperfect way of Reaſoning offers ſeeming Contradictions. But the trueſt and nobleſt Exerciſe of our Reaſon is to ſubmit to that Authority; and when we are ſatisfy'd that God ſpeaks; man is never ſo rational; as when he yields without any inquiry into what he is pleas'd to reveal. I ſay, ſeeming Contradictions; for admitting the Divine Revelation, no Contradiction can be real. We may imagine that indeed it is ſo, becauſe we are men who know very little, and in the ſtate of ſin and weakneſs that we are in, meet with a thouſand obſtacles to our perceptions. But ſuppoſing that God has deliver'd it, there can be no ſuch thing as a Contradiction, becauſe howſoever I apprehend it, it ſtill comes from him who cannot contradict himſelf.

The Queſtion once more is not of the Unity of the Divine Nature. The Orthodox are as ſtiff as they in the point. The Queſtion is, Whether the Trinity of Perſons deſtroys or no the Unity of that Divine Nature? The Orthodox muſt carry it, if they can prove that the ſame God who has reveal'd the one, has alſo reveal'd the other. For if he has done this, our duty is to adore in an humble ſilence what we cannot underſtand, and thoſe very Contradictions which we fanſie in the thing reveal'd, ought only to be to us ſenſible proofs of our ignorance, and deep arguments of humiliation. The Socinians then are in a great miſtake, and inſtead of writing Books after Books to ſhew the pretended inconſiſtencies and contradictions in the Revelation; they ought to prove plainly that it is not reveal'd at all. For if it clearly appears that it is ſo, the pretended Contradictions muſt lye at their door, but the Revelation will ſtill be ſafe and certain.

It is ſtrange that ingenious men, who meet with ſo many things unintelligible in Nature, will have nothing to be ſo in Religion! They will ſubmit to Philoſophical proofs and Mathematical demonſtrations, which are at moſt but natural Evidences, and will reject the greateſt and moſt certain Evidence, which is Faith. Nothing can take them from reaſoning, and nothing will bring them to believe. Whether the thing is, is the Queſtion? How it is, does not at all belong to us. How the Father communicates his Eſſence to the Son; How the Holy Ghoſt proceeds from both; How three Perſons ſubſiſt in the ſame Divine Nature, can be no part of our inquiry. If we can but be ſatisfy'd that God has ſo reveal'd himſelf to us, that he is God, that in that Deity which is one, there are three equally adorable Perſons; we have nothing to do with the How? Let us adore and believe the thing, and reſerve the manner to a better and a happier life, where we ſhall know even as we are alſo known, 1 Cor. 13.12.

Thoſe Reverend Perſons, who out of condeſcenſion to querulous men, have undertaken to give Explications of the Trinity in Unity, never pretended to go further. They never thought that this could be Geometrically prov'd. They built upon the Revelation, and endeavour'd to find every one that way which ſeem'd to them the apteſt to reconcile what theſe Gentlemen call Contradictions: But left the thing it ſelf as incomprehenſible, and relying on his Authority who reveal'd it. The Socinians are not candid in the matter. They endeavour to diſprove the Athanaſian Creed. They pretend to anſwer the late Archbiſhop, the Biſhops of Worceſter and Sarum; They ridicule Dr. Wallis. They inſult the Dean of Paul's. They are rude to Dr. South, but ſtill are clamorous about the How can it be? and are not ſerious in proving that it is not.

Theſe Gentlemen have pretended, that by denying the Divinity of Jeſus Chriſt, and of the Holy Ghoſt, they make the Scripture plain, intelligible and obvious to the meaneſt capacities. They think after this to have remov'd all thoſe difficulties, which the Clergy call Myſteries, but are not ſo in themſelves. In the impartial account of the word Myſtery; pag. 3. By the means of Myſtery, Divines have made Religion a very difficult thing, that is, an Art which Chriſtians are not able to underſtand: and thereby they raiſe themſelves above the common Chriſtians, and are made neceſſary to the People, improving that Art to their own benefit. Paſſing by the incivility of the reflexion, I dare affirm, that denying the Divinity of Chriſt and of the Holy Spirit, nothing is eaſie, nothing is plain in Religion: That the Scripture is the darkeſt Book that ever was written: and that no Chriſtian can find the ſatisfaction of his mind, and the peace of his conſcience.

It may be ſaid with a great deal of truth, that the ſtream of the Scriptures runs that way: that the belief of the Holy Trinity and the union of the two natures in Chriſt is the Key to all difficulties: and that diſtinction ſo much laught at by theſe Gentlemen, of one thing ſaid of him as God, and of another as Man, which has been us'd by all the Fathers, is the only method to come to the Knowledge of the truth. This will be prov'd by the reading of both Teſtaments. For if thoſe things are ſpoken of Chriſt which can relate to none but Man, and at the ſame time thoſe things are ſpoken of him, which belong to none but to God; ſhall we preſume to ſeparate what God has united? ſhall we run to the extreams of the Old Hereticks, who would not admit of a real humane nature in Chriſt, and offer'd an incredible violence to all thoſe texts which repreſent him as a Man; Or as the Socinians, who denying his Divinity, put to the torture all thoſe places, which ſpeak of him as God.

To take off at once the authority of the Old Teſtament and make ineffectual thoſe glorious predictions of Chriſt, which tell us what he was before he was in the World; They confidently aſſert in the brief Hiſtory, pag. 22. That the more learned and Judicious Trinitarians confeſs, that the rinity, and the Divinity of the Lord Chriſt, and of the Holy Spirit, are not indeed taught in the Scriptures of the Old Teſtament; but are a revelation made in the new. Nay 'tis the more general opinion of the Divines of all ſects and perſwaſions. They cite for this ſome Authors, and amongſt them Tertulian, adverſus Prax. Which I would beg of them to read more exactly. It is the fault of theſe Gentlemen, to be vaſtly large in their citations, and to pretend to have Authors of their ſide who are really againſt them. The miſtakes I hope are not willful, but they are ſomewhat frequent. Neither the ancient or modern Doctors ever ſaid that the Old Teſtament had nothing in it, by which Men might be induc'd to the notice of a Trinity of perſons in God, and of the Divinity of Chriſt and of the Holy Spirit. They have ſaid indeed that the Jews had no explicite or clear Knowledge, nor no explicite or direct belief of thoſe myſteries: Which is true; The revelation of the Trinity in Ʋnity being the previledge of the Goſpel, and a conſiderable part of that Grace and truth which came by Chriſt Jeſus. Joh. 1.18. No Man has ſeen God at any time, the only begotten Son which is in the boſom of the Father, he has declar'd him.

How could the Old Teſtament be the form of, and the introduction to the new, if thoſe truths were not adumbrated in the one, which are clearly reveal'd, and explain'd in the other? How comes it to be a maxim receiv'd amongſt the Old Jewiſh Doctors, that whatſoever is recorded in the Law, in the Prophets, and in the ſacred Books, Indicant ſapientiam; point at Chriſt, the ineffable Wiſdom or Word? How does St. Paul lay this as an Aphoriſm, Rom. 10.4. Chriſt is the end of the Law for righteouſneſs to every one that believes? How comes he before Agrippa and Feſtus, ſolemnly to declare that he ſays nothing, but what Moſes and the Prophets have aſſur'd ſhould be? How come the Apoſtles and Evangeliſts to take moſt of their arguments from the Writings of the Prophets. St. Auſtin treats this at large againſt Fauſtus, lib. 12. c. 46. Euſebius, Praep. Evang. l. c. 3. St. Cyprian Praefat. ad Quirin. tells him that the ſacred Writings of the Old Teſtament are of great uſe, ad prima fidei lineamenta formanda: To form the firſt lineaments of our Faith. Origen againſt Celſus, lib. 2. calls this, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a moſt ſtrong demonſtration, and Lactantius, Inſtit. lib. 5. c. 3. Diſce igitur, ſi quid tibi cordis eſt, non ſolum idcirco à nobis Chriſtum creditum Deum, quia mirabilia fecit, ſed quia vidimus in eo facta eſſe omnia quae nobis annunciata ſunt vaticinio Prophetarum. Be ſenſible then, if thou haſt any honeſty or conſcience left, that Chriſt is believ'd by us to be God, not olny becauſe he has done miraculous things, but becauſe we have ſeen all the things fulfill'd in him which have been announc'd to us by the Prophets. Non igitur ſuo Teſtimonio, cui enim de ſe dicenti poteſt credi? ſed Prophetarum Teſtimonio, qui omnia quae fecit & paſſus eſt multo ante cecinerunt, fidem Divinitatis accepit. It is not then by the Teſtimony which he has given of himſelf; for who can be believ'd who Witneſſes for himſelf? but by the Teſtimony of the Prophets, who have Propheſi'd long before, all that he has done and ſuffer'd; He has receiv'd that Men ſhould believe his Divinity.

The firſt proof which offers it ſelf out of the Old Teſtament is that expreſſion of the Almighty, Gen. 1.26. Let us make Man in our image, after our likeneſs. It is undenyable that in the text as well as in the tranſlation God is pleas'd to ſpeak in the plural number. And as we cannot admitt a multiplicity of Gods in a nature which is ſo entirely one, ſo we cannot but ſee a kind of conſultation in the Divine Perſons. It is viſible that God does not ſpeak to himſelf, or to any created being who cannot concurr in any manner to the creation of Man, It being an incommunicable property of the Divine nature. And it is an impiety to think that God ſhould ſpeak in the air, and to no purpoſe. What is meant then by the Ʋs, but that Son by whom he made all things, and without whom nothing was made, that was made, Joh. 1.3. and that Holy Spirit which moved upon the Ja e of the Waters, Gen. 1.2. This the Fathers urg'd ag i ſt the Arrians.

Th ſe Gentlemen anſwer; Brief Hiſtory, pag. 8. 1ſt. That this is done according to the cuſtoms of Princes and great perſons in all languages, that is, in an oratory and figurative way. 2ly pag. 15. that God ſpeaks to the Angels who were preſent not as adjutants, but ſpectators of his work. The preſence of Angels is prov'd out of Job 38.7. This ſecond reaſon is ſingular, and the verſe to prove the preſence of Angels ſtrangely dragg'd in. But it ruins it ſelf. For if the Angels are not adjutants to the work, How comes God to ſay, Let us make Man. This does not at all reach the difficulty. The firſt is as bad, that thi is done according to the Cuſtom of Princes. It is ſtrange that God ſhould have laid the Cuſtom aſide in the formation of all the reſt of the Creatures, and us'd it only 〈◊〉 hat of Man. For to ſay that it is the ſame as v. 3. let there be light, v. 6. let there be a firmame •• , &c. it is only a gloſs and a comment againſt which the ſence of the words ſtands unmoveable. It is ſtranger 〈…〉 and Cuſtom, which in its 〈…〉 the Majeſty of any divine 〈…〉 in a way which to theſe 〈…〉 to the unity of his nature. I farely ask, whether it was cuſtom which caus'd God to alter the manner of his expreſſion in all the Verſes before; or elſe a deſign to ſpeak ſomewhat in this, myſterious to us. The firſt is groundleſs, and unconceivable: Therefore the laſt muſt be admitted. And this is ſo much the more rational, becauſe the Socinians are Men too learned not to know that the Primitive Writers, or to ſpeak the words of a truly great Man of this Nation, all the firſt Writers of the Church of God have expreſly attributed the Creation of Man to the Son, and have brought in the Father, ſpeaking thus to him, Let us make Man. Not to multiply citations, read Orig. cont. Celſ. l. 2.

In Gen. 3.22. is another place of the ſame nature, and to the ſame deſign. The Man is become as one of us, to know good and evil. I think, that cuſtom of Princes has nothing to do here. Thoſe little Pedantical evaſions are too mean for the weight of the expreſſion. If there is but one Perſon in the Divine Nature, how comes the Ʋs ſo emphatically? Why, ſay thoſe Gentlemen in the page cited, Onkelos, and Oleaſter, render the words more truly, The Man is become one, knowing of himſelf good and evil. Grotius not truſting to this, would have God ſpeak here to Angels. Thus a groundleſs ſuppoſition is made a ſolid anſwer to a tranſlation univerſally receiv'd before any of theſe Diſputes. I humbly conceive, that the Irony us'd in that place has no force, if the knowledge here ſpoken of, is not that Primitive, Eſſential Knowledge which belongs only to God; which Man's ambitious deſigns aim'd at, and of which neither he nor Angels are capable of, v. 5. You ſhall be as Gods, knowing good and evil, which is to ſay juſt nothing, if this conſiſts in the ſad experience of his misfortune, and not in the raſhneſs of his undertaking.

The book of Job is certainly a part of the Old Teſtament, and St. Auſtin in an Epiſtle to St. Jerom calls Job deſervedly a Prophet. In the 19.25, 26, 27. he expreſſes himſelf thus. I know that my redeemer lives, and that he ſhall ſtand at the latter day upon the earth, and though after my Skin Worms deſtroy this body, yet in my fleſh ſhall I ſee God. The old Latin Interpreter reads, Deum meum, my God; Whom I ſhall ſee for my ſelf, and my eyes ſhall behold, and not another. I paſs over that moſt ſolemn and elegant Preface more laſting than the rock on which he wiſhes the aſſertion to be written. 1ſt. The Holy man draws an argument of comfort in the deepeſt of his afflictions from the thoughts of another and a better life. 2ly. He looks upon him who is able to ſave to the uttermoſt not only them that come after, but all them alſo who are gone before him. 3ly. He is ſatisfi'd that he lives who will redeem him from the pains that he lyes under; who knows his innocence becauſe he is the ſearcher of the hearts. 4ly. He aſſerts a final judgment wherein juſtice will be done to all men, who ſhall riſe from their graves and be clothed with fleſh to receive it. 5ly. He avers that he who lives now, though inviſible, will become viſible, and be their Judge in that great day. 6ly. He is now only the object of his knowledge and faith; but then he ſhall be the object of his ſenſe. He ſhall ſee him. 7ly. He who is now inviſible, but ſhall be viſible then, he calls His God, the ground of his hope, and indeed of all his confidence. This is ſo poſitive that it is capable of no allegory, but only of a litteral ſence. That this is ſpoken of Chriſt is agreed by the old Rabbins. That it is underſtood of Jeſus is the opinion of moſt Chriſtian Interpreters. That that God who is repreſented here as living according to the noble and uſual expreſſion of Scripture, which cannot be apply'd to Moſes, Solomon, or any of them who are call'd Gods, will ſtand as a judge, and be ſeen by men in their Fleſh, and be beheld with their eyes, is not the Father, is conſented to on all hands. It muſt then be the Son, who in the union of the two natures is the Redeemer: Who as God is known to live, and to inhabit Eternity: Who in the fullneſs of Times has appear'd in the fleſh, and obtained to be at the end of the World the judge of the quick and dead.

It may be objected to this that Grotius, for theſe Gentlemen look upon an objection not to be anſwerable, if it has but the name of Grotius, is poſitive, that the Jews never underſtood this text of the reſurrection of the dead. How this learned man comes to be miſtaken is ſtrange to me: But that he is ſo, may invincibly be made to appear from the body of the Jewiſh Writers.

What is taken out of the Book of Pſalms to prove the Divinity of Jeſus Chriſt, has ſo much the more force, becauſe moſt of it is appli'd to the ſame purpoſe by the writers of the New Teſtament. This gives theſe proofs a double authority, and fully determines their ſence. Nor can any other be put upon them then that in which they are taken by them whom we all acknowledge to be inſpir'd.

This is ſo natural and carries ſo much ſelf-evidence along with it, that I cannot hear without a deep aſtoniſhment Hugo Grotius ſaying, that thoſe Prophecies, Non in vim argumenti propriè adhiberi, ſed ad illuſtrandam, atque confirmandam rem jam creditam. That they are not properly arguments to make us believe, but a ſort of illuſtrations, and confirmations of a truth already believ'd. I thought thoſe exceſſes buri'd long ſince with Theodore of Mopſweſt, Anathematis'd on that very account by the Fathers of the fifth General Council, and Fauſtus the Manichee ſo often confounded by St. Auſtin. I was glad to hear, Obſervat. on Dr. Wallis's four Letters, pag. 16. That thoſe Gentlemen do not profeſs to follow Socinus, but the Scripture: that if Socinus has at any time ſpoken erroneouſly, or unadviſedly, or Hyperbolically, tis not Socinus who is their Maſter, but Chriſt; yet after all they eſpouſe the ſame enormity in the brief Hiſt. pag. 16, 17. and lay this as a rule.—Nothing is more uſual with the Writers of the New Teſtament, than to apply to the Lord Chriſt in a myſtical, or allegorical ſence, what has been ſaid by the Writers of the Old Teſtament, of God, or any other, in the litteral and primary ſence of the words. This they do as often as there is any likeneſs between the Perſons, or things, or events—He that ſhall read the Thalmud, or other Rabbinical Writings, will ſee that the Apoſtles took this way of Interpreting from the Writers of the Jewiſh Nation. For as often as the Jewiſh Rabbins met with any event, or thing, or Perſon like to what is recorded in ſome place of the Old Teſtament, they ſaid, that place was fullfill'd, or was again fullfill'd; and accommodated immediately the words of ſuch Scripture to that Perſon, event, or thing.

If this be receiv'd it is a folly to pretend to reaſon, or to diſpute. Firſt, Though there are ſome Prophecies of Chriſt which may admit of a litteral ſence, yet ſeveral are capable of none, and in thoſe that do, the myſtical is alwayes principally intended.

Secondly, The Apoſtolical Writers are by all ſides ſuppos'd to be inſpir'd; and could not by chance apply to Chriſt thoſe places of the Old Teſtament which diſcover him to us. When the ſpirit of God applies poſitively this or that text to Chriſt; It ſhews that this or that text, whatſoever litteral ſence might appear in it, was the principal ſence and only deſign of the Prophecy.

Thirdly, The Apoſtles and Evangeliſts never pretended to prove Jeſus to be Meſſias, the Son of God, by way of alluſion and allegory, or by an occaſional fulfilling of Prophecies: But by a real, palpable, entire, and noble way of accompliſhing in him what had been Propheſi'd of Old.

Fourthly, It had been a ſtrange undertaking in the Apoſtles, to pretend to ſhew Prophecies fulfill'd in Chriſt; if theſe Prophecies had not been known and publick to the World, and principally directed to be fulfill'd in him. If all is occaſional, what makes St. Paul, to tell the Epheſians? ch. 2. v 20. That they are built upon the foundation of the Apoſtles and Prophets, Jeſus Chriſt himſelf being the chief corner ſtone; and Origen againſt Celſ. lib. 1. lay this as a principle, that it is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , The greateſt of all the arguments by which the faith of Chriſt can be prov'd.

If people durſt allow themſelves not to be ſerious in ſo grave a diſpute; How would the Notion be expos'd of Men ſuppos'd and granted to be divinely inſpir'd, Who ſhould write after the Thalmud and the Rabbinical Writers?

The firſt proof then of another Perſon in the Trinity, and underſtood of Chriſt by the Apoſtles, is Pſal. 2.7. The Lord has ſaid to me, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. And as a conſequence of this, Ask of me and I ſhall give thee the Heathen for thine inheritance, and the utmoſt parts of the earth, for thy poſſeſſion. The Author of the brief Hiſt. pag. 15. underſtands this only of Chriſt being begotten to a new life, the day of his reſurrection, and by it acquiring the title of the Son of God. He pretends to prove it by Act. 13.33. God has fullfill'd the ſame, in that he has rais'd up Jeſus again; as it is alſo written in the ſecond Pſalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. And Indeed that ſence would appear very plain if there were not a double objection againſt it. 1ſt. If there were no place in the Scripture that did aſſert a Generation of Chriſt before his reſurrection. 2ly. If the Apoſtle himſelf did not cite this very place in another ſence. For the firſt, Theſe Gentlemen themſelves agree that Chriſt was the Son of God and begotten of him from the Moment of his Incarnation: That he was declar'd to be ſo, Matt. 3.17. This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleas'd: and that the name is given him every where in Scripture before his ſufferings. This mightily blunts the anſwer: For if this day I have begotten thee be no more in the ſence of the Apoſtle than this day I have made thee my Son, by raiſing thee to a new life, Chriſt receives nothing new by it, ſince he was, and was declar'd even in their opinion to be ſo before. But it will be quite overthrown, if we conſider that the ſame Prophet, Pſ. 110. appli'd by the Jews to the Meſſias, and by the ſacred Writers to Chriſt, and ſo poſitively urg'd by Chriſt himſelf, that Matt. 22.46. No man was able to anſwer him a word, nor durſt any man from that time forth ask him any more queſtions; I ſay, that the Prophet ſpeaks thus. v. 3. in the beauties of holineſs from the womb of the Morning thou haſt the dew of thy youth. Which is not only before the reſurrection, but even before the World. But if it is read according to the old Latin Tranſlation, which the learned World and theſe very Gentlemen reverence ſo much, Ante Luciferum genui te: I have begotten thee before the Morning ſtar was; which place was ſo read by Juſtin Martyr againſt Trypho, and by Tertullian lib. 5. contr. Marcion, The ſence of the Apoſtle cannot be, that he was the Son of God, and begotten by him by riſing to a new life.

For the ſecond, The Apoſtle cites the ſame Scripture in another ſence, and this twice. 1ſt. Heb. 1.5. 2ly. Heb. 5.5. The one to prove that he was much better than the Angels, and had a far more glorious name: The other to evince that he glorifi'd not himſelf to be made a High Prieſt: Treating of the one without any relation to his reſurrection: and as for the other it is agreed from all hands, to have preceeded it, Chriſt being made our High Prieſt, not by riſing from the dead; but by offering on the Croſs the Sacrifice of himſelf.

The ſence then of the Apoſtle can be no other than this, That Chriſt in his reſurrection did eminently appear to be the Son of God. That his reſurrection is a ſplendid declaration of the Divinity of his Nature, And that as his ſufferings ſpoke him to be really Man, loaden with our infirmities, and dying for our Sins; ſo his reſurrection from the dead declar'd him to be God. This Tertullian expreſſes elegantly in theſe words, adverſ. Jud. c. 12. Aſpice univerſas nationes de voragine erroris humani exinde emergentes ad Dominum Deum Creatorem, & ad Deum Chriſtum ejus. Et ſi audes, nega Prophetatum, ſtatim tibi promiſſio patris occurrit in Pſalmis, dicens, Filius meus es tu, ego bodie genui te. Look upon all the Nations of the earth, ariſing out of the Gulph of Men's errors to the Lord God the Creator, and to the God his Chriſt. And if thou dar'ſt, deny the Prophecy, Immediately the promiſe preſents it ſelf to thee in the Pſalms, ſaying thou art my Son, this day I have begotten thee.

The 6, and 7. v. Of the 45 Pſalm run thus. Thy Throne, O God, is for ever and ever: The Scepter of thy kingdom is a right Scepter, or a Scepter of Juſtice. Thou loveſt righteouſneſs and hateſt iniquity. Therefore God, Thy God has anointed thee with the oil of gladneſs above thy Fellows. That this is ſpoken of the Meſſias is the unanimous aſſertion of the ancient Jews. The Chaldee Paraprhaſe interprets the ſecond verſe, Thy beauty, O Meſſias the King, exceeds that of the Sons of Men. Their conſent is ſo general in this, that they never ſo much as dream'd of Solomon in this. Aquila reads it in the Vocative Caſe, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. The Apoſtle has not accommodated, or appli'd it to Chriſt, as theſe Gentlemen are pleas'd to ſpeak: But has cited, and underſtood it as a direct Prophecy of the Holy Jeſus. Heb. 1.7, 8. His deſign is to ſhew that Chriſt is above all that is created; and becauſe in created beings we know nothing greater than the Angels, He ſays, v. 4. That he is ſo much better than the Angels, that he has by inheritance obtain'd a more excellent name than they. I hope that by the name of Angels it will not be deny'd that their being and nature is expreſs't according to the Dialect of Scripture. Or elſe, What ſignifies the diſtinction of inheriting a name, or a name by inheritance, from a name given? What the Angels are is by the favour and gift of the Creator: what Chriſt is, is by nature and inheritance. He ſhews then of the Angels, v. 7. what is their name, what they are: He makes his Angels ſpirits, and his Miniſters a flame of fire. v. 8. He brings in God ſpeaking to Chriſt as to his Son, diſcovering his nature, his name by inheritance. But to the Son he ſays, Thy Throne, O God, is for ever and ever.

To this theſe Gentlemen Anſwer in the brief Hiſt. pag. 16. That the words are litterally ſpoken of Solomon, and myſtically of Chriſt. That this is the opinion of Grotius. But that whether they are ſpoken litterally of Solomon, and myſtically of Chriſt, neither Chriſt, nor Solomon are here call'd God. The place being ill tranſlated: The Hebrew and the Greek importing no more than this, God is thy Throne, that is thy reſting place, or eſtabliſhment for ever and ever.

I began to admire how theſe Gentlemen deny that Solomon is here call'd God, who, when we prove that Chriſt is call'd God in many places of Scripture, have made this anſwer almoſt thredbare, that he is call'd God as Solomon is here, and Moſes, Exod. 7.1.

But they unſay this again and are ſomewhat larger in the anſwer to Mr. Milbourn, pag. 8. They cite Grotius who makes this Pſalm to be an Epithalamium ſung by the maids to Solomon and Sulamitis the Daughter of the King of Egypt. They ſay, That we catch at the word God, as if the Pſalmiſt, and the Author of the Epiſtle to the Hebrews ſpoke of ſuch a Perſon, as is truly and really God. That we ſhould note that Chriſt tells us, Joh. 10.35. That thoſe alſo are call'd Gods in Scripture to whom the word of God comes. That Solomon in this Pſalm is ſaluted by the Name of God according to the known language of thoſe times and Countries to Magiſtrates and Princes.

But after all, the place of the Hebrews is ſo preſſing that they paſs from accomodation and application, and are willing to allow that he interprets the words of Chriſt, becauſe The Pſalm being compos'd by a Prophetical Poet, at the ſame time that he courted and prais'd Solomon, He might Prophecy of Chriſt: That this account is approv'd by the moſt learned Criticks.

One would have expected from men of learning ſomewhat more ſolid. When we ſay that Chriſt is call'd God, we are ſo far from catching at the word God, that we maintain it to be after a manner ſo peculiar to the moſt high God, that it is applicable to no Man; and that what the Prophet ſay's, and the Apoſtle after him, is viſible to the meaneſt capacity, can be ſaid neither of Moſes, or Solomon, or any Prince or Magiſtrate. The buſineſs of the Epithalamiums and the cuſtom of the Eaſtern People are pretty little imaginations. That it is not render'd according to the Hebrew, or the Greek, is notoriouſly ſuppos'd. The Interpretation of Grotius is both ſenceleſs, and falſe. It is ſenceleſs; For what addition is it to the Meſſias, that God is his reſting place? Is he not ſo to all good men? Are not our Souls made perfect by his grace committed into his hands, as unto a faithful Creator, to become Eternally happy? It is falſe, and that viſibly too, by the reading of the next verſe. Therefore, O God, Thy God has anointed thee with the oil of gladneſs above thy fellows. I read, O God. For thus Euſebius demonſ. Evang. lib. 4. Orig. con. Celſ. lib. 1. St. Jerom Epiſ. 140. have prov'd, that it ought to be read, both from the nature of the thing, and the letter of the ſacred Text. St. Auſtin in his Expoſition on this very Pſalm, which in the old Interpreter is the 44th, is poſitive, that this is manifeſt from the Greek. This has caus'd ſeveral learned men to think, that what is written in the Septuagint, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was formerly written, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Though Euſebius in the place already cited makes it evident from many unqueſtionable Texts of Scripture; that the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , anſwers fully the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which we have ſaid is the ſence of the place, and the reading of Aquila.

As for Criticks, I highly honour them who have really endeavour'd to find out the true ſence of the difficult places of Scripture. I own Grotius in particular to have been a Man of great learning; But to criticiſe in Texts which are plain and eaſie, and to torture the words of the Holy Writers, to make them bear with notions altogether new and unknown to antiquity, I think to be inſufferable.

I am perſwaded that this Pſalm was never intended for Solomon by the argument of the ancient Jews; that the 3, 4, and 5. verſes which repreſent a fighting and a conquering Prince, can never be made to agree to one whoſe name expreſſes, and whoſe life was ſpent in a profound peace.

The 110 Pſalm is underſtood of the Meſſias by the Thargum and moſt of the old Rabbins. That it was ſo by the Jews in Chriſt's time appears by his publick appealing to the authority of this Pſalm. That it is an eminent Prophecy of Chriſt is evident by his own aſſertion, Matt. 22.43, 44. St. Peter proves from thence that he is both Lord and Chriſt, Acts. 2.34, 35, 36. The Author of the Epiſtle to the Heb. draws from thence moſt of his Arguments, Heb. 1.13. and 5.6, 20. and 7.1. and fol. ver. And indeed offer no violence to the Pſalm, but take what it plainly preſents, It looks more like a revelation of the new, then a Prophecy of the old diſpenſation.

The firſt verſe expreſſes clearly the Divinity of J. C. The Lord ſaid unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand. One Divine Perſon is reveal'd to David ſpeaking to another, The Lord, ſaying to My Lord. The argument of Chriſt is irrefragable. If the Chriſt is no more than the Son of David; If he has no other nature than that which he draws from him, How comes God to call him Lord in that revelation which he made of him? The ſecond verſe ſhews his regal dignity, that power which he has over all. The Lord ſhall ſend the rod of thy ſtrength out of Sion, rule thou in the midſt of thy enemies. The third, his pre-exiſtence before all created beings, and conſequently a being in God and from God, which can be no other way than by a communication of the Divine Eſſence. From the womb of the morning thou haſt the dew of thy youth. Or as the old Latin Interpreter, St. Chryſoſtom on this Pſalm, St. Jerom on the 22. of Matt. Ante Luciferum genui te. Before the morning Star was, I have begotten thee. The fourth, his Eternal Prieſthood; Thou art a Prieſt for ever after the order of Melchiſedeck: Wherein is impli'd that interceſſion, mediation, and ſacrifice of himſelf, which had he been no more than a meer Man, muſt have been ineffectual.

Theſe Gentlemen take no notice of the 2, and 4. verſe, and in my opinion anſwer ſtrangely the 1ſt, and the 3d. What they ſay to the 1ſt, in the brief Hiſt. pag. 18. conſiſts in this; 1ſt, That the words of our Saviour are, David in Spirit calls him Lord, ſaying, the Lord ſaid unto, &c. That is, David in the ſpirit of Prophecy foreſeeing Chriſt, calls him his Lord, not becauſe Chriſt is God, for then himſelf could have made his enemies his foot-ſtool. But becauſe not only the ſpirit of David, and of all Saints, but even Angels were to be made ſubject to him as the reward of his moſt holy life and obſequious and acceptable death. 2ly. That when the Pſalmiſt ſays, The Lord ſaid unto my Lord, it is to be underſtood thus, The Lord has in his decree ſaid, or he has decreed it ſhall be ſo.

I appeal to themſelves whether this is to anſwer, or only elude an objection? For it is notorious that the ſpirit in which David ſpeaks is the ſpirit of Prophecy. David being a Prophet ſpeaks what God has reveal'd to him. It is falſe that he calls Chriſt his Lord, or that he ſpeaks to Chriſt. He calls Chriſt Lord, ſayes our Saviour, but not his Lord. This is a real miſtake, and the reaſon given for it of the ſpirit of David, of Saints, of Angels made ſubject to him is another. He muſt ſpeak of Chriſt as God, or elſe the Prophecy ſays nothing. The Lord in one place is of the ſame importance and ſignification as the Lord in the other. Neither the words, nor the ſence, nor our Saviour give to David any other part in the Prophecy, but the relating that the Lord, the Father, has ſaid to the Lord, the Son, the Chriſt, Sit thou on my right hand. An argument which invincibly proves the Son Coeternal, and coequal to the Father. Nor does the ſaying, till I make thy Enemies thy foot-ſtool, take any thing off its force, ſince the Apoſtle, 1 Cor. 15.25. Says of the Son himſelf, that He muſt reign till he has put all Enemies under his feet.

The ſecond part of the anſwer, that the Lord ſaid to my Lord, is to be underſtood, The Lord has ſaid in his decree, or has decreed it ſhall be ſo, is a wild, ſtrain'd, unnatural, and new explication. If men will give themſelves the liberty thus to comment on the moſt expreſs and clear Texts of Scripture, nothing can be ſacred, or certain in Religion. Our Saviour asks the Phariſees, Matt. 2.24. What they think of Chriſt, whoſe Son is he? They anſwer him plainly, The Son of David. Chriſt replies again, How then does David call him Lord? If he is no more then the Son of David, How does David declare him to be Lord; and this by the greateſt authority in the World, even the Lord calling him ſo. If he is the Son of David without running to a decree, which indeed ſhould rather be admitted here, then he is without a decree the Lord, being as much the one by nature as the other. Theſe Gentlemen are deſir'd to produce any one of the Fathers or ancient Writers who has underſtood this place of any ſuch imaginary decree.

The third verſe is ſo preſſing that all they have to ſay to it, is that both the place is obſcure and the many verſions made of it. They like that of Caſtalio beſt, which cuts the Gordian knot and ſubſtitutes other words and ſence to that of the Prophet. I think that the Greek is very clear, the old Latin very clear, Juſtin Martyr, Tertullian, St. Chryſoſtom, St. Jerom, St. Auſtin, and moſt of the Fathers very clear, who have read as we have ſaid before, and are to prefer'd to a verſion as new and as inconſiderable as its Author.

In the ninth Chapter of Iſaias v. 6, 7. We have theſe words, Ʋnto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given: and the Government ſhall be upon his ſhoulder: and his name ſhall be call'd Wonderful, Counſellor, The Mighty God, The Everlaſting Father, The Prince of peace. That they are a Prophecy of the Meſſias, The Chaldee Paraphraſe and ſeveral learned Jews have poſitively aſſerted. From them Euſebius, Baſil the great, Theodoret, St. Cyrill, Procopius, St. Jerom, and the generality of the Fathers have prov'd the Divinity of Chriſt. And indeed thoſe Epithets which make up the character of this Son that is given can become no creature. They are all the names which belong to God, and by them as he reveal'd himſelf to men. Which of the Sons of men can be wonderfull, or ſecret, myſterious? as the Angel expreſſes the name of God to Manoah, Jud. 13.18. Which can be the Councellor, the Director, the Guide, the light from whence all Wiſdom is deriv'd? Which can be the mighty God, the God of ſtrength and power? Which can be the Everlaſting Father, or, as St. Jerom reads, the Father of the age to come: that is, The Author and giver of immortality? Which can be the peaceable Prince, or the Prince of peace, in whoſe hands is our preſent or Eternal peace? In a word, to which of us mortals can any of thoſe Emphatical expreſſions be attributed without abſurdity, or Blaſphemy?

To this thoſe Gentlemen anſwer, Brief Hiſt. pag. 20th. 1ſt. That this can be no Prophecy ſince Iſaias ſpeaks of a Prince actually born, and the Prophet liv'd 700 Years before Chriſt. 2ly. That this Text is never appli'd to Chriſt by the Writers of the New Teſtament. 3ly. That the Text is to be underſtood of Hezekiah. 4ly. That it is extravagantly render'd into Engliſh. In the anſwer to Mr. Milbourn they ſay almoſt the ſame things; only add this flouriſh; That they affect no monſtroſities, but are govern'd by the obvious reaſon and poſſibilities of things.

For the 1ſt, That it can be no Prophecy ſince it ſpeaks of a Prince actually born, is to ſuppoſe that which ought to be prov'd, and can never be certainly made out. But granting that it can; have theſe Gentlemen forgot what they ſaid in their anſwer to an authority of the 45. Pſ. 6, 7. That the Prophetical Poet at the ſame time that he prais'd and courted Solomon, who was certainly then actually born, might alſo Propheſy of Chriſt. A Prince then may be actually born, and what is ſaid of him may alſo be a Prophecy. St. Auſtin againſt Fauſtus lib. 12. cap. 46. pretends and really in a very ſolid way of reaſoning, that not only the Prophets did announce Chriſt: But the very Nation of the Jews, that very People, their very government and adminiſtration were all a Prophecy. Per Propheticam gentem, per Propheticum populum, per Propheticum regnum, and yet the one actually in being, the other actually born before Chriſt.

For the 2d, That this Text is never appli'd to Chriſt in the New Teſtament; ſhould this be granted, the Text would ſtill preſerve its Authority. Our Adverſaries are Preſons of too much learning to pretend that there is no Prophecy of Chriſt in the Old, but what is appli'd to him in the New Teſtament. But we may ſay, that there is not a Text oftner and more fully to be met with, than this in the New Teſtament. For tho' it is not formally cited as ſome others are; yet every part of it is found in the Writings of the Apoſtles. The Prophet ſays, that he is wonderful, ſecret, Myſterious. St. Paul ſays, Eph. 1.26, 27. That he is the Myſtery, which has been hid from Ages and Generations, but now is made manifeſt, to his Saints. The Prophet calls him the Councellor. The Apoſtle ſays Coloſ. 2.3. That in him are hid all the treaſures of Wiſdom and knowledge. We believe ſays Origen, lib. 3. adv. Celſum. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from the very beginning of Chriſtianity, of this our Jeſus, that he is God, and the Son of God, the very Word itſelf, the very Wiſdom itſelf, the very Truth itſelf. The Prophet ſays, that he is the mighty God, or the God of ſtrength; St. Joh. Rev. 5.12. aſſures, that power, ſtrength, glory, and honour are his. The Prophet calls him the Everlaſting Father, or, as St. Jerom, The Father of the Age to come. The Author of the Epiſtle to the Hebrews, ch. 5.9. calls him the Author of Eternal ſalvation. The Prophet ſays, that he is the Prince of Peace. The Apoſtle ſtiles him, Eph. 2.14. Our Peace who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of partition between us.

For the 3d, That this Text is to be underſtood of Hezekias; Theſe Gentlemen ſhould have taken notice that St. Jerom has invincibly prov'd on Iſay. 7.14. that this Prophecy of a child that is born, and of Son that is given, can by no means agree with Hezekias, who at the taking of Samaria, by the Aſſyrians, was one and thirty Years old. A difficulty which cannot be overcome, and was overſeen by the learned Grotius, from whom thy have borrow'd the objection.

For the 4th, That it is extravagantly render'd into Engliſh: Then the Septuagint are very extravagant, who, contrary to theſe Gentlemens aſſertions, who deny that they read the mighty God, have in all the Editions that I have ſeen, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , The ſtrong, the mighty God. Then St. Irenaeus is extravagant who reads it thus, lib. 4. c. 66. Then is the great Ignatius extravagant who cites it after the ſame manner, Epiſt. ad Antioch. Both theſe Fathers writing long before any of theſe Diſputes. Then is Procopius extravagant, who on this very place is poſitive that the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was to be found in his time in the beſt copies of the Septuagint; and more extravagant again to aſſert on Iſay. 10.21. that the words mighty God, in that verſe, of which there is no controverſie, and are undoubtedly ſpoken of God, are in the Hebrew, and Greek, the ſelf ſame as in this place. Then Theodoret one of the moſt learned of the Fathers, and one of the beſt Criticks is ſtrangely extravagant, who accuſes Aquila of falſification in rendering the Hebrew without the word God. Then Euſebius up and down in the Books of the demonſtration, who reads as we do, and all the Fathers of the Latin Church after their own Interpreter, who have render'd it thus, not to ſpeak of moſt tranſlations, are wildly extravagant.

What becomes then of the flouriſh? Who affects monſtroſities? Who is govern'd by the obvious reaſon and poſſibility of things? Theſe Gentlemen or we? Is it not more candid and natural, more poſſible and rational to receive and ſubmit to a plain Text of Scripture, underſtood as we do by the pious and learned part of mankind; then to ſtrain, and ſweat, and drag in raſh criticiſms and unnatural explications to bring in a Doctrine monſtruous and impoſſible, the meer Humanity of J. Chriſt.

In the 11th. of Iſaias is a magnificent deſcription of the Meſſias, and own'd to be ſuch by the Rabbins. It is lookt upon as a proof of his Divinity by moſt Ancient and Modern Interpreters.

The 1ſt verſe is a Prophecy of his coming into the World, and taking our nature. There ſhall come forth a rod out of the ſtem of Jeſſe and a branch ſhall grow out of his roots. Which the Apoſtle Act. 13. v. 23. has ſhew'd to be verifi'd. Of this man's ſeed has God according to his promiſe rais'd unto Iſrael a Saviour Jeſus. The 3, 4, 5. Verſes open the ends of his coming into the World. The 6, 7, 8, 9. are the happy effects of his Incarnation: The infinite bleſſings of joy, peace and ſecurity adumbrated by the combining together of the moſt feroce and brutiſh, with the mildeſt and fearfulleſt Creatures. The 10th is a concluſion of the whole, and ſets before us the Holy Jeſus as the hope of all Nations. He ſhall ſtand for an enſign of the People, to it ſhall the Gentiles ſeek, and his reſt ſhall be glorious. What can the ſeeking of the Gentiles, and that glorious reſt be, but the addreſſes of men to him in their humbleſt adorations; The ſending of their Prayers to the throne of his Grace: Their confidence that there is no name under Heaven but his, by which they can be ſav'd. This explication is not mine, But St. Paul's, who Rom. 15.12. reading this Text after the Septuagint, ſays, There ſhall be a root of Jeſſe, and he that ſhall riſe to reign over the Gentiles, in him ſhall the Gentiles truſt. This is not catching at the word God. But I would fain be ſatisfi'd, If Chriſt is not God, If he is no more than a meer Creature, whether to hope in him, to truſt, that is, to put all our confidence in him, as the Prophet ſays we ſhall, and the Apoſtle we ought to do, is not a moſt damnable Idolatry.

Theſe Gentlemen having taken no notice of this Text have ſaid nothing to it. They may conſult Grotius their Friend in diſtreſs, who againſt invincible reaſons, the expreſs Authority of the Apoſtle, and the ſence of Chriſtian Interpreters explains this Text of Hezekiah.

What can be more poſitive than the 35. of Iſai. v. 4. Say to them that are of a fearful heart, be ſtrong, fear not, behold, your God will come with vengeance, even God with a recompence, he will come and ſave you. The fifth verſe is a character of his coming which no mortal can perſonate. Your God will come with miraculous works, with a divine energy, he will give ſight to the blind, and hearing to the deaf, &c. To Chriſt do all the Writers of the New Teſtament give Witneſs that he has done all this, and that at the ſame time that he took upon him the form of a ſervant, and the miſeries of a laborious life. Chriſt himſelf took no other way to convince the Baptiſt, Matt. 11.4, 5, 6. that he was the expected Saviour, then a lively application of this Text to his diſciples. Go and ſhew John again thoſe things you do hear and ſee. The blind receive their ſight, The lame walk, the lepers are cleans'd, The deaf hear, The dead are raiſed up, the Poor have the Goſpel preach't to them. He is God that ſhould come; He is God that ſhould do this. Chriſt is come and has done all this, What conſequence is more natural than that he is truly God?

To this theſe Gentlemen anſwer, Brief Hiſt. pag. 20. 1ſt. That it does not appear that our Saviour intended to quote the words of the Prophet. 2ly. That admitting he did, God is only ſaid to come to the Jews in his Ambaſſador Jeſus Chriſt. And becauſe in him and by him he gave ſight to the blind, &c. They cite for this Joh. 14.10. Act. 10.38.

To the 1ſt. Whether Chriſt intended it or not, is not at all material. What we have to do, is to prove that the Prophecy is fullfill'd in him. If it is, which is undeniable, then he is the God who was to come and work theſe miracles in the behalf of mankind. But that he intended it, will appear not only from the exact correſpondency of the Text, but alſo from the conſtant tradition of the Jews, who underſtood this place of the Meſſias, and from it concluded, that he was to work Miracles. It was natural therefore in the Baptiſt, who could not be ignorant of Chriſt's ſtupendous conception, by which he was deſign'd to his Miraculous performances, to ſend and ask whether he was he that was to come? and as natural to Chriſt to give John no other anſwer than that thoſe things were done by him, by which the World was to be convinc'd that the Meſſias was come.

The 2d. that God is come to the Jews in his Ambaſſador and Meſſenger Chriſt Jeſus, is a flat denyal to an expreſs Text. The Prophet ſpeaks of an immediate coming, of a perſonal appearance, of a Mighty expectation through the whole world. He who is to come, to appear, to remove that expectation by his glorious preſence, is call'd our God. Our God ſhall come, he ſhall come. If this be no more than to appear by his Meſſenger, a leſs Prophet would have ſerv'd the turn. Such vehement and poſitive expreſſions can never agree with ſo poor a ſhift. Nor is it at all reconcilable with the opinion of the Jews, who were ſo far perſwaded that the Meſſias was a divine perſon, and that he was the God ſpoken of here, that ſeveral of their Doctors have thought, from the laſt verſe of this Chapter, that he ſhould actually deliver them who were already in the place of Eternal Torments.

But what an unlucky ſtrain is the citation of Joh. 14.10. The Father that dwells in me he does the works. And Act. 10.38. God was with him. Who doubts that God was preſent to the Holy Jeſus? who doubts that God was with him, ſince we contend, with all the Fathers and Doctors of the Chriſtian Church, that the Eternal word of the Father aſſum'd his nature. The citation of St. John abſolutely deſtroys what they would infer from it. Chriſt tells his Diſciples that if they had known him, they had known the Father alſo. Philip upon this begs, that he would ſhew them the Father. Chriſt Anſwers, he that has ſeen me has ſeen the Father. He gives preſently the reaſon of the Anſwer. I am in the Father, and the Father in me. That is, there is in us a diſtinction of Perſons; He is the Father, I am the Son. There is an Unity of nature, I am in him, and he is in me. This is not my own Aſſertion. The Father that dwels in me, he does the works. The works that the Father does in me, are a proof of what I ſay. He reſumes the whole Argument. Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me. Or elſe believe me for the very works ſake. Believe me, who ſay, that it is ſo with us. But if thou will not believe upon my own Authority be convinc'd by thoſe Miraculous Operations which are an invincible proof of what I ſay.

The 40th Chapter of Iſaias is to the ſame purpoſe, only it ſeems more plain and expreſs. It has beſides the unanimous conſent of the Jews, who underſtand it to be a Prophecy of the Meſſias. Chriſt is repreſented here as our God in ſuch expreſſions as ſhew the whole Oeconomy of the Goſpel, and are applicable to no Mortal Man. So great a truth is uſher'd in with a ſplendid Preface, Verſe 3, 4, 5. by which the four Evangeliſts have prov'd the Miſſion of John the Baptiſt, the foreruner of Chriſt; in which we have the advantage, that the proof of the one is a proof of the other. O Jeruſalem that bringeſt good tidings, lift up thy Voice with ſtrength ...... ſay to the Cities of Judah, behold your God. Behold the Lord God will come with ſtrong hand ...... He ſhall feed his flock like a ſhepherd, He ſhall gather the Lambs with his arm, and carry them in his boſom. Chriſt then is the Lord God ſeen by the Cities of Judah. To him the character of ſtrength does agree, who was to conquer the Prince of this World. Joh. 12.31. To him does that of the Shepherd anſwer exactly, who ſaid of himſelf, Joh. 10.11. I am the good ſhepherd; of whom St. Paul ſaid, Heb. 13.20. that he is the great ſhepherd of the ſheep. and St. Peter, 1. pet. 2.25. The ſhepherd and Biſhop of our Souls. Nor can it be ſo much as pretended here, that God came in his Ambaſſador and Meſſenger Chriſt Jeſus. That wild notion has not ſo much as the leaſt place here. The Lord God, who was to come, was to be ſeen by the Cities of Judah. He was to be preceded, and have his ways prepar'd by the Illuſtrious Forerunner. The Baptiſt who was inveſted in that glorious office was on that very account call'd, Luk. 2.67. The Prophet of the Higheſt. Let any one compare candidly theſe expreſſions, The Lord God, and the Higheſt. Eſay ſays, the Lord God will come. Zacharias ſays, And thou child ſhalt be called the Prophet of the Higheſt, for thou ſhalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways. The Baptiſt was the immediate Prophet of Chriſt. Chriſt was the Lord whoſe ways he was to prepare. That Lord is the Higheſt whoſe Prophet he was, and the Lord God, who was to be ſeen, and whoſe ways were to be prepar'd. This is another place which theſe Gentlemen have taken no notice of, and ſo have ſaid nothing to it.

The 45th of Eſay is wholly taken up to prove the unity of the divine nature. v. 6.18, 22. I am the Lord and there is none elſe, I am God and there is none elſe, oppoſing in this the vanity, and multiplicity of the Gods of the Heathen. As a conſequence of that Unity, the Almighty challenges the praiſes and adorations of all his Creatures. v. 23. I have ſworn by my ſelf—that unto me every Knee ſhall how and every tongue ſhall ſwear. This is ſo eſſential a prerogative of the Divine Majeſty, that to apply our ſelves to any creature is a Sin; To adore any other being is an invaſion of his right over us. It is to multiply, and conſequently, as much as lyes in us, to deſtroy the Deity: Therefore either Chriſt is God, or St. Paul a writer divinely inſpir'd contradicts all this. Since Rom. 14.10, 11. he layes down as a fundamental truth, that we muſt all ſtand before the judgment ſeat of Chriſt. For it is written, As I live, ſays the Lord, every Knee ſhall bow to me, and every tongue ſhall confeſs to God. God alone then is the object of our Religion. To bow to any other, to praiſe, or adore any other, for this is the ſence of confeſſing here, is Impiety, Sacrilege, and Idolatry. And yet St. Paul aſſures us, that there is a time where Chriſt is publickly, and ſolemnly to receive the praiſes and adorations of all Men. Therefore Chriſt muſt be God, and even that God, who ſays poſitively that he is God, and that beſides him there is none elſe.

The Author of the Brief Hiſt. pag. 20. has as odd a ſort of an Anſwer to this as was that of God's coming into the World by his Ambaſſador Chriſt. He tells us that, Chriſt indeed is to be a judge, but not as God: But only acting by a Commiſſion from God. That Men will appear before him as we do before the judges of the land, who act in the name of our ſovereign Lord the King.

This witty ſhift is perhaps one of the moſt unreaſonable things in the World. It is true that the honour paid to the judges here is reſolv'd into the Authority from whence their power is deriv'd. But Chriſt is judge as he is God. He does that which no Man can do by Commiſſion, and it is the great qualification of the moſt Hight, to ſearch the Hearts, try the Reins, and to have darkneſs as light as the day. None but God can find the evidence in the heart of the Guilty. He muſt be Omniſcient and Omnipreſent who opens the ſecrets of the hearts of all Men, and calls them to an account for thoſe Sins, infinite for their multitude, incredible for their variety, and incomprehenſible for their myſteriouſneſs. This the Apoſtle acknowledges, and to this he appeals. 1 Cor. 4.5. Therefore judge nothing before the time, untill the Lord cometh, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkneſs, and will make manifeſt the counſels of the heart. He that is our Judge, St. John calls expreſly our God, in that dreadfull deſcription of the laſt day. Rev. 20.11, 12. And I ſaw a great white throne; and him that ſat on it, from whoſe face the Heaven and the earth fled away, and I ſaw the dead great and ſmall ſtand before God.

In the 23. of Jeremy both the Character and the name of the Meſſias, are ſo fully expreſt, that the moſt famous Rabbins have oppos'd the corrupt reading which ſome obſtinate Jews would have forc't on this Text. The Generality of Chriſtian Interpreters, ancient and modern, have underſtood it of Chriſt, and receiv'd the noble Prophecy, not only as a proof of his birth and office, but alſo of his Divinity. The 14. verſe calls him a righteous Branch the uſual name of the Meſſias in the Prophets. He is ſaid to be rais'd to David as a great King, who ſhall Reign, and Proſper, and Execute Judgment and Juſtice in the Earth. In the 15. v. Salvation is promis'd by him to Judah and Iſrael: and to ſhew that this will certainly come to paſs, and that nothing can prevent it, The Prophet tells them, who is that righteous Branch, that admirable King, who is to entail on them an Eternal peace: and this is his name whereby he ſhall be call'd, The Lord our righteouſneſs. That he is to be a Man who is to effect all this, is plain from the letter and ſence of the Text. He muſt be of the ſeed of David. He muſt execute juſtice and judgment upon earth. That he is God cannot be deny'd from theſe two expreſſions. The one is, the Jehovah, the ineſſable name of God given him. The other, our righteouſneſs, a title which no creature can pretend to. As a confirmation of this, read Daniel 9.24. where the coming of the Meſſias is expreſs'd by bringing in Everlaſting righteouſneſs. And 1 Cor. 1.30. Jeſus Chriſt is made to us righteouſneſs. If he is no more than a Creature, how can he become our righteouſneſs, how can he bring Everlaſting Righteouſneſs? Can any Man juſtifie another, or procure to him an Everlaſting State of Holineſs and Bleſſedneſs? What opinion ſoever we may have of the greateſt and beſt of Men, we cannot but be ſatisfi'd that thoſe acts of omnipotency are above the reach of any Creature. The very ſence of the corruption of our nature, the very apprehenſions that we are finite beings give the lye to all thoſe little notions, and we are forc't to look to the Lord The Jehovah for Pardon and Happineſs.

The Author of the Brief Hiſt. pag. 20. oppoſes to this; 1ſt, That Grotius has ſhew'd that the Branch here intended is Zorobabel. 2ly, That theſe words, This is the name whereby he ſhall be call'd, are ſpoken neither of Chriſt nor of Zorobabel, but of Iſrael. 3ly, This is prov'd by a place parallel to this, Jer. 33.15, 16. Where Jeruſalem is call'd The Lord our righteouſneſs. In thoſe days ſhall Judah be ſav'd, and Jeruſalem ſhall dwell ſafely; and this is the name whereby She ſhall be call'd, The Lord our righteouſneſs.

To the 1ſt, Grotius has not only againſt him the unanimous conſent of the Fathers, but he is alſo unhappy in this, that of all the ſenſes that this Prophecy can bear it is not capable of that of Zorobabel. How can Zorobabel be the Branch, a name conſtantly appropriated to the Meſſias? Eſay, 11.1. Eſay, 4.2. Zech. 3.8. and the 6.12. Luk. 1.78. and never to him? How can, according to the excellent obſervation of Theodoret on this place, Zorobabel be a King that ſhould actually reign and make his People for ever happy, who neither was a King, nor ever reign'd over the Jews, nor ever ſate in the Throne of David?

To the 2d, That the name of the Lord our righteouſneſs is neither given to Chriſt, nor to Zorobabel, but to Iſrael. This is another ſtrain of Grotius, and as unſucceſsful as the other. 1ſt, It is againſt the ſence of the Jewiſh Doctors. 2ly, It is againſt the plain letter of the Hebrew. 3ly, It is againſt the ſence of all Mankind, and theſe Gentlemen are not modeſt to pretend to impoſe at this dreadful rate. Is it not as clear as the Sun, that the deſign of this Text is to tell us what this King ſhall do, what he is, what he ſhall be call'd? Will it ever enter into any Man's head who is not quite mad, that Iſrael, or Judah, for if it is applicable to the one, it is alſo to the other, and not the Branch, the Prince is here deſcrib'd. 4ly, It is againſt the true reading of the Septuagint, and the old Latin Tranſlation.

To the 3d, that is, Jer. 33.15.16. granting the reading of the Text as it is in our Bible, which indeed the Hebrew favours, It is ſo far parallel to this, as to be a renewing of the promiſe made by God in the place already cited. The ſence of the Prophet is, that Jeruſalem ſhall be call'd the Lord our righteouſneſs by containing him, that is, being fill'd with his glorious preſence who is really the Lord our righteouſneſs. As Jacob Gen. 33.20. erected an Altar and call'd it Et-elohe-Iſrael, God the God of Iſrael. And Ezek. 48.35. and the name of the City from that day ſhall be Jehovah ſhammah, the Lord is there.

But what can be more poſitive and home to the queſtion than the teſtimony of Baruch chap. 3. the 3. laſt verſes? This is our God, and there ſhall be no other accounted in compariſon of him. He has found out all the way of Knowledge, and has given it to Jacob his ſervant, and to Iſrael his beloved. Afterwards did he ſhew himſelf upon earth and converſt with Men. To offer an enlargment on this Text is to do it an injury. The 1ſt of theſe verſes aſſerts the unity of God. The 2d his great wiſdom and goodneſs to his people. The 3d his viſible appearing to us in our nature; and this not by a ſudden apparition, vaniſhing as ſoon as it is offer'd; and leaving the Soul in ſuſpence about the truth of the object, but by a continu'd living on the Earth. If there be but one Perſon in God, as theſe Gentlemen ſo ſtiffly maintain, and that is, the Father; there muſt have been an Incarnation of that Perſon, ſince he has appear'd upon Earth, and convers'd with men; which they, and with a great deal of Reaſon, will by no means admit. But the whole Scripture ſays, That God has ſent his Son into the World; That he has appear'd to put away Sin; and we all agree that the Holy Jeſus is that Son. How then can we deny his Divinity, ſince it is ſaid of him who has thus appear'd, This is our God, and there ſhall be no other accounted in compariſon of him.

This is ſo expreſs, that we muſt not expect to be put off with Grotius; or Chriſt being call'd God, as Moſes, or Solomon; or the rare Notion of God coming to us in his Ambaſſadour Jeſus. Nothing of this will do; and therefore the Author of the Brief Hiſt. pag. 22. anſwers, firſt, That the Book is Apocryphal. Secondly, That thoſe who admit the Book, reject thoſe verſes as ſuppoſitious. Thirdly, That the Original Greek may be render'd, Afterwards this Book of the Commandments of God, and the Law which endures for ever, was ſeen upon Earth, and turn'd over by men.

Firſt, That the Book is Apocryphal, is an Anſwer cannot be made by theſe Gentlemen, becauſe it is cited againſt them by the whole Societies of Chriſtians who believe it to be Canonical. But freely granting that the Book is ſuch; I muſt beg leave to ſay, That it is nothing to the purpoſe. Any man of ordinary reading knows that Apocryphal ſignifies no more, than 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ʋncanonical, or out of the Canon of the Sacred Books. That ſort of Writings, though not kept in Armario, as Tertullian expreſſes it, cap. 3. de hab. muli. yet were look'd upon with much reverence by them, and particularly by the Helleniſts. They were daily in their hands, and the greateſt Authority in the World, next to the unconteſted Scriptures. There is a vaſt difference between being uncanonical and rejected; and the ſaying, That this Paſſage is taken out of an uncanonical, though a Sacred Book, takes nothing off the force of the Objection. Theſe Gentlemen who are ſo pleas'd with Criticiſms, that it will with them bear down the plaineſt Authority in the World, muſt give me leave to Criticize for once. I ſay then, That of all the Apocryphal Books, none was ſo like to become Canonical as that of Baruch. It is ſomewhat more than a probable Conjecture, that this Book was once read with that of Jeremy; whoſe Diſciple Baruch was. The ninth of Daniel has lead ſeveral Learned men into that Opinion. For after he has cited Jeremy, v. 2. and began that fervent Prayer for the preſervation of Jeruſalem; He ſeems to tranſcribe Baruch. Compare Baruch 1.15, 16, 17. with Daniel 7, 8, &c. Baruch 2.7, 8, 9. with Daniel 9.13, &c. Baruch 2.11, &c. with Daniel 9.15. Baruch 2.15. with Daniel 9.18. I will add to confirm this, That ſeveral of the moſt ancient and Primitive Fathers have often cited Jeremy, and yet the Texts us'd by them were taken out of Baruch, which gives ſome ground to believe, that the Works of theſe two Prophets were once joyn'd together.

To the ſecond Objection we muſt be forc'd to ſay, That no part of it is true. Firſt, it is not true that ever thoſe Verſes were look'd upon as ſuppoſititious by them who either admitted, or rejected the Book. Secondly, it is not true that ever theſe words were a marginal Note, no ancient Copy being without them, and the reſt being only Conjecture inſtead of Reaſon.

The third Objection is the higheſt Unſincerity imaginable. Their Tranſlation is forc'd, unnatural, and what is worſe, notoriouſly falſe. There is nothing in the Text of a Book of Commands, or of a Law which endures for ever. There is only 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , viam diſciplinae, as the Vulgar tranſlates it. To ſay, not what they have pretended to impoſe without either Reaſon, or Truth; but what can be ſtrain'd from this, That the way of Knowledge has ſhew'd Himſelf to men, and convers'd with them, is a bold and ridiculous way of Tranſlating.

The fifth Chapter of Micah is an eminent Prophecy of Chriſt. The firſt part of the ſecond Verſe gives an account of his Birth, and of the place to which God had promis'd ſo great a Bleſſing. But thou Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little amongſt the thouſands of Judah, yet out of thee ſhall he come forth unto me that is to be Ruler in Iſrael. The ſecond part ſoars higher, and tells us, That though he is born as a man, yet he has that which no man can pretend to: and though he has ſuch a viſible Being, yet he has another which is inviſible and eternal; whoſe goings forth have been from old, from everlaſting, or, From the days of Eternity. This Text has a double advantage: Firſt, that the Chaldee Paraphraſt, the Thalmud, and the generality of the ancient Jews have follow'd in this the ſence of their Forefathers, and underſtood this Text of the Meſſiah. Secondly, that from Mat. 2.6. and Joh. 7.42. this invincibly appears to have been the Tradition of the Jews; one of the great Obſtacles to their Belief, that he was the Meſſias, having no other ground, than that contrary to the received Opinion, That the Meſſias was to be a Bethlehemite, they thought the Holy Jeſus a Galilean.

If then Chriſt is the Meſſias, as no Chriſtian has yet doubted, no not theſe Gentlemen themſelves. Theſe things appear very plain. The one, that he is born at Bethlehem. The other, that he exiſted before all time; from the days of Eternity. He cannot have that exiſtence as man: for as ſuch, it is viſible that he had a beginning. He was born at Bethlehem. Therefore if he did inhabit Eternity, or if his goings have been from Eternity, before he came to be born at Bethlehem, He muſt be a Divine Perſon, and conſequently God.

The Author of the Brief Hiſt. pag. 21. anſwers, firſt, that the Hebrew reads from ancient days, and not, from everlaſting. Grotius muſt alſo come in, or elſe they durſt not venture upon the Interpretation. He makes the ancient days his Deſcent, or Pedigree, being deſcended of the moſt ancient Stock of David, of Bethlehem. Secondly, that Calvin makes the ſence to be, Whoſe goings forth have been decreed from the days of Eternity. The Anſwerer to Mr. Milbourn has ſaid the ſame things, only challenging him to try his skill on theſe Solutions.

To the firſt. Theſe Gentlemen muſt give me leave to ſay, That they have done Grotius an injury. That Learned perſon never underſtood the words of the Meſſias, but of Zorobabel. It is no wonder then, if taking the Text to be ſpoken of him, he was forc'd to put an unnatural ſence upon it. It is eaſie to run from one Errour to another. The firſt Errour of Grotius was to have apply'd this Prophecy of one who was to be born at Bethlehem, to one who was really born in Babylon. An Objection not to be overcome, and ſudſtantially propos'd by Theodoret on this place. The ſecond was, to have ſtrain'd the Letter of this Text to a mean and ſenſleſs Allegory. How ridiculous is it to fanſie a Deſcent, or a Pedigree enlarg'd upon by the Prophet, when the moſt ignorant Jew knew that the Meſſias was to be the Son of David? The 7. verſe of the 53. of Iſaias is parallel to this. Who ſhall declare his generation? If no more be meant by this, than that Chriſt is of the Seed of David, and born of a Virgin, there is no ground for ſuch a vehement Exclamation. To be of a Race is natural to all men. To be born of a Virgin is indeed miraculous, but yet highly comprehenſible, ſince it is eaſie to imagine; how he that could create a man out nothing, can produce a man without the mixture of Sexes. What is then this Generation which cannot be declar'd, becauſe it is incomprehenſible? Would it not fill any rational man with indignation, and particularly a Jew, to tell him that it is a Deſcent and a Pedigree, an old Stock of Nobility; and that the days of Eternity are no more than the ancient days, that is, a certain Computation of years. Whereas this Generation, or as Micah expreſſes it, theſe goings forth are before days and years; From the beginning, from of old, from Eternity, and conſequently cannot be declar'd by any Creature.

But after all, with the leave of Grotius, and of theſe Gentlemen, this Text is capable of no ſuch Tranſlation. There is a repetition in it, which muſt be render'd, from the beginning, from everlaſting, the Dialect of Scripture to expreſs not the length, but the infinite duration of time. I wonder that they did not perceive, That from ancient days, and from ancient days, which is the Tranſlation of Grotius, is both an ill ſound and an ill ſence.

To the ſecond, that is, Calvin ſaying, That the goings forth of Chriſt have been decreed by God from the days of Eternity, I think to be, if poſſible more unreaſonable than Grotius. I take what they make him ſay, upon their Credit. All that is not in it liable to Exception, is that the Learned man has not preſum'd to alter the ancient Reading; but with all the Fathers, and moſt Tranſlators reads From the days of Eternity. The reſt contradicts it ſelf. Had Calvin ſaid, That God had decreed that Chriſt ſhould be born at Beihlehem, as he may be ſaid to have decreed the Event of all Prophecies, and St. Peter ſays, Acts 2.23. That he determined the Death of the Holy Jeſus; there had been nothing in this but what is true and rational. But to ſay that God has decreed from Eternity, of one who is from Eternity; That God has decreed from Eternity his Eternal Nature, who is ſpoken of here in the Text, is a rare way of expreſſing ones ſelf. To overthrow a plain and eaſie interpretation, another is ſubſtituted, which ſays that God has decreed from Eternity the goings forth of the Lord Chriſt, that is, that God has decreed from all Eternity, that Chriſt ſhould be born from all Eternity.

I cannot but admire that theſe Gentlemen ſhould think their Solutions ſo ſolid, as to challenge Mr. Milbourn to try his skill on them. If they have no better Anſwers, I wiſh them well out of the hands of Dr.—

Let us paſs to Haggai, who in the ſecond Chapter of his Prophecy, v. 5. and fol. has theſe words: According to the word that I covenanted with you, when you came out of Egypt, ſo my Spirit remains among you, fear you not. For thus ſays the Lord of Hoſts, Yet once it is a little while, and I will ſhake the Heavens, and the Sea, and the dry Land, and I will ſhake all Nations, and the deſire of all Nations ſhall come, and I will fill this houſe with Glory, ſays the Lord of Hoſts. The Silver is mine, and the Gold is mine. The Glory of this latter houſe ſhall be greater than the former, ſays the Lord of Hoſts, and in this place will I give peace, ſays the Lord of Hoſts.

That theſe Words are ſpoken to Zorobabel and Joſhua, appears from the ſecond verſe of this Chapter.

From the 3. That the Temple mention'd here, is the ſecond Temple, which compar'd to the former, was as nothing: Agreeable to the relation made Ezr. 3.23. The Old men who had ſeen the one anſwering only with their Tears and Cryes, the loud Acclamations of the younger people for raiſing of the other.

From 4, 5. That God had promis'd them by Moſes another Prophet to whom they ſhould hearken, Deut. 18.15.

From the 6. That to uſher him into the World, the Heavens, &c. ſhould be ſhaken; that is, all that Diſpenſation under which they liv'd, that very Temple wherein they worſhipp'd. Which Interpretation of this Verſe, is that of the Author of the Epiſtle the Hebrews, Chap. 12.26.

From the 7, 8. That then the Meſſiah ſhould come, known by the Character of the deſire of the Nations, The Shilo propheſied by Jacob, Gen. 49.10.

From the 9. That for that very Reaſon the Glory of that Temple ſhould far exceed even that, which ſurpaſs'd all the places of the Earth, by which God was known to inhabit Judea, and to love the Tabernacles of Jacob; The Temple built by Solomon.

There muſt be that then in the Meſſias, whom we all acknowledge to be the Holy Jeſus, which makes the Glory of this latter Temple to exceed that of the former. I take this to be the ſtreſs of the Queſtion. To think that the difference lies in the Building and Architecture, as ſome have fanſied, of the Temple built afterwards by Herod, or even of the duration of this, which is the Opinion of ſome Jews, does not deſerve any conſideration.

It is ſaid then of the former Temple, that the Almighty did appear by a Cloud; That he ſent a Fire to conſume the Sacrifices, and this with ſo great a ſence of his Preſence, that 2 Chron. 5, 7. Chapters, it is repeated four times, that the Glory of the Lord fill'd the Houſe: An Argument not only of his approving what they did; but even of being himſelf amongſt them. How could then the Glory of the ſecond Temple be made greater by the Coming of the Meſſias? For granting that the Spirit of God did inhabit in Chriſt in a vaſt meaſure; That he wrought Miracles, and pleas'd God by the great Holineſs of his Life; yet this at moſt but equals the frequent and glorious appearing of God himſelf.

Nothing can juſtifie the Aſſertion of the Prophet but this; That God in the ſecond Temple is become viſible, appearing to men in their own Nature: That having ſent his only Son in the likeneſs of ſinful fleſh, he has conſecrated this ſecond Houſe with his Blood. That by aſſuming our Nature, he has made good his Promiſes, and ſhew'd himſelf glorious, not only in a ſmall corner of the Earth, and for a ſhort time, but eſtabliſh'd an endleſs Kingdom, and procur'd ro men an incomprehenſible Glory. Hence Chriſt is call'd by David, Pſal. 23.7. The King, and by the Apoſtle, 1 Cor. 2.8. The Lord of Glory, two of the moſt High God's Qualifications.

The Author of the Brief Hiſt. has taken no notice of this place; but the Lord Biſhop of Sarum having made uſe of it in a Book or Sermon, which I have not ſeen, I find that what they ſay to it, Conſiderat. on the Explicat. of the Doctr. of the Holy Trin. pag. 24, 25. amounts to this: 1ſt, That my Lord is miſtaken, to think the word Glory in the ſecond Temple alludes to the Cloud of Glory in the firſt. 2ly, that My Lord has added His to the Text, led to it by that chimerical miſtake. 3ly. That the meaning is plain, They have built as well as they could conſidering the ſtreight they were in. But that God in due time will cauſe this houſe to be more magnificent even then that built by Solomon. 4ly, That admitting My Lord's opinion that God has appear'd in the Perſon of our Saviour in whom the Majeſty of God dwelt Bodily, the Temple would not be more glorious than any other place where Chriſt reſorted; But particularly becauſe Chriſt never enter'd into the Temple. 5ly. That this Prophecy was fullfill'd in the rebuilding of the ſecond Temple by Herod.

To the 1ſt, I ſay that the ſacred writer in ſpeaking of the Glory of the ſecond Temple, muſt allude to the cloud of Glory of the firſt, or elſe he is not intelligible. This is evident, if the Glory of the firſt Temple has no other foundation then the appearing of God in the cloud of Glory. But that it is ſo, is undenyable; ſince all the excellence of a building of that nature conſiſts neither in the magnificence of the ſtructure, nor the rarity and beauty of the pieces of which it is made; But only in God's acceptation. The burning buſh was certainly more glorious then the palace of the Pharao's. The cloud of Glory was a ſign that God was pleas'd with the erecting of a Houſe which himſelf had required. Therefore the cloud of Glory, was the true and principal Glory of the firſt Houſe. That it is ſo of the ſecond appears from that magnificent preface of ſhaking the Heavens and the earth, and of bringing in the deſire of the Nations, and then the promiſe of filling the Houſe with Glory. This proves invincibly, that as God appearing in the cloud of Glory was the Glory of the firſt; ſo the appearing of the Meſſias, the deſire of the Nations, was the Glory of this ſecond Houſe.

To the 2d then. The Biſhop did not undeſervedly add the word, His, but follow'd the ſence of the words: For if God's appearing in the Cloud made it His Glory; His appearing in the Meſſias muſt make it His Glory too.

To the 3d. It is altogether wide of the queſtion. 1ſt, The Glory of the Lord was not only viſible to the Prieſts and Miniſters of the Altar, but to all the Children of Iſrael. 2. Chr. 7.3. 2ly, It was not only in the Holy of Holies, or where the Prieſts Miniſter'd, but it was upon the houſe. Thus Chriſt the Glory of the ſecond houſe appear'd to all the people, and did thoſe Miracles which no Man can do, except God be with him. Joh. 2.3. 3ly, It is viſible that the Glory promis'd to the Temple is not ſo much to the Temple it ſelf, as to the time of its ſtanding, ſince the Temple it ſelf was to be deſtroy'd. A ſubſtantial obſervation, and ſtrangely overlook'd by theſe Gentlemen. That time was to be more glorious by bringing in a diſpenſation of Eternal righteouſneſs: By putting an end to all Types and Figures: By fullfilling of God's Promiſes: by introducing into the World the deſire of the Nations. Heb. 12.27. And this word once more, ſignifies the removing of thoſe things that are ſhaken, as of things that are made, that thoſe things which cannot be ſhaken may remain.

To the 4th, It deſerves no anſwer. Theſe Gentlemen are poſitive in things, which are really very diſputable. The modern Jews may be of their opinion; The Ancient were not. That Herod the Great rebuilt the ſecond Temple is aſſur'd by them, but flatly deny'd by Joſephus Ant. Jud. lib. 15. c. 14. They ſay that it is confeſs't by all to have excell'd that of Solomon; But this is flatly contradicted by ſeveral learned Men, and, I think, to the purpoſe by Villapandus, Tom. 3. in Ezech.

In a word, Theſe Gentlemen imagine in the place before cited, that this noble Prophecy amounts to no more than this..... We have not ſo much Money as Solomon, but we have done what we can: God will provide us more, and then we ſhall do better. Conſid. pag. 24. How can Men of ſence and learning eſpouſe ſuch comical Interpretations? If they are in earneſt, what muſt we think of them? And if they are not, let them conſider that God is not to be mock't.

The whole Prophecy of Zechariah ſeems to have no other end, but to diſcover the Meſſiah to the World. His Divine nature is ſo fully expreſs't in the ſecond Chapter that it is above the reach of any little Criticiſms or evaſions whatſoever. The four firſt verſes announce to Jeruſalem that it ſhall be built again, and to its people, that they ſhall inhabit it. The 6, 7. are a repeated aſſurance that God will put an end to their Captivity. The 8. is a ſolemn Declaration that he is reſolv'd to protect them. The Lord of Hoſts aſſures them that he is ſent to revenge their quarrel; and v. 9. that he will certainly do it, and that they ſhall evidently ſee that he is ſent by the Lord of Hoſts. For thus ſays the Lord of Hoſts, After the Glory has he ſent me to the Nations which ſpoil'd you— For behold, I will ſhake my hand upon them, and they ſhall be a ſpoil to their ſervants, and you ſhall know that the Lord of Hoſts has ſent me. That the Lord of Hoſts is the Almighty; That he, and none but he, aſſumes that name is granted of all ſides. It is alſo granted, that God is one, and that beſides him, There is no God. And yet this Text repreſents The Lord of Hoſts ſending The Lord of Hoſts. An expreſſion parallel to that of Pſ. 110.1. The Lord ſaid to my Lord. It muſt be ſaid then, that though a plurality of Gods is inconſiſtent, yet certainly the Divine Nature admits of more than one Divine Perſon. It muſt be confeſt, that The Lord of Hoſts, who ſends, is the Father: That The Lord of Hoſts, who is ſent, is the Eternal Word the Son: and that though there is but one God; yet that Revelation which he has made of himſelf tells us, that there is ſeveral Perſons in that one God.

The Author of the Brief Hiſt. pag 22. anſwers 1ſt, That theſe words as they are in the Latin, and Engliſh are hardly ſenſe. 2ly, That neither of theſe words, thus ſays the Lord of Hoſts are words of the Lord of Hoſts himſelf, but of the ſecond Angel, who at v. 3, 4. ſpoke to the firſt Angel and to Zechariah. 3ly, That the verſes ſhould have been thus render'd from the Hebrew. Thus ſays the Lord of Hoſts, afterwards ſhall be Glory, inſtead of, after the Glory i. e. after you are departed out of Babylon, v. 7. you ſhall have honour and peace, and you ſhall know that the Lord of Hoſts has ſent me, i. e. to puniſh them and give you peace and glory.

To the 1ſt, and, 3d, It is hard to accuſe Tranſlations exactly agreeable to the Original of Hardly being ſence, when they cannot be made to bear with our opinions. In this the Author is unhappy that the letter of this Text is plain, and has ſcarce any difficulty. What he ſays, afterwards ſhall be glory, may be a ſort of a Paraphraſe, but is certainly no Tranſlation. But the weakneſs of this will be evident by the reply.

To the 2d, He inſiſts, that Thus ſays the Lord Hoſts, are not the words of the Lord of Hoſts himſelf, but of the ſecond Angel who ſpeaks to the firſt. I beg to know whether it is the Lord of Hoſts who ſays v. 10.11. Sing and rejoice O Daughter of Sion, for lo I come, and I will dwell in the midſt of thee, ſays the Lord. Can any one who is not obſtinately reſolv'd to contradict all mankind, ſay, that it is an Angel ſpeaking to another. And many Nations ſhall be join'd to the Lord in that day, and ſhall be my people: and I will dwell in the inidſt of thee, and thou ſhall know that the Lord of Hoſts has ſent me. Is it not he who is ſent by the Lord of Hoſts, whoſe people they ſhall be: who will dwell in the midſt of them? Once more, is it an Angel to whom many Nations ſhall be join'd; and who will take them for his people? He that ſpeaks is without any evaſion the Lord of Hoſts, and He plainly and poſitively declares, that the Lord of Hoſts has ſent him. This Author did catch at a kind of a Notion which he thought to find in the Verſes before, but is ſo abſolutely overthrown by theſe laſt, that no rational ſolution can be offer'd to them. This is one of the Hammering Texts urg'd by the Fathers againſt the Arrians, and underſtood by the Jews of the Meſſiah.

The 12th, of Zechariah not only repreſents Chriſt as God, but even God ſuffering for us. It ſuppoſes his Incarnation and conſequently the union of the two natures; and the Divinity being impaſſible it ſhews palpably that he has aſſum'd a body to ſuffer in. It is one of thoſe Texts which prove themſelves and are plainer than any ſort of Explication. v. 10. The Almighty ſpeaks thus, I will pour upon the Houſe of David, and upon the Inhabitants of Jeruſalem the ſpirit of Grace and ſupplications; and they ſhall look upon me whom they have pierc't. That none but the only true God pours the ſpirit of Grace and ſupplications is indiſputably true. It is the act of an infinite power, and mercy which can be in none but him; and yet that very God ſays, that they have pierc't him.

To prevent the underſtanding of this Allegorically piercing him with our ſins as the Jews did of old, and of late in the perſon of Chriſt, which is the poor ſhift of the Author of the Brief Hiſt. pag. 22. of Grotius before him, and of the Blaſphemous Theodore of Mopſweſt before Grotius; St. John tells us who is he that has been, and ſhall be ſeen thus pierc't, Rev. 1.7. Behold he comes with Clouds and every eye ſhall ſee him, and they alſo which pierc't him; A deſcription of Chriſt coming to judge the World. It is to give God the lye to ſay that he has not been pierc't ſince he does ſo poſitively aſſure it. They ſhall look on me whom they have pierc't. But the Scripture ſhews this to have been done in Chriſt, Therefore Chriſt is that God who has been pierc't.

Theſe Gentlemen will ſay No: Becauſe God may ſay that he has been pierc'd; and Chriſt too may have been pierc'd and yet be no God. But if it can be prov'd that this is a direct Prophecy of Chriſt, that the Me where lyes the ſtreſs of the argument is ſpoken of Chriſt and of none elſe, it muſt be litterally true, that he has been pierc'd and that he is God.

The famous paſſage of Joh. 19.37. is expreſs to this. The Evangeliſt having ſhew'd all along the accompliſhment of Prophecies in Chriſt; fixes to him the ſence of this place. And again another Scripture ſays, they ſhall look on him whom they have pierc'd. This is ſo deciſive of the queſtion that the Author of the Brief Hiſt. pag 22. reduces himſelf to this miſerable ſhift, that this is appli'd to, but not interpreted of Chriſt.

Theſe Gentlemen who pretend ſo much to reaſon are now and then unreaſonable. Can any thing be appli'd to Chriſt, and not interpreted of him; or interpreted, and not appli'd to him? They complain that we talk gibbriſh, and have a jargon of our own. Pray what is this? Or will they ſay that it is only to allude at the place of the Prophet, and not to interpret? who can advance this with any candor that reads the place cited? St. John has prov'd all along that Chriſt is the Meſſias, the perſon promis'd by the Holy Prophets ever ſince the world began. In the Hiſtory of his paſſion he ſhews that he has ſuffer'd nothing but what was foretold by the Spirit of God: The caſting lots on his veſture v. 24. The calling for drink, v. 28. That the ſcripture, ſays the Evangeliſt, might be fullfill'd. And immediately before the Text in diſpute, For theſe things were done that the Scripture ſhould be fullfill'd. What is to interpret a Prophecy but to ſhew its accompliſhment? how can God better juſtify his ſervants the Prophets, then by fullfilling viſibly what they have foretold?

Malachy is another witneſs of that ſacred truth which God has deliver'd to Mankind. Mat. 3.1. I will ſend my Meſſenger and he ſhall prepare the way before me: And the Lord whom you expect ſhall ſuddenly come to his Temple. That by the Lord who is to come to his Temple God is underſtood, is agreed by all Interpreters. Parallel to this is, Iſay 40.3. The voice of him that cryes in the wilderneſs, prepare ye the way of the Lord: Make ſtrait in the deſert a high way for our God. The learned Rabbins Maimon. and Kimchi are poſitive that this Prophecy regards none but the Meſſiah. St. Jerom affirms in Mal. 3.1. that the old Jews were of the ſame mind. This is put out of doubt by the anthority of the New Teſtament; The ſacred Writers underſtanding one part of the Prophecy of John the Baptiſt, and the other of Chriſt, Matt. 11.10. Mark 1.2. Luk. 1.76. and 7.27. The Lord then is God who ſhould come to his Temple. It is our God to whom the way was to be prepar'd. But both theſe are ſaid of Chriſt by the teſtimony of the Evangeliſts and the conſent of the Jewiſh Writers. Therefore Chriſt is the Lord, Chriſt is our God.

The Author of the Brief Hiſt. pag. 22. brings again the rare notion of God coming by his Ambaſſador Jeſus, of which we have taken notice already. He has another ſingular imagination, and would have this to be ſaid of Nehemias. But this being without any warrant, reaſon, example, or authority of any note does not deſerve a reply.

Many more Texts might be added to theſe; But a letter muſt not ſwell into a volume, and I am affraid I have been already too tedious to you. But yet before I conclude you muſt give me leave to ſay by way of Appendix to what has been laid before you, that of all thoſe Gentlemens anſwers none is ſo weak, ſo inſufficient and ſhort of the thing propos'd, as that to an objection of the Dean of Pauls, that Socinianiſm makes the Jewiſh Oeconomy unreaſonable and unaccountable. Obſervat. On Dr. Sherlock's Anſ. pag. 45. and foll. I have not ſeen the Dean's Book, and I take what they make him ſay upon their own credit. But there is more even in that, than has been, or can be anſwer'd. They call it Trifling. But upon the leaſt conſideration it muſt be own'd that the anſwer and not the objection is the trifle. The Dean ſays, that if Chriſt were no more then a meer Man, the Antitype ſhould fall very ſhort of the Types contain'd in the Old Teſtament; that is, the Figures ſhould far excel that of which they are Figures; and Moſes his diſpenſation ſhould be far more glorious than that of Chriſt; which if it be not an abſurdity nothing in the world can be abſurd. I will preſume to add to what the Dean ſays, that this is viſible. For how can it be conceiv'd that the Old Teſtament is an introduction to the New; That from the Creation of the World to the coming of Chriſt every thing, every perſon, every inſtitution, or tranſaction ſhould be a Figure; That Moſes ſhould be a Figure, the Temple a Figure, in a word, that whole diſpenſation a Figure, which are all the aſſertions of the Fathers and yet deny'd by no Chriſtians; and yet all this ſo magnify'd by the Prophets, look'd upon with ſuch an expectation by the Jews, even reverenc'd by the Heathen, atteſted by God himſelf; who at ſundry times, and in divers manners ſpeaking to the Fathers by the Prophets has at laſt ſpoke to us by his own Son; That thoſe ſplendid promiſes, thoſe ſtupendous miracles, thoſe incomprehenſible methods of the Almighty, thoſe repeated raptures and diſcoveries of the Prophets, thoſe mighty characters of him that was to come; That all this ſhould end in the appearing of a meer Man who by the Holineſs of his Life ſhould be acceptible to God, is, in the modeſt terms of the Dean, very unaccountible. It is a great truth that nothing can ſo effectualy ridicule the Jewiſh diſpenſation as this.

The Anſwerer has ſaid nothing to this, and has not ſo much as taken notice of it. And indeed he is to be commended; the objection is great and ſubſtantial. It does not lye within the reach of a ſmall criticiſm, and comparing a Text or two together, and then ſaying How can this be?

The Dean of Pauls having laid this principle, of twenty inſtances which he might have given, has choſen this, of God's dwelling in the Tabernacle, or in the Temple by the viſible ſymbols of his preſence. He argues from thence very rationally that the God who fills Heaven and earth with his preſence, muſt have prefigur'd ſomething more Divine and myſterious by dwelling in a houſe made with hands. He urges that a Typical preſence can be a Figure of nothing but a real preſence and God's perſonal dwelling amongſt Men: Nothing anſwering to a Figurative viſible preſence of God, but a perſonal viſible preſence. All this is juſt and coherent. He ſays that the Man Coriſt Jeſus was really the Temple which the Divinity choſe to inhabit. The Antitype of that Temple where God made himſelf viſible: That Chriſt with a great deal of reaſon call'd his body a Temple, ſince God did appear ſo eminently in him.

All this is ſo true that they have not one word to ſay to it. Their exclaiming againſt Allegories and the inſtance of the Ark are wide of the thing. The prodigious inclination of the Iſraelites to Idolatry being the reaſon of the viſible Symbols of God's Preſence is a new and at beſt a ſlender notion. The Metaphorical expreſſion of the Apoſtle to the Corinthians that they are the Temple of God, is nothing to the purpoſe.

I dare to ſay that if the Dean had gone no farther, all had been without exception. But he does, and urges a perſonal union by ſaying that without it, the body of Chriſt had been no more then a Figurative Temple, as the other was; that is, the Figure of a Figure which is unſufferable. This will not prove a contriving of Types and Figures, of cold and groundleſs Allegories, as they call it, if they are pleas'd but to conſider from all the Texts examin'd before, that God had promis'd to appear, and that all theſe promiſes imply a perſonal appearance. If this can be prov'd, as I humbly conceive that it has, where lyes the difference between a perſonal appearance, and a perſonal union? Can God appear in our nature without taking our nature? Can God be ſeen as a Man without being made Fleſh.

The application of Joh. 1.14. a dreadful Text to theſe Gentlemen, is not all anſwer'd. The Dean ſays, that even the very word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , He Tabernacl'd amongſt us, fullfill'd that Type of God's dwelling in the Tabernacle, or Temple in Jeruſalem by his dwelling perſonally in our humane nature. They run here to their Crambe recocta, their wild explication of that place, of which we ſhall ſee the poverty hereafter.

The Dean having ſaid, that the lamb ſlain from the foundation of the world could not be underſtood of God's decree, the ordinary evaſion of theſe Gentlemer, ...... But that it was ſlain in Types and Figures ever ſince the fall of Adam in thoſe early ſacrifices offer'd after the fall, which were Typical and Figurative of the ſacrifice of Chriſt. They cannot deny the matter of fact. But maintain pag. 48. that they were of humane inſtitution and no Types or Figures of the ſacrifice of Chriſt. The reaſon, they ſay, is that the ſcripture is ſilent about it. Such a reaſon from ſuch Men is ſurpriſing, who know that the Religion of the firſt Men being all traditional, no account could be given in ſcripture of any poſitive Precept. But that thoſe ſacrifices were no Figures of the ſacrifice of Chriſt, is very ſtrange, if it be granted, that there is no redemption but by Chriſt: That no ſin is forgiven but by the vertue of the ſacrifice of Chriſt on the Croſs: That all men have ſinned, and come ſhort of the Glory of God: That as it is natural to men to adore the Majeſty of God, it is alſo natural to implore of him pardon of Sin, That both theſe were the deſign of Sacrificing in the firſt Men, and conſequently, that as their Sacrifices were of no validity, but in reſpect of the great Sacrifice offer'd by the Son of God; ſo they muſt of themſelves have been Typical and Figurative.

The Dean has ſaid that which is the Doctrine of the Fathers and generally of all Chriſtians. His notion is true and genuine, and thoſe Gentlemen have not anſwer'd it. He asks again, what account can be given of the Jewiſh Prieſthood and Sacrifices which is becoming God, if God is propitiated by a Man ſubject to the ſame Sins and Infirmites? The difficulty is ſolid. For the High Prieſt of the old diſpenſation being a meer Man, He was a Metaphorical Prieſt. He muſt be then the figure of a Prieſthood, and of a Prieſt more perfect; and if the High Prieſt of the new diſpenſation was no more than a Man, for this theſe Gentlemen ſuppoſe notwithſtanding the great addition of Grace and Glory made to him, This High Prieſt is ſtill Metaphorical and Typical, as well as the other. This contradicts the Author of the Epiſtle to the Hebrews, c. 7. v. 2. and foll. The law made Men Prieſts which had Infirmities, and offer'd daily for their own ſins and then for the people's. But Chriſt our High Prieſt was holy, undefil'd, ſeparate from ſinners and made Higher than the Heavens. That is, above any created being. He is able to ſave to the uttermoſt them that come to God by him. Nothing that is a meer Man is able to ſave. Nothing that is a meer Man is without Infirmities, the very notion of a Creature implying deficiency and want. Therefore if he is no more, he is ſtill Typical and Figurative. This objection is not, nor can be anſwer'd with all the turns of Wit and Eloquence in the World. The union of the two natures in that one adorable Perſon anſwers it preſently and wholly. They are not willing to come up to this: But yet this truth is ſo clear, and the Argument ſo preſſing that it has extorted from them in the ſame place, that God has made Chriſt as it were God by his unſpeakable gifts. What is all this? what? has he made him half a God, or three parts God, or nine parts in ten God? If Chriſt is no more then a meer Man, how is he made as it were God? If he is God, How is he made as it were God? Is this jargon or gibbriſh? I underſtand how a man can be made as it were a King and yet be no King. I apprehend how Moſes could be a God to Pharo by working in him with his wonders an awful ſence of him from whom he ſpoke: But how a man can ſave his fellow creatures to the uttermoſt, a meer man ſatiſfy for the ſins of mankind, be made as it were a God, and yet be no God: do thoſe things which none but God can do, and are the inſeparable properties of his Divine nature, and yet be no God, is to me wholly incomprehenſible. Let theſe Gentlemen, who are ſo ſtrangely afraid of an imaginary Idolatry, have a care leſt they lead their few followers into a real one. I leave this to your ſerious conſiderarion and remain,

SIR, Your Humble and faithful Servant. L.
THE Second LETTER. SIR,

IF the Old Teſtament ſeems expreſs in the aſſertion of the Divinity of Jeſus Chriſt, and if the Prophets have ſhew'd that the expected Meſſias was God; It muſt be expected that the New is poſitive in it, and that the Evangeliſts and Apoſtles clearly deliver that great truth. I hope that you will be made ſenſible of it, and that the anſwers of your Friends will appear as unſatisfactory to the Texts of the one, as I humbly conceive they are to thoſe of the other.

I ever thought that if this Doctrine is not fully expres't there, we muſt not think any more to ſee with our Eyes, or to hear with our Ears. All muſt be reſolv'd into a monſtruous uncertainty, and we have no ground left where to reſt if this is not firm and ſolid. That theſe Gentlemen ſhould be ſo Zealous againſt it, and agreeing with us in the truth of the holy Scriptures ſhould uſe ſo much learning and induſtry not to ſee that which is ſo viſible, is to me no ſmall cauſe of admiration. We muſt in this adore the judgments of God and pray to him that he would give them Grace to employ their excellent parts to a better uſe, and do as much for the truth, as they have done againſt it.

They have been led to this by the preſumptious aſſertion of ſome in the Roman communion, and in particular by Dyoniſius Petavius, a better Chronologiſt than a Divine, who to raiſe not ſo much Tradition, as theſe Gentlemen miſtake him, as the power of the Church in deciding Controverſies, have thought that our myſteries could not be prov'd by the plain authority of Scripture. If this is true, the Primitive Chriſtians could give no account of their Faith before the determination of Councels; and were left unarm'd, and without defence againſt the inſults of Hereticks: which is unreaſonable to the higheſt degree, and a thought unworthy of that Providence which makes the Church its peculiar care.

No, Sir, The Scripture ought to be our rule: Nor can we better judge of God, or of the things of God, than by the diſcovery which he has made of himſelf in his word. To this we are willing to ſtand without doubting either of the ſucceſs, or goodneſs of the cauſe. But before we come to particular places, I muſt lay before you ſome grievances, which if not redres'ſt, it is impoſſible to treat this ſacred matter with candor. I hope none of us diſpute for diſputing ſake. It is as much in controverſies as in any other thing that we ſhall be brought to an account for every idle word.

1ſt. There is an injuſtice in theſe Gentlemen who pretend to add much to their Interpretations by ſheltering them under the name of ſome learned Proteſtant; and make uſe of this againſt us. But will not take what they give and except againſt all the Authorities alledg'd againſt them.

2ly. In the lett. of reſolut. concerning the Doctr. of the Trin. and Incarn. pag. 3. I demand, ſays the Author, ſuch a Text of our appoſers, and do here profeſs that if they name it not, t'is becauſe they cannot. He had ſaid before, That that Text cannot be nam'd which ſome or other of the learn'd Proteſtants have not either interpreted, as t'is interpreted by Socinians, or Arrians; or expreſsly ſaid 'twas not intended by the inſpir'd Author concerning the Incarnation, or Trinity, or any Perſon therein. He grows dogmatical upon this and adds; I will leave it with you, Sir, whether this be not a juſt exception to theſe Doctrines: even this that they have no ſufficient foundation in Scripture by the confeſſion of the learn'dſt of our oppoſers? How many exceptions is that ſort of reaſoning liable to? How can theſe Gentlemen take for themſelves what is ſaid for the Arrians, whoſe principles are ſo different, whoſe ſyſtem is ſo inconſiſtent with theirs? How boundleſs is ſuch an aſſertion which without naming any particulars, extends firſt to all and then to moſt of the learned Proteſtants? Theſe Texts, or thoſe Interpreters are not ſo many, but a ſhort Catalogue might have been given. Admitting the thing to be true, How comes it that none of thoſe learned Proteſtants are turn'd Socinians, particularly having given up all their places of ſtrength? Is there any argument for any Doctrine either in Philoſophy or Divinity but what has met with ſome Eminent oppoſer? And what wiſe Man will conclude that nothing is true or certain, becauſe ſome learned Perſon or other, has given up, ſome one, and ſome other, that part of the Argument which he thought did not prove the thing in queſtion? Who is inſenſible, particularly the ſtudious, that many learned Men have been ſingular in the interpretation of ſome places of Scripture for want of attention, or piety, which I take to be moſt neceſſary in an Interpreter, or to make ſhew of a ſplendid erudition, or becauſe they thought the thing treated of had more ſubſtantial arguments, or becauſe they had eſpous'd a new ſyſtem, which laſt caſe I take to be that of Grotius, and of theſe very Gentlemen. Had this Author ſaid that any one, or the ſeveral bodies of Proteſtants had given up every particular Text, it would have been of ſome force: But the reaſoning, as it lyes, is a Rodomontado, a miſtake, and a fallacy.

3ly. I complain that theſe Gentlemen are angry with all the tranſlations of the Bible. pag. 25. of the anſwer to Mr. Milbourn. If the Heavenly words were but honeſtly tranſlated the Socinians would not fear any inference from them. Our Proteſtant oppoſers value themſelves much on this account, that they have given to the people the holy Bible in vulgar languages. It may however be ſaid that they have been more crafty then the Papiſts in impoſing upon the people ...... The Papiſts have ſillilly rais'd a clamor by witholding the Bible from the people ..... The Proteſtants have been wiſer, though not a bit more ſincere .... They have Printed all the Bibles that are in the original Greek Tongue from ſuch Manuſcript Copies as have been corrected to ſpeak the language of the Church, and from Bibles ſo corrected and Printed they have made their tranſlations. Nor has the fraud ſtop't there; For wherever there is an ambiguity in the Original Hebrew, or Greek, they have always ſo tranſlated as to confirm their own Doctrines.

A caſe is very deſperate when it ſhelters it ſelf under ſuch aſperſions. Had theſe Gentlemen charg'd our Reformers with inadvertency or want of erudition it had been more tolerable. But to lay at their doors unſincerity and craft is bold and odious. Their great Piety and their Zeal for the cauſe of God for which many of them dy'd, is inconſiſtent with this. The plain Engliſh is this; Give up all your Bibles, and truſt to our Interpretation.

I have no time to run through all the Tranſlations of the Bible, to vindicate the care and application taken to make them perfectly agreeable to the original. A ſpecimen of ours is to be found in the Appendix to the Hiſtory of the Reformation by My Lord of Sarum whom theſe Gentlemen have ſtil'd the Euſebius of this age. It is impoſſible but ſome minute things will eſcape the moſt exact diligence. But as to the main, they have been made after the ancienteſt Copies extant; and of all thoſe which I underſtand, none is ſo admirable and ſo full of various readings as the Engliſh.

How is it poſſible ever to come to a concluſion with Perſons of this Temper? I produce a Text for the Divinity of Jeſus Chriſt. They pretend another reading. Who muſt be our judge? I maintain the tranſlation to be agreeable to the original. It is not deny'd. But another reading, and another ſence is pretended alſo agreeable to the Original. Which of theſe two muſt carry it? Either mine which is according to all the readings, all the Tranſlators, and all the Interpreters; or this new and as yet unknown ſence? This is the caſe between us, and of this I complain, that theſe Gentlemen think to have anſwer'd an objection, when to a place generally and anciently read and underſtood as it is propos'd, they ſubſtitute a new and unknown interpretation.

I ſay that no interpretation is to be receiv'd which is new: That to anſwer is not to have the laſt word, and offer ſome glimmering light to a difficulty; That the candor of a ſerious diſpute admits of no ſuch thing; and that that ſence muſt take place which is moſt eaſy, moſt ancient and moſt univerſal.

4ly. I am griev'd to ſee the Tradition of the Church in that point ſo ridicul'd by theſe Gentlemen, and the Nicene Council, the firſt general meeting of the Fathers, and reverenc't by all the after ages call'd the Homoouſian faction, in the mock Hiſtory of the acts of the great Athanaſius. I muſt give it that name, it being impoſſible that Men who are vers't in Eccleſiaſtical learning ſhould have writ it ſeriouſly: There being ſcarce in it any one matter of fact true and genuine. If I may be allow'd a digreſſion; I would willingly know where theſe Gentlemen found that Conſtantine dy'd an Unitarian? If by an Unitarian they mean that he own'd the Unity of the Godhead, I hope we ſhall all dye in that faith. But if by it they mean a Socinian, a denyer of the Divinity of Chriſt, It is a groſs and a palpable untruth. I would alſo be ſatisfi'd whether Euſebius of Caeſarea whom they ſo truly call'd the Admirable did not ſubſcribe the Nicene faith.

To return. In an anſwer to a loving Coſen pag. 3. We hear of nothing but Fathers, Tradition, Councils, &c. pag. 8. This general Obſervation concerning the Fathers is ſufficient to make me refuſe their teſtimony, and look upon them as no good Interpreters of Scripture, and unfaithfull Guardians of Tradition.

We are then in a very ſad caſe. Our Tranſlations are diſhoneſt, and the Holy Fathers are no good Interpreters of Scripture, and unfaithfull Guardians of Tradition. Our Tranſlations and the Fathers ſhould have ſpoke as theſe Gentlemen, and then all had been right. Where will of neceſſity ſuch wild notions lead Men, and when will the diſpute end if they are admitted?

For my part I am of Mr. Chillingworth's mind, and think that it is both the ſafety and honour of the Proteſtant Religion to cry out, The Bible, The Bible, a place of that eminent Man ſo often and ſo juſtly commended by theſe Gentlemen. I am perſwaded that the word of God ought to be the rule. But then I am ſatisfi'd, that no Scripture is of private interpretation: That this Bible muſt be well underſtood: and that Tradition is the greateſt human Authority in the World. I take this point to be ſo clear, particularly to Men of learning, that if any Society of Chriſtians could produce for what they have to ſay for themſelves ſuch a Tradition as Vine ius Li inenſis has eſtabliſht, and is the true notion of Tradition, we muſt all come over to it.

This is ſo juſt in it ſelf, that theſe very Gentlemen cannot forbear expreſſing their joy, when what they produce is not altogether their own, and has ſome great names to introduce it. They ſpeak then with a certain ſort of aſſurance, which they have not at other times.

I do not know whether I am as other Men, or wheit is a ſingularity in me; but if I have never ſo pretty a notion and find it contradicted by the concurrent teſtimonies of Men who have united a profound Piety, to an admirable Learning; ſuch as are the Baſil's, The Chryſoſtom's, The Theodoret's, The two Gregorie's, The Euſebius's, The Cyrill's, The Jerom's, The Auſtin's, and many more: If I ſind primitive and General Councils exclaiming againſt me: If I meet in my way almoſt all that has been valuable in the laſt, and this preſent Age in the Common-wealth of learning: Though I might perhaps maintain the notion and ſpin it into a Letter or a ſmall Book, not perhaps without ſome Admirers; yet I preſently ſtrike, and think it both moſt honourable and conſcientious to call the pretty thing in.

5ly. I have a juſt value for Criticks; though whether a Critick is Maſter of any one ſort of Learning is a great Queſtion to me. But to make Criticks the Judges, and Criticiſms the Touchſtone of Faith is inſufferable. Like Anatomiſts they diſſect, till they leave neither Form nor Figure. A Criticiſm is much different from a good reaſon: Allowing one to be good, a hundred amount generally to no more than a probability. They are a ſort of Arrows ſhot at random, which ſometimes hit the mark, and generally go above, or below it. I inſiſt the more on this, becauſe it is the Palladium of theſe Gentlemen. When a Text is plain and ſtares in the face, then comes out the Criticiſm. This is the diſſecting Inſtrument which runs through the Text till wrangling ariſes about a Particle, or a Punctuation, and makes the ſubſtantial part of the diſpute to vaniſh. When Reaſon is oppos'd to Reaſon, and Argument to Argument, the ſtander by may, in a very ſhort time, feel the impreſſions of truth. But when a plain Authority is evaded by a Criticiſm, and this Criticiſm perhaps anſwer'd by another, For theſe Gentlemen are great but not the only Criticks, There is jarring and claſhing, and not one ſtep made towards the truth.

In the Letter of Reſolut. concern. the Doctr. of the Trin. and Incar. p. 10. the Author ſays, and he is very much in the right, that we pretend, That the Trinity and Incarnation are Traditions deriv'd down to our times through all the intermediate Ages, and by all the Churches profeſſing Chriſtianity. The rational way to prove the vanity of the pretence is to ſhew that there was a time and ſome Church or other where theſe Doctrines were not believ'd. Inſtead of this he ſpends three pages to prove how we have differ'd, and do differ amongſt our ſelves in the explication of theſe Doctrines; which rather ſupports then weakens the Argument. It does evince; that we agree in the thing though not in the manner of explaining it, which is that that I inſiſt on, with the reſt of my Brethren the Divines of the mob, as theſe Gentlemen call us.

But this is only to criticiſe at large. All the Criticks, ſays this ſame Author in the ſame Letter, without excepting one, who have made a judgment of the writings of the Fathers for the firſt 300 Years, and particularly which of thoſe writings are genuine and uncorrupted, which wholly feign'd or otherwiſe corrupted, I ſay, All the Criticks conſtantly make this a Note of forgery, or corruption, if thoſe writings ſpeak any what expreſsly or evidently of theſe Doctrines.

If the Criticks mean that the writings of the Primitive Fathers, which ſpeak of thoſe Myſteries in the Terms us'd by the Schools long ſince the Nicene Council, are ſuppoſs'd; They are in the right. But this Criticiſm is againſt thoſe Gentlemen themſelves. It regards only the manner of the expreſſion, not the thing expreſs'd. But if the Criticks mean that the Trinity, or Incarnation were unknown to, and were not the Doctrine of the Fathers before the Council of Nice, which is that which theſe Gentlemen muſt make the Criticks to ſay, or elſe they ſay nothing: I beg leave of theſe Gentlemen, and of all the Criticks, not one excepted, to tell them that they are invincibly miſtaken. I have no criticiſm to offer here, nor will I ſill this ſmall writing with citations of theſe Fathers, it being the thing in queſtion; Though I conceive, with ſubmiſſion to the high and mighty Criticks, that moſt of theſe citations may be prov'd genuine. I have only two plain Reaſons to offer. 1ſt. With what equity and aſſurance did the Nicene Fathers declare their decrees to be according to the Doctrine taught by the Fathers who had preceeded them, if the Trinity and Incarnation was not the Doctrine of thoſe Fathers? The Council was an Auguſt Meeting of the moſt learned and Religious Perſons in the World, even by the confeſſion of their Adverſaries. Some of them had preſerv'd the gift of miracles which expir'd ſoon after. Such an aſſertion, had it not been true, would have better become a pack of Villains, than Holy and Reverend Men. 2ly, How durſt the Nicence Fathers declare this to be the Faith, and Anathematiſe whoſoever was againſt that ſacred, wiſe, Divine and Catholick Faith: had this Faith been new and unknown to the Fathers before, nay, had a contrary Faith obtain'd then in the Chriſtian World? This is a monſtruous ſuppoſition, that within 300 Years after Chriſt, the Nicene Fathers ſhould preſume to obtrude the belief of, and declare a Doctrine to be Faith which the Primitive Fathers were not ſo much as acquainted with. To give more ſtrength to this, and prevent an objection which perhaps may have ſome colour, and occaſion another Criticiſm, I freely own that not only the Arrians, but even ſome of the Orthodox complain'd, that the words Conſubſtantial, and Conſubſtantiality, were new and unſcriptural. But this confirms what I have ſaid; the newneſs and unſcripturalneſs of the words, but not of the ſence being aſſerted. They agreed in the truth and antiquity of the Doctrine, but only differ'd about theſe two words, which by being new and unſcriptural were not thought ſo fit to expreſs it. I beg your pardon for inſiſting ſo long upon this. But I was forc't to it; 1ſt, Becauſe this very place of that Letter you have often urg'd to me. 2ly, To ſhew that how great Criticks ſoever we are, we muſt be juſt and equitable, and value reaſons above Criticiſms. If theſe Gentlemen write for the Unlearned, they are much out of the way; theſe things are above their reach: And if for the Learned, they muſt own that this has not made one Learned Man of their ſide. It is a ſort of Chicane which Men of ſence abhor.

6ly, Theſe Gentlemen would have us prove thoſe Terms by Scriptures which we own to be unſcriptural. They challenge us to find in the New Teſtament the word Godman, Trinity, Incarnation; nay, whole Propoſitions in Terminis. The Author of the Letter now cited, pag. 10. pretends it as a great Argument of their ſide, that Tertullian is the firſt amongſt the Latins, and Clemens Alexand. amongſt the Greeks, who firſt us'd the word Trinity. We might as well ask, and with as little reaſon, where is the word Ʋnity in reſpect of God, or Sacrament or Hierarchy, and ſeveral more, which all the World receives, and yet are no Scriptural words? If we do but find the things expreſt by the words, as that God is one, that there is Baptiſm, and the Lord's Supper, that there is an order of Men appointed to adminiſter holy things, the words are a natural conſequence, and founded in the things themſelves. Is it not highly unjuſt to ask us where we find a Trinity, if we can prove three Divine Perſons; That beſides the Father whom they acknowledge to be God, the Son alſo, and the Holy Spirit is God? To wonder at the word, Eternal Generation; ſince if we prove Chriſt's Pre-exiſtence and Pre-eternity, He cannot be the Son of God but by way of Eternal Generation. To ſtare at the word, Incarnation, as ſuch an unheard of thing, ſince if Chriſt is God, and yet has taken our nature, He muſt be Incarnate. Theſe are poor, mean, and a ſort of Mob difficulties.

Theſe Grievances being conſider'd I beg nothing but what is equitable. 1ſt, I beg that if we prove the thing in queſtion, that is, the Divinity of Chriſt, and of the Holy ſpirit, we may have no quarell about the words Trinity and Incarnation.

2ly, That no particular Interpretation of any Proteſtant Author may be brought againſt us as Interpretation either of our Church or any other conſiderable body of Proteſtants.

3ly, That if a Text is capable of a various reading, and of a double ſence, that ſence and reading may be preſerv'd, which is prov'd to have been the ancient reading, and the ſence generally receiv'd in the Churches of God. A ſence new and unknown to all the Ages of the Church cannot be the ſence: and that poſſeſſion which we and all Chriſtian Societies are in of thoſe Texts, cannot be diſturb'd, without ſomething more forcible and authoritative than the witty fancy of an Interpreter.

4ly, I beg that the Fathers may be heard as Witneſſes of an unqueſtionable integrity; and that this at leaſt may be a real prejudice againſt theſe Gentlemen, that they have not only oppos'd the Faith of their Age, but alſo that of times paſt.

5ly, That a Criticiſm alone, the doubting of a Book, the denying of a place, the wrangling about a Particle, without ſome conſiderable reaſon to back it, may not be look't upon as an Anſwer.

6ly, That not only ſome one particular Text which we alledge be conſider'd; but that all our Texts be taken together with the weight of the important reaſons which inforce the belief of our Myſteries. This granted, I conceive that it is no difficult matter to convince a candid Oppoſer, that the New Teſtament is clear for the Divinity of Chriſt.

We will begin by that which is the foundation of our Holy Religion. Matt. 28.19. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations baptiſing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghoſt. This is the ancient profeſſion of our Faith, and ingenuouſly acknowledg'd to be ſuch, by the Author of the Anſwer to Mr. Milb. pag. 16. He cites for this Tertullian de bapt. c. 13. He might have cited Theodoret lib. 1. c. 12. St. Baſil de Spir. ſanct. and Arrius himſelf, who is a Witneſs of this in the Confeſſion of his Faith, given to Conſtantine, and reported by Socrates lib. 1. c. 26.

The Orthodox from this Text conclude three Perſons to be ſpoken of. Theſe Gentlemen only two; The Father who is God, and the Son. The Holy Ghoſt they will have to be no more than the Energy of the Father. They are poſitive in the Brief Hiſt. pag. 25. That neither the more learned of their Oppoſers, nor the Fathers of the firſt 400 Years, inſiſt on this Text to prove the Divinity of the Lord Chriſt, and of the Holy Spirit. The matter of fact is a vaſt miſtake, and the very ſuppoſition is impoſſible; This place having been cited ſo often by the Ancients and modern to prove the Perſons of the Trinity, muſt of courſe in their Hypotheſis, be an Argument for their Divinity.

They agree with us, that the Son ſpoken of in the Text is Chriſt Jeſus, whom they will have to be the Son of God, by all other titles but that of Nature, and Eſſence. They ſay of him that he is the Son of God by his miraculous Conception in the womb of the Bleſſed Virgin; By his Miſſion to preach to Men, and reclaim them from their Sins; by his Glorious Reſurrection, being begotten to a new Life, and his Admiſſion to a Bleſſed Immortality, whence, as God's deputy, he is to come to judge the quick and the dead: But that for all this he is a Man, and no more than a Man, he has no other Exiſtence, no other Nature. We on the contrary, beſides all theſe titles, inſiſt on that of Nature. We ſay that he is the Son of God after a manner incommunicable to any Created Being.

I ſuppoſe that if the Pre-exiſtence, and Preeternity of the Son can be prov'd, his Equality with the Father, his ſameneſs of Nature, and a communication of thoſe names, by which the only true God is known to us, the aſſertion will be juſtifi'd. For all that we conceive of God, being that he exiſts before all things, that he has neither beginning, nor ending, that he is above all things, that he is infinite in perfections; That he is the Creator, and in a moſt eminent way the Lord of all that is; If this is made out of the Son, in vain thoſe Gentlemen ſtruggle to reduce what is ſaid of him, to their poor wayes of explaining how he is the Son of God; ſince none of their explications can amount to any part of this.

1ſt, Then to prove his pre-exiſtence, that is, that he had a being before he was conceiv'd of the Virgin, read Joh. 6.62. What and if you ſhall ſee the Son of Man aſcend up where he was before? The deſign of the whole Chapter is to convince the Jews that they ought to receive him. The Argument he uſes is that he is come down from Heaven. He tells them that he is the food of their Souls. That their Fathers indeed had meat ſent from above, but that it could not keep them from Death; But that he brings them bread of ſo great a vertue that it would procure immortality: That this bread is his Fleſh which he gives for the life of the World. His hearers were ſcandalis'd at this. The diſcontent affected even his Diſciples: Till Jeſus to convince them that he came from Heaven, tells them poſitively that he was there before, and that as a proof of this they ſhould ſee him aſcending thither again. There is not, nor can be a more eaſy way of Arguing. You doubt whether I come from Heaven to feed and preſerve, to ſave and redeem you. What greater proof of this can you deſire then to ſee me aſcend to Heaven, where I was before, and from whence I deſcended? If Chriſt then was actually in Heaven before he was born, theſe two truths cannot be deny'd. 1ſt. that he had another Nature beſides the human, ſince he had another exiſtence. 2ly, That he muſt have exiſted, before the time aſſign'd by theſe Gentlemen, to be the firſt of his Exiſtence, that is, his Conception in the Virgin. If Chriſt was not before he was born; how can he ſay that he was in Heaven? If Chriſt was not in Heaven, how does he offer them to let them ſee him aſcending thither again?

The Apoſtle takes this for granted, Eph. 4.9. He proves by Chriſt's aſcending to Heaven, that he deſcended from thence. Whether he alludes or no to this place is uncertain. But he looks upon Chriſt being come down from Heaven, and having been actually there, as a principle agreed on by all Men. How that he aſcended, what is it, but he alſo deſcended firſt? and v. 10. He that deſcended is the ſame alſo that aſcended far above all Heavens, &c. He then who aſcended from us to Heaven, did firſt deſcend from Heaven to us. Joh. 6.33. The bread of God is he which comes down from Heaven. Joh. 3.31. He that comes from above is above all...He that comes from Heaven is above all. Joh. 16.27. I came forth from the Father, and am come into the World; again I leave the World, and go to the Father.

This Doctrine is not only of the Scripture; but it may be ſaid to be one of the firſt notices of Chriſtianity, there being ſcarce any Sect or denomination of Chriſtians, but believes that Heaven is the place from whence their Redeemer is come. A notion ſo plain, ſo eaſy, ſo conſiſtent with the whole revelation of the will of God, that Photinus Biſhop of Syrmium, the Socinus of his Age, was not only condemn'd by ſeveral Councils, but Anathematis'd alſo by the ſeveral perſwaſions of Chriſtians, and even by the Arrians and Semi-Arrians, themſelves.

What theſe Gentlemen, oppoſe conſiſts in this. The Author of the Anſwer to Mr. Milbourn ſays, pag. 25. That Chriſt was actually taken up into Heaven, and took his inſtructions from the Father before he enter'd upon his Prophetical Office. That this is intimated by the very place which we have examin'd, by Joh. 8.38. but particularly by Joh. 3.13. No Man has aſcended to Heaven, but he that is come down from Heaven, even the Son of Man, who is in Heaven; That the word, is, muſt be read, was, that Eraſmus, Beza, Camerarius, read it thus; That the Evangeliſts have not ſpoke of the time of this aſſumption becauſe it was before their being call'd to be his Diſciples; that Chriſt never told them of it, but only hinted it in ſome diſcourſes. The Author of the Brief Hiſt. pag. 27.28. Cites the ſame Authors for the word was. He tells us. That the muſt Orthodox Interpreters underſtand it metaphorically. But that the Socinians underſtand this Text litterally, and ſay that 'tis here intimated, that before our Lord enter'd upon his Office of Meſſias, He was taken up to Heaven to be inſtructed in the mind and will of God, as Moſes was into the mount. Exod. 24.1. and foll. and from thence deſcended to execute his Office: That the ſame thing is alſo hinted. Joh. 6.38. Joh. 8.40.

When I ſee ſuch anſwers to a place of that importance, ſo expreſs and ſo poſitive, and from Perſons of ſo much Learning, I ask my ſelf whether I dream, or am really awake? I am tempted to loſe all the reſpect which I have for them, and begin to think that it is not reaſon and conſcience, but obſtinacy which makes Socinians. 1ſt, The Authors before cited do not ſay that it ought to be read was, but that it may be read thus. Qui eſt in coelo, ſays Beza, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , vel qui erat in coelo. Beza in Joh. 3.13. Theſe great Criticks are not ſenſible that the, was, is as much for us as the, is. I hope they have read the advice of this Learned Man in the notes on this very Verſe. Having diſcourſt of the Union of the two natures in Chriſt, He concludes in theſe words. I thought fit to make theſe ſhort remarks againſt a ſort of Men, who are not aſham'd in this our Age, to fetch back from Hell the deteſtable errors of Neſtorius and Eutyches, oppos'd by the vaſt labours and ſtudies of all the Fathers, and condemn'd with the clear and unanimous conſent of the whole Church.

2ly, I deny that the moſt learned Interpreters have underſtood it in a Metaphorical ſence. This is another of thoſe Gentlemen's boundleſs citations. A Metaphorical ſence of theſe words is ridiculous, impertinent and inconſiſtent with the thing it ſelf. They ſee it, and therefore they forſake the allegory, and come to the matter of fact, that Chriſt was actually in Heaven before he came to preach the Goſpel.

You ſee what it is to eſpouſe a wrong notion. They are reſolv'd upon aſſerting that Chriſt had no being before he he was conceiv'd in the Bleſſed Virgin. The objection made to them is ſo plain that they can by no means evade or deny it. But yet rather than ſubmit, they run themſelves into a groundleſs, I muſt beg their pardon, If I ſay, a ſenceleſs ſuppoſition of our Saviour being taken up to Heaven about the 30th Year of his Age. 1ſt, There is not one word of it in the writings of either the Evangeliſts, or Apoſtles. 2ly, There is not ſo much as a Father, or an Eccleſiaſtical Writer ever made that conjecture; no not Hebion the Jew, not Marcellus of Ancyra, nor Theodore of Mopſweſt, not Photinus himſelf. 3ly, There never was any Aſcenſion of Chriſt into Heaven taught or believ'd in the Church, but that which follow'd the Reſurrection; nor no other coming from thence, but when he took our Fleſh, and when he will come to judge the World. 4ly, I appeal to any one who will judge equitably of things, whether it is probable that the Evangeliſts who have deſcended to ſo many minute and particular actions of Jeſus Chriſt, would ever have omitted a circumſtance of ſo mighty a weight as this; of ſo great a neceſſity; and a glorious introduction to all the reſt? No, ſay theſe Gentlemen, but they did not know it: This was done before he had call'd them to be his Apoſtles. Oh ſtange! was not the adoration of the wiſe Men, His ſitting in the midſt of the Doctors, His being Baptis'd of John, His prodigious Faſt, His Temptation in the Wilderneſs and ſo many other parts of His Life before his calling them to that Office? How came they to know all this and not this imaginary Aſcenſion, found out ſixteen hundred Years after the preaching of the Goſpel? But though Chriſt did ſay nothing to them of it, yet he hinted it. I deny that he did. His coming from Heaven had no relation but to his being there before his aſſuming our nature. But ſuppoſing that he did, which is falſe, For if theſe Gentlemen cannot prove a thing, they will endeavour to hint it, I ask of them, whether Religion can be built upon a Hint, and what account we can give of the Hope which is in us, if it is reſolv'd into Hints.

This Pre-exiſtence of Chriſt is fully prov'd from Joh. 8.56. and foll. v. He tells the Jews that Abraham rejoiced to ſee his day, that he ſaw it and was glad. They preſently come to the, How can it be? Abraham himſelf being dead ſo many hundred Years before, and himſelf not yet fifty Years Old? Jeſus anſwers that for all that it was as he ſaid. He aſſures it with a repeated aſſeveration, Verily, Verily, I ſay to you, before Abraham was I am; or as the Syriack and other Tranſlations read, I was. If Chriſt Jeſus had no other exiſtence but from the Virgin Mary, How comes he to ſay that he was before Abraham? He could not be before Abraham, as he was the Son of Mary. He could not exiſt according to the human nature before he was a Man. If he exiſted then, as he ſays poſitively that he did, it muſt be as he was that God who in the fullneſs of time was pleas'd to appear to us. Thus Dr. Hammond, in his Paraphraſe on this place. You are much miſtaken in the reckoning of my Age, for I have a being from all Eternity, and ſo before Abraham was born, &c. I cite this Reverend Perſon by reaſon of an aſperſion laid on him by theſe Gentlemen in a letter to a loving Coſen. pag. 14. They make the Doctor to look upon the myſtery of the Holy Trinity, as a thing altogether uſeleſs and uncapable of moving the heart of Man. He could not find, ſays the Author, a place in his large practical Catechiſm for the great ſpring of the Trinity.

That the ſence given to this Text is true and genuine appears from the behaviour of the Jews at v. 59. Then they took up ſtones to caſt at him. Had the aſſertion been capable of a figurative ſence, it would never have mov'd them to ſuch a degree. They certainly underſtood him of a real and actual exiſtence. Their objection, thou art not yet fifty Years Old, was of that natural Age which they thought Chriſt had not yet attain'd. They took the anſwer to be litteral, and therefore judging the thing to be blaſphemous and impoſſible, they would have ſton'd him. And that the anſwer was litteral is undenyable. Notwithſtanding my Years, ſays Chriſt, I have ſeen Abraham. This were indeed impoſſible to ſee him who has been dead above 1800 Years, if I had no other being but what you ſee: It would be Blaſphemous if I were no more then a Man born in time, to take that upon me which belongs only to God, and to call the things that are not, as though they were; But I tell you that I was before Abraham. I had a being of my own, and I did actually exiſt before he was born. I take this to be evident and concluſive.

This Text is one of thoſe dangerous places which are like to overthrow the Socinian Fabrick, and therefore theſe Gentlemen do all that they can to elude its force. They have been ſo judicious as to forſake the ruinous and impertinent anſwers of Chrellius, and their other outlandiſh Friends, and have reduc't themſelves to this. The Author of the Brief Hiſt. pag. 29. allows the reading, I was. Grotius owns it, and therefore it could not be handſomely deny'd. To the reſt he ſays, 1ſt, That Abraham ſaw Chriſt's day in the ſpirit of Prophecy. He ſaw it not as coming, but as preſent; He foreſaw, as he deſir'd, the time when it ſhould be. 2ly, That Chriſt is here ſaid to be before Abraham not actually, but in the councel, decree, and ordination of God. And that St. Auſtin has confeſs'd it; He cites for this. 1 Pet. 1.20. The lamb ſlain from the foundation of the World, and Rev. 13.8. The lamb ſlain from the foundation of the World. He adds. That the Jews did not apprehend in what ſence Chriſt ſpoke. But neither did he intend or care they ſhould ..... They being averſe from Truth and Piety, he often ſo ſpake to ſome of them, as to perplex and affront their blindneſs .... and not to inſtruct them. He alledges for this Luk. 8.10.

The 1ſt Part of the Anſwer is to no purpoſe. Who doubts but that Abraham ſaw Chriſt in the ſpirit of Prophecy? The queſtion is not, how Abraham did ſee his day and rejoiced, but How he could exiſt before Abraham? Before Abraham was, I was. I had a being before Abraham was born. That's the point to be inſiſted on.

The 2d Part, that Chriſt was before Abraham in God's decree and ordination is alſo to no purpoſe. The queſtion is whether Chriſt has ſeen Abraham? The Jews ſay thou haſt not, for thou art not yet fifty Years Old; Thou art much poſterior to him. But I tell you, ſays Chriſt, I am ſo far from being poſterior, that I am anterior to him; Before he was I am. Now we muſt judge of the anſwer by the queſtion. The one ought to have relation to the other; or elſe it is all croſs purpoſes, which muſt not ſo much as be thought of here. To deal candidly; do the Jews ask Chriſt, whether he is ſo much later then Abraham in time or only in the decree of God? It is certainly in time; Thou art not yet fifty Years Old. Therefore Chriſt ſpeaks alſo of a priority of time, and not of decree: Before he was I am.

Beſides admitting of that decree, Chriſt could not have ſaid that he was in the decree before Abraham. For Abraham in whoſe ſeed all nations were to be bleſſed, was in the decree before the ſeed it ſelf. Abraham's coming into the World was in the decree before Chriſt's appearing in the Fleſh.

This Author has cited St. Auſtin, but neither his words nor the place where they are to be found. If he means in his tracts on the Goſpel of St. John, He will find that he has made uſe of this Text to confirm an Hypotheſis which runs through all his writings; that God having decreed to ſave Mankind in the Mediator Jeſus, He is the firſt of the Elect, the firſt of the decree, and in that ſence conſequently before Abraham, and all Men beſides; but this ſtill upon the ſuppoſition of the Union of the two Natures in his Perſon, which if theſe Gentlemen had obſerv'd, they durſt not ſo much as have nam'd him, nothing in the World overthrowing their Doctrine ſo effectually as this. The 1. Pet. 1.20. and Rev. 13.8. are altogether foreign to the queſtion. They regard his Office but not his Perſon; His mediation in the behalf of us Sinners, but not his Nature.

The 3d Part of the Anſwer that the Jews did not apprehend Chriſt, and that he did not intend, or care they ſhould, is a Propoſition, which, if admitted, ruines the whole Oeconomy of the Goſpel. It makes the God of Incomprehenſible Mercies to be guilty of the moſt refin'd ſort of Cruelty, to proffer the Patient a Medicine which muſt undoubtedly Cure him, and at the ſame time, to make him incapable of taking it. Certainly they cannot but ſee the horrour of ſuch an Anſwer.

Before I leave this Text I muſt take notice of the words of the Author ſpoken of Abraham, with ſo much caution, and to ſo little purpoſe. He ſaw it, ſays he, as coming, not as preſent; He foreſaw as he deſir'd the time that it ſhould be. The nature of Prophecy is to make preſent to the ſight of the Prophet that which by being future is wholly out of his reach. It is that which makes it miraculous. But in the caſe of Abraham he did not only deſire, but had a clear Revelation of the day of Chriſt. He ſaw it, and the ineffable proſpect of the glory of the Meſſias and of the Infinite Bleſſings Mankind was to receive by him, fill'd him with an incredible Joy. This is the true ſence of the place.

But what can more ſubſtantially evince the Pre-exiſtence of Chriſt before all things, than that all things are created by him? That he has given Being to whatſoever exiſts: That he is not only their Creator but alſo their Preſerver, and that whatſoever exiſts is maintain'd and ſupported by him. What will become of that poor aſſertion which fixes his Exiſtence to the firſt moment of his Conception, if it can be made plain, that he was before any thing that is, and exiſted before any thing did exiſt. For the effect naturally ſuppoſes the Pre-exiſtence of the cauſe. Any work that is done implies the being of the Workman who did it; and if the World is created by Chriſt; If the Scripture fully and clearly teaches him to be the Creator of the World, The Socinian foundation muſt be ſandy and ruinous.

The Author of the Epiſtle to the Hebrews, 1ſt Chap. v. 2. ſays poſitively, that Chriſt made the World. He has in theſe laſt dayes ſpoken to us by his Son by whom alſo he made the Worlds, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . But here we are ſtop't ſhort by the Author of the Brief Hiſt. pag. 41. who tells us, That Grotius, the irrefragable Grotius, ſays, that we tranſlate ill by whom, and that we ſhould read for whom: That it was a Maxim amongſt the Jews that the World was made for the Meſſias. If this fails, he tells you that others inſiſt that this is an allegory; that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 muſt be tranſlated Ages, by which are meant the Goſpel Ages or times. Thus ſinking Men graſp at any thing that appears, let it be ſhadow or ſubſtance.

With what conſidence can Men ſubſtitute a reading contrary to all the Tranſlations extant, which read by whom? Per quem, ſays the old latin, the Syriac and all the Fathers. To prove the truth of their Tranſlation, they have an empty notion that it was believ'd amongſt the Jews, that the World was made for the Meſſias, which indeed is the opinion of a few late Rabbins, follow'd in this by Grotius, who in his interpretation of the Scripture has wholly departed from the ancient Jews. Whereas if theſe Gentlemen deſire it, It will be made out, that it is the conſtant tradition of the Jews, that the World was made by the word, the Son of God. This deſtroys the Allegory to all intents and purpoſes; and really it is ſo raw, and ſo dragg'd, that it eaſily deſtroys it ſelf. If there were no place but this for the Creation of the World, or of the Worlds, or of the Ages, for theſe are all one, they might, with more colour, fly from the letter to the Trope. But we may ſay, that there is ſcarce any thing in the Scripture more inculcated than this.

Through Faith, ſays St. Paul, Heb. 11.3. We underſtand that the Worlds were fram'd by the word of God. Heb. 1.8. But unto the Son he ſays, thy Thorne, O God, is for ever and ever ....... and thou Lord in the beginning haſt laid the foundation of the earth, and the Heavens are the work of thy hands: They ſhall periſh, but thou remaineſt: and they ſhall wax old as does a garment, and as a veſture ſhall thou fold them up, and they ſhall be chang'd, but thou art the ſame, and thy Years ſhall not fail. There is then 1ſt, A general aſſertion of the Apoſtle. We believe that all that is, has been made by the word; and this, as a true Creator, without any pre-exiſtent matter. So that things which are ſeen were not made of things which do appear. 2ly, He brings the Almighty ſpeaking to the Word, to his Son, and thou Lord in the beginning haſt laid the foundation of the earth. Is this a Trope, an Allegory, or a reality? Is it a real or a Metaphorical founding of the earth, and working the Heavens? Do created beings periſh and decay really or Metaphorically? Is the World's deſtruction real, or only Figurative?

No Man ever indulg'd his fancy to that degree as to call this an Allegory: It is then a real and actual Creation. Thou haſt laid the foundation of the earth. It was done in the beginning, before any thing did exiſt, or began to be. The conſequence then is as bright as the ſun, that as he who has given a beginning to any thing, is before that thing which he has given a beginning to; ſo Chriſt is pre-exiſtent and before all created beings, ſince it appears by the expreſs Authority of the Scripture that he has given a being to the whole Creation. I paſs by that Elegant Deſcription of an Eternal Being, who is always the ſame incapable of change, and not mov'd even in the general deſtruction of all things.

But hold, ſays the Author of the Brief Hiſt. pag. 17. You are in a mighty miſtake. This ſeems indeed appli'd to Chriſt Heb. 1.10. But Thomas Aquinas obſerves that it may be underſtood of God only, not Chriſt. Grotius tells you, and ſo do Eſtius and Camerarius that this Text muſt be referr'd to v. 13.

Hold again ſays the Author of the Anſwer to Mr. Milbourn pag. 10, 11. This is an Allegory, and muſt be underſtood as the new Heavens, and the new Earth ſpoken of, Eſay. 65.17. and 66.22. 2 Pet. 3.13. Revel. 21.1. which all the Trinitarian Interpreters have underſtood of the Goſpel ſtate of things in oppoſition to the Jewiſh, which is antiquated and done away; agreeable to the aſſertion of Chriſt Matt. 24. If this is not ſatisfactory, there is another ſhift ready. He tells you, That others of his party take this as an Apoſtrophe, converſion, and devout addreſs to God, not intended of our Saviour.

The Allegory has ſo much the more weight, that it comes from the Allegorical Hugo Grotius, to whom may be appli'd what the 5th General Council ſaid of Theodore of Mopſweſt, that rather than be convinc't, He would turn the plaineſt truths into Allegories. But for all that, theſe Gentlemen are in the wrong. St. Peter ſpeaks of the end of the World, and of the deſtruction of all things in the laſt day. The 24th of St. Matthew is of the ſame ſtrain; and though ſeveral learned Men have underſtood theſe places of the deſtruction of Jeruſalem, yet they have agreed that it contains alſo that of the whole World. Chriſt anſwers his diſciples firſt, ſays Tertullian de Reſurr. car. follow'd in this by very many of the Fathers, of the time of the ruine of Jeruſalem, and then of the end of the World.

The notion of the Apoſtrophe, or addreſs to God, is ſcarce worth any notice, and time is too precious to ſpend it in anſwering trifles of that nature. It is like that of Socinus, and I believe flows from it, that theſe words are not ſpoken of the Son, becauſe with the conjunctive particle and, there was not, rurſum, again. An ordinary meaſure of common ſence will ſhew the vanity of this. Let ten thouſand People read this Chapter, and theſe two Verſes in particular, But to the Son he ſays, Thy Throne O God ... and thou Lord in the beginning haſt laid, but will think them to be ſpoken to the ſame Perſon. No not that plain Countryman who hearing his Parſon read theſe words of St. Paul, thought it not robbery, did fancy that the It, was not in the Original. Anſ. to Mr. Milbourn pag. 36.

I muſt beg theſe Gentlemens Pardon, If I am forc't to ſay, that they are guilty, in their Diſputes, of an unparallel'd Injuſtice. The Scripture ſpeaks of a real Creation. It mentions one alſo which is Allegorical. Some Interpreters, and not all the Interpreters, according to their large way of talking, have underſtood the places which they have cited out of Iſaias and the Revelation of this laſt, Therefore right or wrong, they muſt be appli'd to the firſt. Rather than give up the Argument, they will give over the litteral ſence of a Text which is capable of no other; and run to the Metaphorical which by no means can agree with it. It is confeſt on all hands, that the Prophet in the words in diſpute; ſpeaks of a real, actual Creation, and of a real, actual Deſtruction of the Word. It is alſo confeſt, that the words are addreſt to the real actual Creator of the World, to that Eternal God, who in the change and alteration of all things, is himſelf incapable of change. This they themſelves do not deny. The Apoſtle brings in the Father ſpeaking to his Son; attributing to him that real actual Creation, as to the real, actual Creator; and becauſe this is plain, evident, and unanſwerable, then the Apoſtle muſt be made to ſpeak in an Allegorical and Figurative way. This is ſuch a method of arguing, which, I durſt almoſt ſay, is ſcandalous. I honour Grotius, but I would borrow an impertinence of no Man to elude a viſible Truth.

That this Doctrine of the real and actual Creation of all things by Chriſt is not deliver'd obſcurely, or by the by, but is the conſtant and univerſal Doctrine of Scripture, appears from Coloſ. 1.15. and foll. v. Who is the image of the inviſible God, the firſt born of every Creature: For by him were all things created that are in Heaven, and that are in earth, viſible and inviſible, whether they by Thrones, or Dominions, or Principalities, or Powers: All things were created by him, and for him, and be is before all things, and by him all things conſiſt. There is not a word in this but what invincibly proves the queſtion, and this after ſo clear a manner, that it leaves no room for Allegories, figures or any ſuch poor ſhifts. Paſſing by the firſt expreſſion, the image of the inviſible God, of which we ſhall have a further occaſion to ſpeak; The Apoſtle ſays poſitively of Chriſt, that he is the firſt born of every Creature, that is, born before all Created Beings, which is the true rendring of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Primogenitus omnis Creaturae, reads the old latin, that is, genitus ante omnem creaturam ſays Tertullian lib. de Trin. born before any creature. The paſſage of that Father is home to the thing. It was before any of theſe diſputes, and ſhews exactly the ſence of the Weſtern Church in the Primitive Times. Quomodo Primogenitus eſſe potuit, niſi quoniam ſecundum Divinitatem ante omnem creaturam ex Deo Patre ſermo proceſſit? How could he be the firſt born, but that in reſpect of his Divine nature The word proceeded from God the Father before any thing was created? Origen. lib. 2. contr. Celſ. to an objection made by Celſus, that he whom we aſſure to be God, and ſuppoſe to ſuffer ſo willingly, could not forbear cryes and lamentations, anſwers, That he does not diſcern the difference of the Scriptures Expreſſions: That Chriſt ſpeaks ſometimes as Man, and ſometimes as God. We have laid down, ſays that Father, who alſo writ before theſe diſputes and ſhews the ſence of the Eaſtern Church, that in Jeſus thoſe expreſſions are to be found which belong to none but him who is born before any creature, ſuch as is, I am the way, the truth, and the life; others again which belong to none but to Man, ſuch as is, but now you ſeek to kill me, a Man who has told you the truth. The firſtborn here then is not the muſt beloved, though underſtood ſo by the Hebrews and Helleniſts in ſeveral places, nor in reſpect of the Reſurrection from the Dead, as St. Paul calls him, or in relation to his dignity as David is ſtil'd, Pſ. 68.27. but in regard of his antemundane exiſtence, of his Eternal nature, according to his Divinity, ſay both Origen, and Tertullian.

Nor indeed can it be otherwiſe. For by him were all things created. The firſt born can have here no other ſence then born before all created beings. Or elſe how could all things have been created by him. He is call'd 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , ſays the great and holy Archbiſhop of Milan, that by the words born, and begotten, he may be diſtinguiſht and excluded from all that is made or created.

The Apoſtle not only aſſerts his creating power, and his actual excerciſe of that power in general, by ſaying, that he has created all things; but he alſo deſcends to a moſt exact enumeration of created beings; Thoſe that are in Heaven, thoſe that are in earth, thoſe that are viſible, thoſe that are inviſible; even the Heavenly Hierarchy, Thrones, Dominions, Principalities, and Powers.

He repeats it again with this addition, that as Chriſt is the beginning, he is alſo the end of all Creatures, the Alpha and the Omega, a name which God alone aſſumes. He gives a being to all that is, and none is but by him. But at the ſame time himſelf is the end of all their operations. It is for his glory that they are created. All things are created by him and for him.

He ſums up the whole and aſſerts anew that he exiſts before any thing created, and by him what is created is preſerv'd. And he is before all things, and by him all things conſiſt.

I wiſh theſe Gentlemen would ſhew me the difference between theſe laſt words, and by him all things conſiſt, and thoſe of the Apoſtle, Act 17.28. in him we live, and move, and have our being, which they own to be ſpoken of the Almighty. I would beg of them to tell me whether any part of Scripture, even the 1ſt of Geneſis is more exact, more litteral, more circumſtantiated then this? I pray them, if this be not a real Creation, and a real Creator, to let the World know by what plainer terms they can be inform'd. I ſhall be thankful to any who will ſatisfy me ſubſtantially, whether any thing that is ſaid here can agree with the Son of Mary, if he has no exiſtence but that of the nature which he had of his Mother.

I proteſt I am aſham'd to repeat what the Author of the Brief Hiſt. calls an anſwer to this pag. 38. 1ſt, He ſays, That Chriſt is call'd the firſt born of every Creature not abſolutely, as if he was in being before all other Creatures, but the meaning is, he is the firſt born from the dead of all God's Creatures .... that thus in this very context is the firſt born explain'd. v. 18.

That Chriſt is call'd in the 18. v. the firſt born from the dead is freely acknowledg'd, not only for the reaſon alledg'd by them, that he roſe to dye no more, but many other more ſolid which they have not expreſt for fear they ſhould interfere with the belov'd Syſtem. But what is this to the purpoſe. Chriſt is the firſt-born all the wayes that the word can be underſtood in. He is the firſt-born from the dead, becauſe the firſt of all Men, he roſe from Death to Life, after ſo miraculous a manner. He is the firſt-born of every Creature, becauſe he exiſts before any created being. I deny that the 18. v. has any relation to this. The deſign of the Apoſtle is to ſhew, that Chriſt in all things has the pre-eminence. He has it in the natural order of things, becauſe he is ſuperior and antecedent to them. He is born before all Creatures. He has it in the Myſtical and ſpiritual order, becauſe he is the head of the body the Church. He is the beginning the ſource of all Grace. He is the foundation of our peace. He is the firſt born from the dead, the firſt and great inſtance, the viſible aſſurance of that glorious immortality God has promis'd to our obedience. But it is a fallacy uſual in theſe Gentlemen's Writings to reaſon à dicto ſecundum quid, ad dictum ſimpliciter, to turn a particular into a general interpretation.

But 2ly, ſays the Author of the Brief Hiſt. in the page cited; theſe words, for by him were all things cre •• ed, are not ſpoken of Chriſt but of God. I commend them to own that thoſe things can be ſaid of none but God. This in their own confeſſion proves Chriſt to be God, for all this is ſaid of him. What? Have theſe Gentlemen receiv'd from above a power to put out People's Eyes, and to invert the ſence of all Mankind? The contents lye thus; Who, God, has deliver'd us from the power of darkneſs, and has tranſlated us into the Kingdom of his dear Son: in whom we have redemption through his blood even the forgiveneſs of Sins. Who is the image of the inviſible God, the firſt born of every Creature: For by him were all things created that are in Heaven .... All things are created by him and for him, and he is before all things ... and he is the head of the body the Church, &c. I ſay what I have ſaid before. Let this be read to ten thouſand Men, and I give up the cauſe, if any one of them who is not quite void of ſence does not confeſs, that this is ſpoken of the Son. The miſtake of thoſe Gentlemen is ſo much the worſe, becauſe it is willfull, the Particles us'd here, which join the whole, and make it all of a piece, and, for, by, rendring it altogether impoſſible.

3ly, The Author ſays again, that the moſt learned and Critical of our Interpreters do not think that Creation is in this attributed to Chriſt. He cites ſome mordern, and even ſome Fathers, who do not read Created, but Modell'd. The ſence which he makes is this, That the Lord Chriſt is ſaid to Model, or order all things on Earth, becauſe of the great change he has introduc'd, aboliſhing Judaiſm, and Paganiſm, and introducing Chriſtianity in their ſtead. He new order'd or modell'd the Thrones ..... and other Angelical Orders in Heaven, in that he became their King, and their Head, whereas before the were immediately under God, and gives them from time to time ſuch Orders as to him ſeems good.

Thus that ingenious Man flyes from branch to branch without finding where to reſt. He has found this in Grotius, and has taken it up for want of ſomething more ſolid. If this way of criticiſing is allow'd, there is nothing in Scripture capable of a litteral ſence. A warm Fancy, and a great deal of Confidence will make the Sacred Book a continu'd Metaphor. How eaſy would it be to do that with the firſt Chapter of Geneſis, which thoſe Gentlemen have done with this, and indeed with any thing in Scripture which is never ſo litteral? He has cited Athanaſius, and Cyril; but not the places where they read Modell'd. Till they are quoted, what can be ſaid to it, is, that it cannot but be known, even to them, that both theſe Fathers, with all the ancients, and even the Arrians themſelves, acknowledge Chriſt the Creator of the natural World. But if Grotius, The Jeſuit Selmero, and Montanus have read, Modell'd, I cannot ſee what advantage comes to their cauſe from the rendrings of private Men. All the Greek Copies read Created. The old Latin, Created. All the publick Tranſlations that I know in the World read Created. I am not ſenſible that there is any one place in Scripture where the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is not render'd Creation, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Creator. Nor do I underſtand why it ſhould be Modell'd here, and not every where elſe? Muſt we ſay Rom. 1.21. That the inviſible things of him from the Modelling of the World are clearly ſeen; and not from the Creation? Rom. 8.19.21. The earneſt expectation of the thing Modell'd waits for the manifeſtation of the Children of God. The Modell'd it ſelf ſhall be deliver'd from the bondage of corruption. For the whole Modellſhip groaneth and travelleth untill now. muſt we ſay, 1 Pet. 4.19. committ the keeping of their ſouls to him as unto a faithful Modeller. Many more inſtances of this kind might be produc'd, which if thus tranſlated, and why not thus in other places as well as here? are down right impertinence.

But granting that rare word Modelling, ſtill it does not ruine but ſuppoſe the Pre-exiſtence. He is before all things, and by him all things conſiſt. The things ſpoken of here are not reduc'd only to the preaching of the Apoſtles. It includes that of the Prophets, and reaches to all the Types of the Meſſias. The Figures were to be Modell'd as well as the realities. Not only the Generation which comes after Chriſt is ſav'd by him; but alſo that which preceeded him. Chriſt then being the Saviour was to be the Modeller of both. David and Solomon were Figures of Chriſt, He muſt therefore have been before them to Modell them. Joſhua and Moſes are ſaid by all the Fathers to have been eminent Types of the Holy Jeſus. He muſt then of neceſſity have preceeded him to Modell him. Adam was alſo a Figure of Chriſt, and conſequently to be Modell'd by him. The natural Heaven and Earth are a ſhadow of the new Heavens, and the new Earth, wherein dwells righteouſneſs; Therefore Modellable by the Saviour. Therefore he muſt have exiſted before them to Modell, and to ſpeak this Author's own words, to order, diſpoſe and prepare them to anſwer thoſe great ends for which they were created.

I will ſay to the acute Author of this Hiſtory once for all what the Anſwerer to Doctor Wallis tells that Reverend Perſon, pag. 17. This may be call'd a fineneſs, (He means a fineneſſe) a ſubtlety, a querk, nor an accurate reaſoning, or a ſolid and true Anſwer. And pag 18. But ſo it is, that they that maintain a falſe Opinion, muſt anſwer to the preſent Exigent, ſometimes this thing, ſometimes the contrary. Only truth is ſtable, coherent, conſiſtent with it ſelf, always the ſame.

I will end this Letter with that wiſe reflexion, and ſo remain,

SIR, Your Moſt humble Servant. L.
THE Third LETTER. SIR,

WHAT has been ſaid concerning the Pre-exiſtence of Chriſt is enough to overthrow the Socinian Syſtem, and ſuppoſes his Pre-eternity. We have this advantage, that the one proves the other. For if nothing is before time but what is Eternal, there being no duration conceivable by us, but Time, and Eternity: ſhewing, that Chriſt exiſted before Time it ſelf was, implies his Eternal Being. That by him all things were created the Arrians themſelves could not deny, forc'd to it by the great evidence of the Texts alledg'd before. But whatſoever creates is infinite in the general confeſſion both of Divines, and Philoſophers. It ſuppoſes an unlimited power in the agent which nothing can reſiſt and every thing muſt obey; at whoſe Call matter is produc'd and preſents it ſelf to be actuated into what form he pleaſes. But if whoſoever creates is infinite, and Almighty, and whoſoever is infinite and Almigthy, is alſo Eternal, The ſame Texts which ſo evidently prove the Creation of all things by him, do alſo prove his Eternity.

But even paſſing by all this, I preſume to ſay, that if Chriſt's Eternal Being is not clearly and plainly deliver'd in Scripture, there is nothing plain, or clear in the World. I will begin by the 1ſt of St. John. An Authority of that weight and extent, that all that is diſperſed in the other Books of the Sacred Writers concerning the nature of Chriſt, ſeems to be collected in this. There is no complaint here of mutilation of Sentences, of alteration of words: As it was deliver'd at firſt, ſo it has been preſerv'd, a clear and a laſting teſtimony of this Sacred Doctrine.

I admire what makes the Author of the Anſwer to Mr. Milbourn pag. 20, 21. ſo angry with St. Jerom for ſaying that at the requeſt of the Aſiatick Biſhops, St. John Writ his Goſpel to aſſert the Divinity of Chriſt; which this Father pretends not to aſſure upon his own credit, but that of the Church's Hiſtory. This Author ſays, That Irenaeus 200 Years older then St. Jerom, is ſilent about it. That Origen the great ſearcher of the Monuments of Antiquity gives no ſuch account; and Euſebius himſelf, who has preſerv'd what is ſaid here of Origen, who beſides had read Hegeſippus, and whatever Hiſtory St. Jerom could have read, ſays, that the deſign of St. John in writing his Goſpel, was to ſupply the omiſſions of the other three Evangeliſts.

Yet after all this the learned World knows, that St. Jerom was a ſerious and a candid Perſon; of a temper not to impoſe, or be impos'd upon; of a quick apprehenſion, vaſt parts, prodigious reading, well acquainted with the affairs of the Eaſtern Church; and of whom it is not imaginable, that he would either cite a Book which he had not ſeen, or give credit to a Hiſtory that had not been genuine, and authentick. The anſwerer calls it in vain, A Legend, a Fiction, a great Romance. of an Eccleſiaſtical Hiſtory cited by St Jerom, and ſeen by no body but himſelf.

No Man of ſence or learning will believe any thing of this. A negative proof goes a great way, but it muſt be better grounded then this. Irenaeus does not ſay it, it is true, but he ſays nothing to the contrary. He ſpeaks of the place where the Goſpel was written, but not a word of the occaſion of St. John's writing it. The teſtimony of Origen is reſolv'd into that of Euſebius who reports it, and that of Euſebius himſelf is nothing againſt St. Jerom; ſince the Author of the anſwer owns that the ſame Euſebius relates this writing of the Goſpel of St. John to aſſert the Divinity of Chriſt from the inſtitutions of Clem. Alex. Who is in the right then? The Author of the Anſwer, who ſays that St. Jerom cited an Eccleſiaſtical Hiſtory which he never ſaw, or St. Jerom who by the Author's own confeſſion has taken theſe words out of Clemens preſerv'd by Euſebius in his Eccleſiaſtical Hiſtory. The caſe is very plain. The Author of the Anſwer to Milbourn is miſtaken.

But then he muſt fall foul upon Clemens Alexand. an ancient Writer and a Learned Man. He makes Photius, upon whoſe Characters of Men, no Critick ever rely'd, to give him a very ill one; Not obſerving that Euſebius accuſes him of neither Impiety, nor Error; and that Clemens Alex. has ſaid nothing in this but what moſt of the Fathers have ſaid, not indeed as to the particular matter of fact of St. John's being deſir'd to write, but as to the other, that the deſign and principal part of his Goſpel, is to aſſert the Divinity of our Saviour. Is it not on this that St. Cyprian, Lactantius, Tertullian, Gregory the Nazianzene, St. Chryſoſtom, Baſil the Great, have inſiſted? Was not this very Chapter admir'd both by Chriſtians and Heathens? Was it not the Hammer of Arrianiſm in the Council of Nice, as afterwards of Neſtorianiſm, of Eutychianiſm, and of all the unhappy Sects which diſturb'd the peace of the Church?

But that cannot be, ſays the Anſwerer, pag. 22. The Goſpel it ſelf will beſt decide the Queſtion. If St. John has more overthrown the Divinity of Chriſt, than confirm'd it, then certainly he has not writ this Goſpel to aſſert it. Right! but how will this be prov'd? He thinks that it will eaſily be done, by ſhewing out of this Goſpel that Chriſt is the Meſſenger of God, that the Father taught him, and commanded him. Joh. 17.1, 2, 3. Joh. 12.49. and 14.10, &c. This I confeſs proves the humanity, but how does it deſtroy the Divinity of Chriſt? How is it againſt the deſign of St. John to delineate him truly God, becauſe he has repreſented him truly Man? He is not God becauſe he is Man, is an ill way of arguing. The Arrians themſelves were too ſharp to fetch their Arguments againſt the Divinity of the Saviour from his humanity. Prove him only a Man, a meer Man, without any other nature, or elſe all this reaſoning is a begging of the Queſtion.

But what is all this to the accuſation laid on St. Jerom? St. John has ſhew'd in his Goſpel the Humanity of Chriſt. Therefore St. Jerom is in the wrong to aſſure that he was intreated by the Aſian Biſhops to ſpeak more expreſly to his Divinity. This is at beſt a ſort of a very ſlender conſequence.

Thus it is, Sir, that the Socinians are baffl'd by falſe and ſenceleſs tranſlations ſupported by fictions and legends, exclaims this Author! He ſhould have ſaid, thus it is, Sir, that the Socinians are miſtaken; Their, zeal for their opinion tranſporting them too far. Thus it is, that two Eminent Fathers are abus'd who were the admiration of their Age and the veneration of ours!

The truth is, this Chapter pinches ſo hard, that theſe Gentlemen are always uneaſy at its leaſt approaches. They have done all that Men can do to make it ineffectual, having left nothing unattempted, no turns of wit, no ſtrains of fancy, no obſervations, no Criticiſms, no Shifts, no Evaſions; But all to no purpoſe. For truth is great and irreſiſtible; it is plain and evident; it comes from God, and eaſily overcomes all the oppoſitions Men make againſt it.

Joh. 1.1. and foll. In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God. The ſame was in the beginning with God. That this is ſpoken of Chriſt, and that Chriſt is the word is agreed of all hands. The firſt aſſertion then of the Evangeliſt is, that Chriſt was before all things; that he exiſted before they had a beginning. There is a great Emphaſis in the word was, which does not expreſs here a created a dependent being, but a Superior, an Eternal and Divine Nature. Thus Jehovah render'd by the Greeks 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , who is, gives the true notion of God; and thus it is ſaid of the word that he was, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as the Greek Fathers explain'd it, did ſubſiſt in a moſt eminent way, and incommunicable to a Creature.

To make this good, St. John ſays, that he was with God. He could not exiſt in any Creature whatever, let it be never ſo great, noble, or perfect, becauſe he exiſted before any thing was Created, before the World was. Joh. 17.5. He could not be in time, becauſe no time was yet, when he was. Therefore he was in God, and with God from Everlaſting. Who before all Ages, ſays the great Ignatius, a Man of the Apoſtolick times, Epiſt. ad Magneſ. was with the Father, and was manifeſted in the laſt times. The unchangeable word, ſays St. Auſtin, Epiſ. 49. queſt. 2. reſiding unchangeably with the unchangeable Father. From thence the Greek Fathers underſtood the admirable deſcription of wiſdom to be of no other, then the Eternal word, the Son of God. Prov. 8.22. and thoſe expreſſions, I was ſet up from Everlaſting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was, before his works of old, when there were no depths, I was brought forth, I was by him, I was by his ſides ſays the Chaldee Interpreter, all theſe expreſſions they underſtood to be no other then this, and the word was with God.

This is ſo plain that I cannot but wonder at the Stir theſe Gentlemen make about the words Inexiſtence, Eternal Generation, Perſonality; as if they were hard and unknown terms, the reſult of Men's Fancies, and a Jargon, as they are pleas'd to call them. The word, or the Son, for they own theſe words to be Synonymous in Scripture, is ſaid to be from ever with God. Therefore he exiſts in God, and I think this is Inexiſtence. A Father and a Son, naturally and of neceſſity ſuppoſe a Generation; or elſe they can be neither Father nor Son. This is Generation. The Father and the Son are both Eternal, therefore the Generation muſt be ſo too. But the Father is not the Son, nor the Son is not the Father, therefore there is a foundation for Perſonality.

The Evangeliſt proceeds and lays this 3d Axiom, declaring the Divinity as he had done before the Eternity of the word; and the word was God. What can be more expreſs, or poſitive? What conſequence can be more natural? The word was in the beginning, or ever the Earth and the World was. He was with God, and exiſted in him; Therefore he muſt be God, and the word was God. But the Divine Nature is one, and incapable of diviſion. It cannot be multipli'd without deſtruction. Therefore if the Father is God as it is confeſt of all hands, and if the word is God, as the Evangeliſt fully and plainly aſſerts it, there muſt be more than one Perſon, in that one, ſingle and indiviſible Deity. Theſe perſons muſt be Co-eval, Coeternal, Conſubſtantial.

This ſhews how mean and low, how ſtrange and far from the Queſtion is the Anſwer, or rather the Subterfuge of theſe Gentlemen, which they are never weary of obtruding, that Chriſt is call'd God, as Moſes and Solomon were, and as Magiſtrates and Princes. I beg the favour, if we do nothing but catch at the word God, as they are pleas'd to ſay we do, to ſhew me in the ſacred Writings ſome ſuch place as this for Solomon and Moſes. Does any of the Evangeliſts or Prophets ſay in the beginning was Moſes, and Moſes was with God, and Moſes was God? In the beginning was Solomon, and Solomon was with God, and Solomon was God? They cannot but be ſenſible how ſuch reaſonings might be expos'd.

But though what St. John has ſaid is enough to prevent all objections againſt the Sacred Doctrine, and leave no room for Arrianiſm, Sabellianiſm, and Socinianiſm, yet he proſecutes the Argument, and gives us ſenſible proofs of his Divinity whom he aſſerts ſo poſitively to be God. The ſame was in the beginning with God. A repetition of great weight which unites all that has been ſaid before to what is to be ſaid after. The word who was in the beginning, The word who was with God, The word who was God, is the ſame who made all things. v. 3. All things were made by him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.

The Creation of the World, that is, of all ſpiritual and material ſubſtances, and in a word of all that is, is a moſt ſenſible and convincing Argument of a Deity. A work ſo tranſcending all finite capacities, that the true God is diſtinguiſht by this from them who pretended to be, but are really no Gods. Iſay. 45.12, 18. The aſſertion of Heb. 3.4. is true both in Divinity and Philoſophy. He that built all things is God. None but the ſupream God can do it. Now in what more litteral and accurate way of expreſſion than this, can this creating power be attributed to the word? 1ſt, You have an affirmation of as great an extent as the whole World it ſelf. All things were made by him. 2ly, Even to prevent the leaſt imagination, that perhaps ſomething was which might have another Author, and be the emanation of ſome other being, there is the moſt pregnant, poſitive and particular Negation that can be; and without him was not any thing made that was made. How long ſhall Men give the lye to their own reaſon, and ſo far eſpouſe an Opinion as to contradict the cleareſt truth? He that made all things is truly God. Therefore ſince we are aſſur'd that Chriſt made all things, and that nothing was made without him, he is truly, and really God.

V. 4, 5. St. John ſays, In him was life and the life was the light of men. To live is the prerogative of the moſt High, for whereas all other beings borrow their life from him, he lives independently from them. In this ſence he is call'd eminently the Living God. Chriſt then is the principle of life and of light; whatſoever lives, lives by him. He is original Life in the order of nature, becauſe by him Man was made, Gen. 1.26. He is truly Life in the order of Grace, Joh. 14.6. I am the life. He is our Life, even when we are dead, Joh. 11.25. I am the Reſurrection and the Life. He is our life in the order of Glory. 2 Joh. 5.20. The true God and Eternal Life. A place we ſhall examine further.

V. 6, 7. The Evangeliſt adds, that the greateſt amongſt the Sons of Men, the other John, Matt. 11.11. was ſent by God to bear witneſs that he was come into the World; and for fear Men ſhould be apt to miſtake this Meſſenger of God, for the God himſelf whoſe Meſſenger he was, having ſo many qualifications above other Men; He tells us v. 8. that John was not that light. But v. 9. that the word of whom he has made ſuch an admirable deſcription was that true light, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that original, that eſſential light that was to come, which has no beginning, ſuffers no decay, and diffuſes it ſelf ſo as in ſome meaſure or other to enlighten every Man.

V. 10. He tells us that he made himſelf viſible to the World. He was in the world. He repeats again, that the World was made by him; and to ſhew the blindneſs, and ingratitude of the World, he ſays, that though he was the Maker and Creator of the World, yet the world knew him not.

He aggravates this v. 10. He came into his own, amongſt thoſe very Men whom he had made, who were his by a muſt undoubted title, even that of Creation; and yet his own receiv'd him not, refuſing the adoration and obedince due to him.

V. 12. To ſuch as receiv'd him, even to them that believe in his name, gave he power to become the Sons of God. He who is the Eternal Son by Nature, aſſum'd them to the dignity of Sons by Adoption.

From all that the Evangeliſt has ſaid the Eternity and Divinity of the word are clear. That he is the ſupreme God, the Creator of all things, the Univerſal and only good of Man is plain and evident. All the difficulty is how he was in the World, came into the World, is the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , he who was to come, to appear, to be ſeen in the World, the title given him both by the Prophets and Apoſtles. This the Evangeliſt reſolves v. 14. And the word was made Fleſh, and dwelt amongſt us, and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of Grace and Truth.

Theſe Gentlemen who ask us with ſo much earneſtneſs to ſhew them in the Scripture the words Godman, and Incarnation, may Eaſily ſatisfie themſelves here. The word who was in the beginning, before the World was, who was with God, who was God, who has made all things; The word who is the true light the original life of all that is, who was announc't by the Prophets ever ſince the World began; who had for his Meſſenger the greateſt amongſt the Sons of Men, who is full of Grace and Truth, and of whoſe fullneſs we have all receiv'd, That word was made Fleſh, aſſum'd our Nature, and became Man.

I will end the Explication of this place by theſe two remarks. 1ſt, St. John ſays he dwelt, the original 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , he Tabernacl'd amongſt us. A plain alluſion to the Tabernacle to which God was pleas'd to be preſent, or according to the Hebrew, to inhabit. In this ſence the new Jeruſalem is call'd, Rev. 1.3. The Tabernacle of God with men. The viſible and glorious appearance of God amongſt Men. God then is become viſible in Chriſt Jeſus. The word, the Eternal God, has made the human nature of Chirſt the Tabernacle where he ſhews himſelf to Men. 2ly, That appearance is call'd by the Greeks glory; for ſo the ſeptuagint, ſo all the ſacred Writers in the New Teſtament, render it. Exod. 40.34. Numb. 16.42. 1 Sam. 4.22. 2. Chron. 5.14. Ibidem. 7.1. Iſay. 6.1. Joh. 12.41. Matt. 25.31. Mark. 8.38. Luk. 2.9. Therefore as a proof of this appearance of God in the Fleſh, St. John adds, and we beheld his Glory, the Glory as of the only begotten Son of the Father. Wherein the Particle as, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is not a Compariſon, but an Explanation of that glory. And we have ſeen him preſent amongſt us, with ſuch declarations from Heaven, ſuch a train of ſtupendous miracles, with ſuch a glory as could become none but the only begotten Son of God.

I have been ſomewhat large on this place, becauſe it is home to the queſtion, thoſe Texts being deciſive, and ſtaring in one's face. Theſe Gentlemen are ſenſible of it, and have turn'd their Anſwers into ſeveral ſhapes, and ſtill with a kind of miſtruſt, owning and diſowning, taking up, and laying down again, ſometimes oppoſing the litteral ſence, and ſometimes obtruding a poor miſerable Allegory.

The Author of an Anſwer to a letter of Dr. Wallis by his Friend touching the Doctrine of the Bleſſed Trinity, conſults in the letter one of theſe Gentlemen who gives him ſeveral explications of this place. The firſt is that which he calls the ancient Orthodox ſence at the Council of Nice, and afterwards of ſome centuries. The ſecond of the Modern Orthodox. The third that of the Arrians. All pag. 9. The fourth is attributed to Paul of Antioch, as he remembers it ſomewhere related by Melanchton, which he owns to be uncouth and ſtrange, pag. 10. and the Socinian interpretation to be forc't and unnatural, becauſe, ſays he, we have inbib'd from our youth, and even from our Cathechiſm contrary Expoſitions. The firſt is that of Grotius pag. 11. who being the only Man of reputation who has lent them Allegories, is upon every occaſion call'd great and illuſtrious. He concludes by ſaying; I think I have ſaid enough to convince any Man that is not extremely prejudic't that this is an obſcure Scripture. For as every one of thoſe ſences finds ſome ſpecious grounds in the Text, ſo never a one of them can clearly anſwer all the Objections that are levied againſt them, and that of the Trinitarians, leaſt of all.

It is then a Text which in his opinion cannot be explain'd. This indeed is ſtrange to a high degree, that a Writer divinely inſpir'd, an Evangeliſt who lays the foundation of a Faith once deliver'd to the Saints, and which we are all oblig'd to embrace, is by no means to be underſtood. It is alſo very odd, that this ſhould have ſeem'd clear to all the Ages before, and even to all the Chriſtian Churches of this Age, which all agree in this though they differ in other points, and it ſhould be dark and obſcure now to this Gentleman. Admirable that ſome particular Wits ſhould be made now ſo different from all Mankind, as to ſee what all the World before has not ſeen, and not to ſee what has been ſeen by all the World before.

He tells his Friend further, That Dr. Wallis has not done like a Divine, but like a cenſorious, he will not ſay a malicious Perſon, when he, Dr. Wallis ſays; if God ſays, The word was God, and The word was made fleſh, ſhall we ſay, Not ſo, only becauſe we cannot tell how? As if theſe ſayings were ſo clear that they admitted no ſence but his. He runs on in the difference between the word taken perſonally, which he ſays is but ſeldom, and imperſonally, which he ſays is very often. He concludes, That they have reaſon to complain of forc't interpretations, depriving God of an incommunicable Attribute even his Unity; and of defending their interpretations with ſad diſtinctions between the Eſſence and the Divine Perſons, the threefold manner of Exiſtence in God, Hypoſtatical Union, Communication of Properties, &c.

This Gentleman is not ſenſible that he himſelf juſtifies Dr. Wallis. And that inſtead of a cenſorious, he repreſents him like a candid Man, when he tells them that is the How can it be, that they diſpute againſt. Have they not been perpetually minded that we preſerve inviolably the unity of God. That Three Perſons ſubſiſt in one Divine Nature, becauſe that one God has reveal'd it to be ſo. Let them deny the Revelation, if they can. But as long as they are angry with the Expoſitions of the Church concerning how it is; The Doctor is in the right, it is the How can it be, that they quarrel with, and upon which they deny the whole.

But after all this, what ſhould we ſay if this Gentleman, who finds this chapter of St. John ſo obſcure, and the Catholick interpretation, the moſt unreaſonable of all, with never ſo little help, ſhould find the one clear, and the other highly rational. He has himſelf ſhew'd us the way in the ſame Letter pag. 9. The conſulting Friend reading to him the Drs. Letter he comes to this place John 1.1, and the 14. The word was God, and, The Word was made Fleſh. This ſays the Gentleman, who was conſulted, were to the purpoſe, If by this term, The word, could be meant nothing elſe but a Pre-exiſtent Perſon, and by the term God, nothing but God Almighty the Creator of Heaven and Earth; and if taking thoſe terms in thoſe ſences did not make St. John ſpeak nonſence; and if by Fleſh could be meant nothing but a Man, how excellent ſoever, and not a Mortal Man, ſubject to infirmities; but all theſe things are otherwiſe.

Will this Gentleman ſtand to this? Will the Author of the Brief Hiſtory, and the Anſwer to Mr. Milbourn, and the humble adorers of Grotius his ſtrain'd and Allegorical Explications, put the thing upon this iſſue?

1ſt, He does not deny the word to ſignify a Perſon, but only a Pre-exiſtent Perſon. Nor can he deny him to be pre-exiſtent, ſince he was before all things began to be; ſince by him all things were made. 2ly, He cannot deny that the term God is meant of the Almighty, ſince the God with whom the word was is undoubtedly the Almighty, and the word being ſaid here to be God, and God being but one, the word muſt be that Almighty God. 3ly, He will not offer to deny that the term, Fleſh here is nothing but our human Nature, and that the word made Fleſh implies the word being made Man. This Author then has plainly anſwer'd himſelf, and ruin'd all that he pretended to ſay to his Friend. But as for this ſtrange ſort of an If, and if, ſays he, taking thoſe terms in theſe ſences, did not make St. John to ſpeak nonſence, I will pray him to take to himſelf, what the Author of an Anſwer to Mr. la Motte has gravely and juſtly ſay'd to him, pag. 3. That to ſpeak ſo of the Apoſtles is ill manners, nay 'tis Unchriſtian and Impious.

But then comes the Author of the Anſwer to Mr. Milbourn. He will not have the Creation ſpoken of in this Chapter to be underſtood of the natural, but of the ſpiritual World. By the ſpiritual World he means the State of the Goſpel, by the other, the ſpiritual World. He ſays pag. 26. That the Socinians commonly ſuppoſe that St. John ſpeaks here of the New-Creation, even that great change of affairs in the World which has been ſo conſiderable that the Scriptures have divers times call'd it the new Heavens and the new Earth.

He begins the charge pag. 23. with a rule of Criticiſm, That the writers of the New Teſtament have a particular regard to the notions and Opinions of the Jewiſh Church, as alſo to the Cuſtoms and Forms of Speech in uſe amongſt the Jews. This is one of theſe forms that the Meſſias, the Chriſt, call'd the word by their Chaldee Paraphraſes, and by Philo the Jew, ſhould make a new and a better World, and that the World was made for him. This the Gentleman has borrow'd from Grotius the only Friend in diſtreſs. Moreover they us'd the words El and Elohim which in Greek and in Engliſh ſignifie God, of Angels, Kings, Magiſtrates, and all ſuch as are extraordinary Meſſengers, or Miniſters of God. This he calls Keys to let us into the ſence of thoſe Verſes without multiplying Gods, as we do, or Creators as the Arrians have done.

He tells us, That in the beginning is not from the very firſt, from for ever, or from all Eternity. Moſes beginning with the ſame words does not mean as we do. Moſes means only in the beginning of the World; John means only in the beginning of the Goſpel ſtate. In the beginning was the word, He intends here to ſay in the beginning was the Meſſias, or Chriſt, whom the Jews call'd the word. That it is not eaſy to determine why the Jews gave the Meſſias the name of Word. But 'tis evident, why St. John does it, for as at v. 7, 8, 9. He calls him the light, becauſe he was the bringer of the Goſpel light, for the ſame reaſon he is content alſo to call him the word, becauſe he was the Meſſenger of the Goſpel word ..... which is indifferently to be call'd the Goſpel, or the word of God. This you have pag. 24.

The word was with God, and the word was God. Here the Author grows ſomewhat hot, not to ſay, rude. He tells us, that his Oppoſers will not deny what every petty Grammarian knows, that we ſhould have tranſlated thus. The word was with The God, and, The word was A God. He claims this Tranſlation as abſolutely neceſſary for clearing the meaning of the Evangeliſt in that place. He ſays not the word was with God, but, with the God. Becauſe 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or The God is always us'd to ſignifie the true God, or him who is God by way of Excellence and Appropriation, as the Grammarians ſpeak. But 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , A God, is in Holy Scripture appli'd to Angels, to Kings, to Prophets ..... Moſes is call'd ſo, and ſo muſt the Meſſias, who is no leſs than Moſes, the Ambaſſador and Repreſentative of God.

He was with the God. The meaning is, That before he enter'd on his Office he was taken up into Heaven, to be fully inſtructed and inform'd in the nature and quality of his Office.

Pag. 25. He ſays, Their Oppoſers have nothing to ſay to this Explication of theſe words, but they deny Chriſt to be Call'd God as Moſes, becauſe it is ſaid, All things were made by him, and without him was not any thing made that was made, and becauſe, the World was made by him.

I tell you, Sir, it is very dangerous to have to do with Criticks. The Author ſays, that this is a bold Tranſlation. He challenges us to deny, that the Greek prepoſition which is render'd by, might have been render'd for. Thus the ſence ſhould have been, All things were made for him; The world was made for him.

That that makes this Tranſlation certain is, firſt that maxim, that the world was made for the Meſſias: and 2ly, That Irrefragable Argument, that there is no other Creator but God; and that the word being diſtinguiſh't from the God, and thereby deny'd to be the God, this Tranſlation muſt hold good. You have this pag. 26.

The ſhort is, ſays he, If St. John ſpeaks of the old Creation, and of the viſible World, then the Tranſlation muſt run, All things are made for him, to preſerve the alluſion to the known ſaying of all things being made for the Meſſias. If he ſpeaks of the new Creation, the World which the Meſſias ſhould make, then the Tranſlation muſt run, all things were made by him.

The reſt, ſays he, is eaſy, "The word was made Fleſh, and dwelt amongſt us. "The Tranſlation is ill. They ſhould have render'd it, the word was Fleſh. They render themſelves the Greek word, v. 6. not, was made, but, was only. All this is put into a pretty Paraphraſe.

At laſt he puts the caſe of the unlearned, and what they are to do who are not acquainted with thoſe precious Criticiſms. He reſolves it by ſaying, that they muſt conſult their reaſon, which will ſatisfy them that the Trinitarian Doctrine is impoſſible, pag. 28. He ſays, We do the ſame in the Caſe of Tranſubſtantiation: That Proteſtants muſt either come over to the Socinians, or revolt to Rome: That the deciſion of the Church, and the mere Letter of Scripture is againſt us. But if no interpretation of Scripture is admitted but what is conſiſtent with reaſon, both Proteſtants and Papiſts muſt be Socinians. The Trinity, and Incarnation being more inconſiſtent with reaſon than Tranſubſtantiation.

Now one ſhould be apt to think that when an Author undertakes to face all Mankind, that they are miſtaken in the ſence of a Scripture which they look upon to be the foundation of their Faith, and has not only the ſimple, and credulous, but the learned and underſtanding part of the World for 'its Defenders; He ſhould bring ſome reaſon, ſo clear, ſo plain, ſo ſelf evident that the contrary aſſertion muſt appear moſt unreaſonable. This Anſwer has two unpardonable faults. 1ſt, The Criticiſms on which it is grounded are every one of them falſe. 2ly, It ſuppoſes that which is to be prov'd, the pretended impoſſibility of the thing. The ſence of the Church, ſays he, cannot be admitted, becauſe it is impoſſible. This is ſtill the How can it be? If a Revelation is plain and expreſs, and if all the Criticiſms in the World cannot make it otherwiſe, it is to quarrell with the Almighty. It is in ſo many words the aſſertion of Dr. Wallis which they have exclaim'd againſt as an injuſtice done to them, and yet remains ſtill true, that God ſay's, The word was God, and, the word was made Fleſh, and they ſay, Not ſo, becauſe they cannot tell how. Anſ. to Dr. Wallis by his Friend pag. 11.

1ſt, For the Criticiſms. It is a known Maxim amongſt the Jews, ſays the Author, that the World was made for the Meſſias, and that the Meſſias ſhould make the new World ſpoken of in Scripture by the new Heavens, and the new Earth, that is, the Creation of the Spiritual World. Granting all this, what is it to the queſtion in hand? Therefore he is not the Creator of the old World, is a ſtrange way of reaſoning. If they could prove, that it is inconſiſtent to be Creator of both, it would do them ſome ſervice. The World was made for the Meſſias, therefore not by the Meſſias, is another wild conſequence, ſince the World may be made by him, and alſo for him, that is, for his honour and exaltation amongſt Man, as all things are made by God, and for God who is the Author, and the end of all things.

Theſe Gentlemen own that the Meſſias was known to the Jews under the notion of the word: But they ſay it is not certain why they gave him that name. This will appear a vaſt miſtake to any one who is never ſo little acquainted with their Writings. It is not my deſign to ſtuff theſe Papers with Jewiſh citations. It ſhall be done if required; But it is clear that they underſtood the Meſſias to be the Son of God, and that Son to be The word. The famous Philo in his Book of Queſt: and Solut. makes the Deity to conſiſt firſt, of him who is the Father of all things. 2ly, Of the other Perſon, or God, who is the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , The word of the Father. He calls him in his Book, de agricul. The word proceeding from God, his firſt begotten Son. In his Book de flamm. Glad. The word is the inſtrument of God by whom the world has been created. Expreſſions deriv'd from the old Paraphraſts and Commentators. Thus Jonathan renders, Iſay. 45.12. I made the Earth and created man upon it; I by my word made the Earth and created man upon it. Gen. 3.8. and they heard the voice of the Lord God, is explain'd by the Chaldee Paraphraſt, and they heard the voice of the word of the Lord God. Gen. 1.27. and God Created man in his own image, the Interpreter reads, and the word of God Created man. Theſe Paraphraſes were the publick interpretations of the Jews, and this Doctrine ſo conſtant among them and particularly amongſt the Helleniſts, that in the 2d Book of Origen contr. Cleſ. The Jew in whoſe perſon Celſus diſputes owns freely, that the word is the Son of God. This Author then has neither underſtood, nor appli'd as it ought to be, the rule which he has laid down, that the Writers of the New Teſtament had a particular regard to the Opinions and Notions of the Jewiſh Church; and nothing is more viſible than this, that St. John, to prove the Creation of the natural World by Chriſt, and his Eternal being with the Father, has brought him under the notion of The word, to whom, by the conſtant Doctrine of the Jews, and after them of the Fathers, the Creation of the natural World was attributed.

This was one of the Keys to let us into the ſence of theſe words. They have another, and that is that poor diſtinction between the God by nature, and a God by deputation. That the true God is the one; that Chriſt is the other. That to find out the God by nature, from the God by deputation, it is to be obſerv'd that the one is always call'd 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , The God. The other only, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a God. That the very Text in diſpute ſhews it, where, The word was God is ſimply 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 without an Article; and where the word was with God, who certainly there is the ſupreme God, is with an Article 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , with the God.

Truly, Sir, the firſt Key was worth little, but this is worth much leſs. ſhould I take upon me to offer a poor Criticiſm, I would ſay that if any one looks ſeriouſly into the ſacred writings, he will find that there is no care at all of obſerving Articles, and that of this, innumerable inſtances may be produc'd. This diſtinction has been borrow'd from the Arrians, confuted and laugh'd out of doors by the Fathers, and is a poor, mean, miſerable ſhift, without the leaſt ſolidity in the World. It is overthrown to all intents and purpoſes in this very Chapter. V. 12. He gave them power to become the Sons of God, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , without an Article. v. 7. There was a man ſent from God. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , without an Article, and yet both theſe undoubtedly ſpoken of Almighty God. V. 18. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . No man has ſeen God at any time, is without an Article. Not to multiply inſtances of this without end; nothing ſhews more evidently the poverty and deficiency of this Criticiſm, that the God by nature is always expreſt with, and the falſe God, or the God by deputation without an Article, than that Gal. 4.8, 9. where the true God is deſignedly oppos'd to the falſe, he is ſimply call'd God, without an Article. Howbeit then, when you knew not God, you did ſervice to them who by nature are no Gods, but now that you have known God, or rather are known of God. The 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , is without an Article. Nay Rom. 1.1, 4. even when God is oppos'd to Chriſt whom they make a God by office, he is then call'd God without any Article at all.

The Criticiſm of the Particle by, which ſhould have been render'd for is as bad as this. I would beg this Author to produce any one Tranſlation extant at this day, were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , is not render'd by him, or any before Socinus who ever dreamt of a Goſpel ſtate, or a ſpiritual Creation out of theſe words of St. John. I would pray him to reconcile this Particle for with the latter part of this v. and without him was not any thing made that was made, and with v. 10. He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. It is another miſerable ſhift, that the new Creation, the ſpiritual World, the World of the Meſſias were things univerſally known to the Jews, and the Primitive Chriſtians converted by them. Since it is undeniable that the Jews underſtood no Creation wrought by the word, but the natural, nor the Primitive Fathers ever explain'd theſe words of any other. It is ſtrange that this ſhould be ſo clear to the Jews, and to the Fathers, and yet that we ſhould not find ſo much as the footſtep of this ſpiritual, and a conſtant aſſertion of the natural Creation by the word. This Author is ſo ſenſible of this, that he does not know where to fix the beloved Criticiſm. If you ſpeak, ſays he, of the natural World, it muſt be render'd For. But if you ſpeak of the ſpiritual, it muſt be render'd By. Theſe Ifs are much like the Hints ſpoken of before, which Chriſt gave to his Diſciples that he had been taken up to Heaven, before he came down to preach the Goſpel

There is another Criticiſm of a vaſt importance. For if it be admitted, ſays, the Author, as it ought to be admitted, it turns the whole context againſt us, and utterly overthrows the orthodox Belief. We ſhould have tranſlated was Fleſh, which makes, a vaſt alteration in the Queſtion. He proves this by the 6. v. where 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , is render'd not was made, but, was. Yet after all this, This ingenious Man ſpares us the trouble of ſhewing the vanity of this, and gives up this Text. In the anſwer to the late Archbiſhop pag 54. we do not care at all, ſays he whether our Oppoſers read here, The word was made man, which is His Grace's reading, or as we do, The word was man.

2ly, As to their difficulties, The one is the caſe of the unlearned, the other is that of Tranſubſtantiation. Upon the Queſtion what the Unlearned muſt do in this difference of readings, he Anſwers, That he muſt ſtick to theirs, and that his reaſon will give him that it is the true, becauſe the thing being impoſſible and contradictory, ours muſt be falſe. This is a plain begging of the queſtion, and once more, it is to ſuppoſe that which they are to prove. This is ſtill the How, with which we have nothing to do, and which all Mankind cannot reſolve, becauſe God propoſes it as the great object of our Faith, and not of our reaſon. They ought to prove, that it is not reveal'd by all the ways by which a reading can be prov'd not to be true, as we do their pretended Criciſms; but not by imaginary conſequences altogether foreign to the thing propos'd.

I conceive that there are two ſorts of unlearned men. The one are abſolutely illiterate and incapable of any examination not only of theſe diſputes but even of points a great deal more obvious then theſe. A ſort of people who are religious not by reaſoning, but believing; not by inquiry, but Tradition; Not ſo much by the conviction of their minds, as an impreſſion of God's Grace upon their hearts. Theſe can never be Socinians. They have a ſtrong, and an invinible inclination to believe, as the Church believes. It is an unſucceſsful undertaking to propoſe to them the various readings of a Text. The other are Men of a good natural and improv'd ſence, of a better education, and of a freer converſation with all ſorts of people; but yet deſtitute of learning to judge of things themſelves. I ſay, that if they are equitable they are leſs in danger of being Socinians then the other. A place of Scripture is alledg'd which not only the Church wherein we live, but all the Churches in the World have read, and underſtood in the plain ſence which the words bear, and this from the beginning of Chriſtianity, and there comes in this, or at the end of the latter Age a witty Criticiſer who pretends to acquaint the World, that all the Holy and learned Men who have liv'd hitherto and live to this day have been ſurpris'd, and have ſurpris'd all Mankind, and that this place is not to be read or render'd as they have done, but as himſelf does; I ſay there is no equitable Man, who though unlearned is yet a Man of ſence or underſtanding, but will acquieſce in the receiv'd Doctrine, and look upon this new reading, or rendring, as a deſign or at leaſt a miſtake.

The caſe of Tranſubſtantiation is yet more unreaſonable; and yet Theſe Gentlemen are never weary of urging it. If you will believe the Trinity, you muſt believe Tranſubſtantiation. You reject the one becauſe it is impoſſible; Therefore upon the ſame account you muſt reject the other, This is my body is as expreſs againſt you, as, the word was God, and the word was made Fleſh is againſt us.

But 1ſt, Is it not a great injuſtice that theſe Gentlemen, who are as much againſt Tranſubſtantiation as we are, and know that it is not to be found in theſe words, this is my body, ſhould make uſe againſt us of a Topick which they themſelves own to be falſe. There is not any one point in Religion which ſome Heretick or other has not attempted. There has not been an Hereſy, if we believe St. Jerom, but has pretended to defend it ſelf with ſome place of Scripture. What ſhould we ſay of one who believes none of their aſſertions to be true, and all the places which they cite to be miſunderſtood by them, and yet would make uſe of every one of them to prove that no part of Religion is true. This is exactly the caſe of theſe Gentlemen. They argue againſt us from a Doctrine which they deteſt, and would infer a parity from a Text which they are ſatisfy'd does not at all prove that which the Church of Rome would prove by it. Let them but go round with this, and in a ſhort time there will be no ſuch thing as Religion. God forbid that I ſhould think that they deſign it, but this is the unhappy Conſequence of that ſort of Ratiocinations.

2ly, The Author never conſider'd the weight of his aſſertion, pag. 29. That in this point the deciſions of the Church in Councils and the mere letter of Scripture are againſt us. For if the Church of Rome could make it out clearly and ſubſtantially, that the letter of Scripture, and the deciſions of the Church, are of their ſide, not only we, and the whole body of Proteſtants, but theſe Gentlemen themſelves, muſt go over to it. But either of them is falſe. There is no ſuch thing as the letter or the mere letter of Scripture, or any deciſions of the Church of any Antiquity for Tranſubſtantiation. I appeal to this very Author for the truth of this, who however, in the height of diſpute, has let this to ſlip from his pen, is too learned not to know the contrary.

3ly, If the diſpute between us and the Church of Rome about Tranſubſtantiation is truly ſtated it ſignifies nothing to the matter in hand, and that the objection is really againſt them. There is no difference between us, as to the preſence of Chriſt in the Sacrament. This is admitted by all the Societies of Chriſtians, who pretend to a name in the World. The French Proteſtants, who have ſtray'd in this particular from the Doctrine of the Fathers more than any other, have freely acknowledg'd it in the admirable writings of Mr. Claude, againſt the great Monſieur Arnauld. The ſober Church of England, and Enemy to all extremes, has kept ſtrictly to this, that Chriſt is truly, and indeed in the Sacrament, without pretending to explain the manner of that preſence. She has own'd that it is Divine, and Incomprehenſible, and look't upon it as a Myſtery, according to the name given to the Holy Sacrament, by the Fathers of Dreadful, Sacred, and Divine Myſteries. The Church of Rome, and ſome others, have preſum'd to go further, and to ſix the manner of Chriſt's being in the Sacrament. I demand then with what equity theſe Gentlemen can make that Objection, and repeat it, with as much earneſtneſs, as if they reaſon'd upon an undiſputed Principle? The Trinity, and Incarnation, we believe: The How can it be, we acknowledge incomprehenſible. We do the ſame of Chriſt's preſence in the Sacrament. The Revelation concerning all this is plain, and expreſs. We pretend to no more. It is diſingenuous and obſtinate to deny that any thing is, becauſe we cannot ſhew how it is. Had we deny'd the preſence of Chriſt in the Sacrament, the Objection had been of ſome force. But denying only Tranſubſtantiation, that is, the manner of that preſence; it is altogether wide of the queſtion.

Having done with this Author, I paſs to that of the Brief Hiſtory, who did not think this Anſwer of Mr. Milbourn's Adverſary ſolid enough to embrace it: But after ſome curſory animadverſions on the Churche's Expoſition, ſhelters himſelf under Grotius's Wings, and delivers that learned Man's Opinion. It is needleſs to tranſcribe it, all that he ſays, pag. 26, 27, 28. amounting to this;

Grotius underſtands, as we do, the Creation, here ſpoken of, to be that of the Natural World. He explains the words, in the beginning, as we do, when God created all things, or when all things began to exiſt. He makes, as we do, that word to be not only Preexiſtent, but Eternal. He underſtands, as we do, the word to be with God, and to be God. He reads, as we do, all things were made by him, and for him. He renders, as we do, The word was made Fleſh, acknowledging that Fleſh is the uſual Scripture Phraſe for Man, and ſaying alſo in the Explication of the 10th Verſe, that in proceſs of time the word come to be Incarnate.

You will ſay then, where does he differ from the Orthodox? For as yet nothing appears contrary to the ſence receiv'd in the Chriſtian World. He differs only in this, that he makes this word to be only a property and an Attribute of God, i. e. his Wiſdom and Power, but not a Divine Perſon. I wonder that this Author would embrace an Expoſition which really ruines all their little Criticiſms, their charming Allegories, and brings the queſtion to this only difficulty, whether the word is no more than an Attribute, or whether he is a Perſon? Whatever Grotius in other places has done for theſe Gentlemen, he has certainly given up the cauſe here by cleaving to the litteral ſence of the words, which indeed he could by no means avoid.

I will only propoſe theſe difficulties. 1ſt, If the word here is no more than an Attribute or Property, how is he conſtantly ſpoken of here by he, and him. The world was made by him. The world knew him not. It is ridiculous to ſay, that it is in the ſame manner that Prov. 9.1. Wiſdom is ſaid to build her Houſe, and David calls God's Commandments his Councellers; Since in thoſe places is a viſible and a deſign'd Metaphor: But Grotius owns here a real, actual, natural Creation of the World, which admits of nothing Figurative.

2ly, If the word is no more than an Attribute of God, what can be the meaning of the Evangeliſt, In the beginning was the word, and the word was God? What is there in this ſo ſingular, and to what can this lead us? The Wiſdom of God was before all things, and the Wiſdom of God was with God. That is, God was wiſe before the World was Created. Certainly St. John means ſomewhat more than this. Why not in the beginning was the Power, the Mercy, the Truth, the Holineſs of God, For all this God was before things began to be.

3ly, What can be the deſign of this, and the word was God. Who ever heard any one ſay, that Wiſdom is God, and Power is God. Nor will it ſerve here to ſay, as the Author of the Hiſtory, That all the Attributes of God, are God; or that the name, Jehovah, is attributed to Angels, and that Moſes is call'd God. Either of theſe anſwers deſtroys the other. For if the Attributes of God are God, then Wiſdom is the ſupreme God, and not as the Angels, or Moſes. Or if Wiſdom is call'd Jehovah, as the Angels, and God as Moſes, then all the Attributes of God are not the Supreme God.

4ly, If the word is no more than an Attribute what can be made of this? He was in the world, and the world knew him not. He came unto his own, and his own receiv'd him not. Living in the World, unknown to the World, coming to, and rejected by Men cannot be ſaid of Wiſdom. If it could bear that ſence, the Evangeliſt ſays nothing, ſince before the Goſpel, before Moſes, before the Flood, the Wiſdom of God was deſpis'd by Men.

5ly, The following words can never be ſpoken in the ſence of an Attribute. So many as receiv'd him to them gave he power to become the Sons of God, even to them who believe on his name. Can ſence be made of wiſdom giving us power, or believing in the name of wiſdom.

6ly, If wiſdom is no more than a qualification, how comes this and the word was made Fleſh? I remember that theſe Gentlemen value themſelves much upon this notion of the Author of the Impartial Account of the word Myſtery, that they cannot believe the Trinity, becauſe they can have no notion of a Trinity. I humbly beg a notion of Juſtice, Prudence, Holineſs, or as here Wiſdom made Fleſh. I humbly beg a notion of an Attribute made Fleſh.

7ly, And we beheld his glory, the Glory as of the only begotten Son of the Father. I again humbly beg to know, whether the Attribute Wiſdom is the only begotten Son of the Father? I beg a notion of the Glory of God's Wiſdom to be ſeen by human Eyes. No, ſays the Author, you miſtake, it is the Glory of the Man on whom the word did abide. But I muſt beg his pardon, and tell him, that this is too great an impoſition on the ſence of Mankind. Any one who knows ſomewhat more than his A. B. C. knows that The word is the ſubject of all that is ſaid here. It is of the word, that it is ſaid, that he was in the beginning, that he was God, that he was with God, that he made the World, that he was made Fleſh, that his Glory was ſeen as of the only begotten Son of God. He muſt not, He cannot admit the word to be the ſubject of all the other Propoſitions, and deny him to be the ſubject of this.

I beg your pardon for having been ſo long on this Text. But the Anſwers of your Friends being of ſo great an extent, though of ſo different a nature, it was fit to ſhew how weak and unſatisfactory they appear. I then proſecute the Argument, and offer ſome others to your conſideration.

I think that nothing proves the Eternity of God ſo effectually as that place, Iſay, 44.6. I am the firſt, and I am the laſt, and beſides me there is no God. This Text is of the New as well as of the Old Teſtament. St. John begins his Revelation by wiſhing us peace from him which is and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. Nor indeed can we have a clearer notion of that ſupreme being which we call God, than that he exiſts before and after all things, v 8. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, ſays the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. This is a Title which nothing that is Created can pretend to; and an Explication of the Sacred Name Jehovah, which in the ſence of the Hebrews extends to all the durations imaginable, and ſhews, that in the change of all things, he is permanent and incapable of alteration.

This ſuppos'd, I conceive it obvious that if Chriſt aſſumes that name to himſelf; if he ſays of himſelf that he is the Alpha, and Omega, The firſt and the laſt; If he often takes that Title, willing to be known by it, making it the ground of a ſolid encouragement to his Diſciples in their Sufferings for his ſake, and if what he ſays can reaſonably be diverted to no other ſence, it cannot be deny'd that he is God with the Father. To ſee whether this is true, read Rev. 1.11. I am Alpha and Omega the firſt and the laſt, v. 17. Fear not, I am the firſt and the laſt, Rev. 22.13. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the firſt and the laſt; and becauſe theſe Gentlemen are ſo fond of Articles, and build ſuch mighty things upon them, all this is ſpoken with the ſame Articles as in v. 8. when it is ſpoken of Almighty God: Which though in truth and reality is no proof at all, yet it is ſo to them who lay ſo great a ſtreſs upon it.

I will add two remarks to this. The 1ſt, is that acclamation which in both Teſtaments is made to none but God. v. 6. to him be Glory and dominion for ever, and Chap. 5.13. and every creature which is in Heaven and on the earth, and under the earth, and ſuch as are in the ſea, and all that are in them, heard I ſaying, Bleſſing, honour, glory and power, to him that ſitteth on the Throne, and to the lamb for ever. The 2d. is that admirable deſcription made of Chriſt, Rev. 19. which tells us, v. 13. that he has a veſture dip't in blood, and that his name is the word of God; that Eternal word which Grotius owns created the World, and all that is in it, which was made Fleſh; and this ſame Prophet ſays, waſht us in his own blood, after he had taken our nature upon him, who has on his veſture, and on his thigh a name written King of Kings and Lord of Lords, a title which belongs to none but God, which none but the Almighty can aſſume, He alone being the ſource of power, and from whom all other power is deriv'd.

All this the Author of the Brief Hiſt. pag. 44. pretends to evade by ſaying, that v. 11. is not in the Latin, nor in any good Greek Copy. It is true, that it is not in the Latin, and that it is wanting in ſome few Greek Copies. But being that it is in ſo many other places in all the Greek and Latin Manuſcripts; It is diſingenuous to accuſe this particular place, and a candid oppoſer ſhould have judg'd, that it can be Attributed to nothing but the neglect of the Tranſcriber. It is in all the aforeſaid places, and beſides Rev. 2.8. ſpoken by him who was dead, and is alive, who lives and was dead, and is alive for evermore.

A ſecond Evaſion, and really much worſe than the firſt is what he ſays pag. 20. of the Brief Hiſt. to the 17. v. That Chriſt is the firſt and moſt honourable with good Men, and the laſt, the moſt deſpis'd by bad Men. He cites for this Hugo Cardinalis, from whom Grotius and Eraſmus have borrow'd it. It is very diverting to ſee a learned Man as the Author of this Hiſtory, to cite in theſe diſputes Hugo Cardinalis, but what if the Cardinal, if Grotius, if Eraſmus have underſtood theſe words in a manner ſo contrary to their real and natural ſence, I ask what is it to the matter in hand? Is it leſs true becauſe Eraſmus and Grotius ſay, that it is not ſo? Will theſe Gentlemen be contented if inſtead of theſe three names we produce three hundred of a contrary Opinion, a whole Body of Scripture Interpreters who underſtand the words in their litteral ſence?

Briefly, ſays the Author again, pag. 21. Both Almighty God, and our Lord Jeſus Chriſt are the firſt and the laſt, but in different ſences. Why does he not alledge thoſe ſences? What corner of the Earth hides the precious Treaſure? A Text is produc't which is expreſs, cogent, ſelf-evident, liable to no little Criticiſms; A title Attributed to Chriſt in its utmoſt latitude, without any exception, or reſtriction, capable of no reaſonable ſence but the literal, and inſtead of a ſubſtantial anſwer they tell us, that a certain Author underſtands it ſo and ſo; that it is capable of different ſences, and ſo bid us good night. Thus any ſhift is made an Anſwer, and a bare aſſertion becomes an Argument.

I have often endeavour'd to find out what might be the cauſe of ſo unfair a dealing in an Author who is certainly a Man of learning, and is as ſenſible as my ſelf that the Interpretation of Hugo is ridiculous, and impertinent, and that a general Allegation is no Anſwer. The true reaſon I take to be this. They have eſpous'd this notion, that the Trinity and Incarnation are contradictory and impoſſible; read this Author, pag. 44, 45. that is, not ſo much the thing as the manner, The How can it be. Thus when we who are ſatisfy'd that if the thing is plainly and clearly reveal'd, it becomes the object of our Faith, and excludes any further inquiry into the manner; when we bring thoſe Texts on which no impreſſion can be made, by denying a word, excepting againſt a Tranſlation, exclaiming againſt an Article, or a punctuation, citing any orthodox who by chance favours their explication of ſome particular Text, though otherwiſe an utter Enemy to their Doctrine, they leave no ſtone unturn'd. But when a Text is alledg'd which as this ſtares in the face, then any thing will ſerve, they think that their ſtrength is to ſit ſtill, and rather ſay nothing then not to the purpoſe.

What they ſay to this place Rev. 19.16. King of Kings and Lord of Lords, is of the ſame nature. It is not only a magnificent deſcription of the Almighty; but a notion alſo ſo univerſal, ſo innate to all Mankind, that from this the moſt illiterate ſee the neceſſity of their Obedience to his Laws. The Author of the Brief Hiſt. pag. 44. ſays to this, that Chriſt is ſo Lord of Lords as that himſelf has one who is not only his Lord, but his God. He cites for this, Joh. 20.17. I aſcend to my Father, and your Father, to my God and your God.

This is a bad reaſon and a Text miſunderſtood to ſupport it. The reaſon is bad, for it is plain, that if there is a Lord over him, he is not the Lord of Lords. God is call'd in Scripture the God of Gods, and the aſſertion could not be true if there was a God above him. Natural reaſon will teach any Man that none can be Lord of Lords but in an unlimited ſence. Any other abſolutely deſtorys the propoſition.

He has miſunderſtood the place of St. John, which does not ſuppoſe any ſuperiority in the Father above the Son; but only expreſs the ſameneſs of his nature with him; Chriſt ſhews how God is his Father, and how ours; His by nature in the ſame Deity, ſays Epiphanius Her. 69. and ours by Grace in the adoption. Which Text St. Cyrill Cathech. 7. and St. Chryſoſtom on this very place, explain after this manner. As he is his Father, ſo is he his God, and his God, becauſe his Father.

I will conclude this Argument of Chriſt's Eternity by Joh. 17.5. And now, O Father, glorify thou me, with thy own ſelf, with the Glory which I had with thee, before the world was. Grotius obſerves, that this expreſſion before the world was, is the common notion which the Jews had of Eternity. Chriſt ſays in the preceeding v. that he has glorify'd his Father on earth. This Glory which he has acquir'd to God conſiſts in finiſhing the work which he gave him to do. In this Verſe he begs of the Father, that as a reward of this, he would alſo glorifie him. He aſſerts to what kind of honour he deſires to be promoted, even that which he had with him before the World was. He had then an Eternal, an Eſſential Glory with the Father, which this ſame Evangeliſt had before expreſt by ſaying, that the word was with God. It is to this that he deſires his bleſſed humanity to be rais'd. He had then before an Eternal exiſtence with God; For the word was God; and he claims that his mortal and paſſible nature my be aſſum'd to a participation of that honour, dignity, and glory which he had from all Eternity.

This Text is full and home. But it receives a great addition from Joh. 12.41. Where it is ſaid, that Iſaias ſaw his glory, and ſpoke of him. The Glory ſpoken of here is that of the Eternal God, Iſay. 6.1, 2, 3. He deſcribes not only his Throne and the numerous attendance of the bleſſed ſpirits, but the two Seraphims, who covering their Faces with their Wings, cry'd one to another, Holy, Holy, Holy, is the Lord of Hoſts, a name which none but the true God aſſumes. v. 9. The Prophet receives his commiſſion in the words repeated by St. John, which are a Prophecy of the incredulity and obſtinacy of the Jews. St. John declares then the Prophecy to be fulfill'd. He does not leave us to conjecture of whom the Prophet ſpeaks, but tells us plainly, that theſe things ſaid Iſaias when he ſaw his glory and ſpoke of him.

To this laſt Text the Auhor of the Brief Hiſt. anſwers 1ſt, That the moſt learned of the Orthodox Interpreters, both Fathers and Modern, have confeſt that the words of St. John are to be underſtood not of Chriſt, but of God, For God only is intended in the foregoing Verſe to which the words of this relate. 2ly, That the beſt Greek Bibles read not his Glory, but God's Glory.

For the firſt, they muſt give me leave to obſerve again, that this is one of their boundleſs citations, and of thoſe Characters of the moſt learned given at random, as this very Author, Brief Hiſt. pag. 11. has honour'd Dyoniſius Petavius with the title of the moſt learned of the Jeſuits, and another of theſe Gentlemen calls him the moſt learned of the moſt learned order, contrary to the ſence that his own Society has of the one, though otherwiſe a Man of great worth, and to the opinion which the learned World has of the reſt. The reaſon which they give that God is only intended in the foregoing Verſe, is nothing at all to the queſtion. The difficulty is not neither, whether Iſaias ſpeaks of Chriſt; but whether it is of him that St. John ſays that Iſaias ſpeaks; and indeed he muſt be willfully blind, who does not ſee, that all this is ſaid of him, who departed from them, v. 36. in whom they could not believe, v. 37. of whom all this was Propheſi'd, v. 38, 40. even Chriſt.

For the 2d, that the beſt Greek Bibles read God's, and not his; It is a great misfortune, that ſo few people can ſee thoſe beſt Bibles, or read the moſt learned of the Interpreters, and that all the ancient Copies, that I know, extant, and all the Printed Editions read unanimouſly his, and not God's.

But his anſwer to the Text which occaſſion'd this, is much worſe, to Joh. 17.5. he ſays, that the Glory which Chriſt ſays he had before the world was, is only meant in God's Decree. He adds, pag. 31. but without citing where, That St. Auſtin, and ſeveral learned Interpreters, not only grant, but contend that it is ſo: That the ſufferings of Chriſt were to preceed his Glory, 1 Pet. 1.11. that this Text ought to be underſtood, as 2 Cor. 5.1. We have a building of God a houſe made with hands, and 2 Tim. 1.9. The Grace which was given us in Chriſt Jeſus before the world began.

This is little to the purpoſe. It has been obſerv'd already, that St. Auſtin, Aquinas, and both the Diſciples of theſe two great Men underſtand theſe words of a decree, which I wonder theſe Gentlemen offer ſo much as to ſpeak of; It ſuppoſing what they ſo earneſtly deny, and that is the Perſonal Union of the two natures of Jeſus Chriſt. Read the Books de nat. and Grat. de praedeſt. de perſev. Sanct. Tract. in Johan. and almoſt every where, and you will find it to be the Syſtem of theſe two Doctors to which they reduce, not only this place, but all others of like nature; and indeed if you admitt of a decree, you muſt go through with this as theſe two learned Men have done. There is no other in relation to Chriſt can have any room in the Scripture. What is more is only pretended to elude the force of an Argument. Were theſe Gentlemen unconcern'd in the diſpute, and ſhould they hear this Text cited, Glorifie thou me ... with the Glory which I had with thee, before the world was, How would it make them merry to hear a decree pretended for that which cannot be conceiv'd but antecedent to that decree? Had Chriſt ſaid, Glorifie me with the Glory which thou hadſt appointed, or decree'd for me; It might have ſerv'd. But Glorifie me with the Glory which I had with thee, which was mine, which I was in poſſeſſion of before the Creation, excludes any thing of that nature. The Place cited out of St. Peter has no relation at all to this. That of St. Paul to the Corinthians is as much foregin to it, being only an excellent Metaphor to expreſs our future ſtate. That to Timothy is indeed more to the matter in hand, but the Apoſtle has prevented the objection by ſpeaking poſitively of God's decree in reſpect of our Election. Who has call'd us with a holy calling, not according to our works but according to his own purpoſe ... which word the Author was pleas'd to overlook.

What has been ſaid will give light to ſome difficulties which theſe Gentlemen judge to be unanſwerable. The 1ſt, is taken from this very Chapter, Joh. 17.3. and this is life Eternal that they might know thee the only true God, and Jeſus Chriſt whom thou haſt ſent. The Author of the anſwer to Mr. Milbourn, pag. 22. is poſitive that the Father is call'd the true God excluſively to any other; and that nothing can more effectually evince that Chriſt is not God, but only God's Ambaſſador. This is one of thoſe very many Texts, ſays the Author of the Brief Hiſt. pag. 5. which directly affirm, that only the Father is God.

The objection is not new. It was made by the Arrians in the Council of Nice, and exploded by the Fathers. The truth is, theſe Holy Men never underſtood the words, as fixing and reſtraining the Deity to the Father with excluſion to the Son, and the Holy ſpirit, nor their ſence to have any regard to either of them; or elſe this would abſolutely have decided the Controverſy. Nor is it comprehenſible that the Fathers before the Council of Nice would have ſpoken ſo fully to the Divinity of Chriſt, or that thoſe of the Council of Nice, and the Fathers after them, and the whole Chriſtian World durſt have embrac't it as an eſſential part of our Faith, if they had look't upon the ſence of this Text to be no other than what is pretended by theſe Gentlemen. The Good, the wiſe, the Learned, cannot be conceiv'd to have willfully run into an errour contrary to the open and known ſence of ſuch a place of Scripture. They conſtantly underſtood theſe words, The Father the only true God, to be ſpoken not excluſively to the two other perſons, but in oppoſition to the Gods of the Heathen, thoſe falſe Deities, which had uſurp't amongſt them the place of the true. Nor is it unuſual in Scripture by the Father to mean not ſo much the firſt Divine Perſon, as the Deity in general.

I will not ſpend time in ſetting down the many ways that this Text may be read in, or what order the words might be made capable of to take off their pretended inconſiſtency with the Chriſtian Hypotheſis of three Perſons ſubſiſting in the ſame Divine Nature. St. Baſil, and St. Chryſoſtom have effectually done it, and ſhew'd how the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which we have render'd only, is rather comprehenſive than excluſive in the dialect of Scripture.

I have a plain and obvious reaſon why the only True God muſt be underſtood in the ſence of the Fathers in oppoſition to falſe Gods, and not in excluſion of Chriſt and the Holy ſpirit; and that is, that Chriſt in Scripture is call'd the true God, and the only Lord God, which can never be if the only true God here muſt be reſtrain'd to the Father, as theſe Gentlemen would have it. 1 Joh. 5.2. and we know that the Son of God is come, and has given us an underſtanding that we may know him that is true; and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jeſus Chriſt; This, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , ille, he, is the true God and Eternal life. I take this to be poſitive, and deciſive that the only true God cannot be underſtood in relation to the Son or the Holy ſpirit, ſince the Son is alſo call'd true God.

No, ſays the Author of the Brief Hiſt. p. 43. This is a very negligent tranſlation, and no ſence can be made of the words. The latter part of the Text ought to have been render'd, we are in him that is true, by his Son Jeſus Chriſt, and not, in his Son Jeſus Chriſt. This Text plainly denys that Chirſt is the true God.

The outlandiſh Socinians had made a miſerable exception to this Text, which theſe Gentlemen thought fit to forſake as ruinous; But this is to the full as bad. The tranſlation is directly againſt them; Therefore it is negligent and nonſenſical. The tranſlators cannot be made to ſpeak as they would have them; Therefore they are careleſs and ſpeak nonſence. The particle in Jeſus Chriſt, ruines their opinion; Therefore it muſt be by, contrary to the Faith of all tranſlations, contrary to any poſſible conſtruction of the place, contrary to the ſence of all Interpreters.

You ſee, Sir, how deſperate is that cauſe which cannot ſupport it ſelf without theſe mean ſhifts, and has nothing to oppoſe to a plain and deciding Text, but the bold and preſumptuous altering of a Particle. I uſe theſe words, which perhaps may ſeem too ſharp, becauſe the thing of it ſelf is ſo extraordinary, and this Text in the original ſo infinitely clear, that I durſt give up the cauſe, if of a thouſand Tranſlators, ſtrangers to the controverſy, any one does tranſlate by, and not in his Son Jeſus Chriſt.

I think that Jud. 4. is much to be conſider'd. There is a deſcription made of unhappy Men, who are crept in unawares. Their Character is to be ungodly, to turn the grace of God into laſciviouſneſs, and to deny the only Lord God and Lord of us Jeſus Chriſt. That the whole is ſpoken of Chriſt appears from the Greek conſtruction of the Phraſe, from the ſingleneſs of the Article and the continuation of the Text without the leaſt punctuation. The whole running thus, denying Jeſus Chriſt who is the only Lord God and our Lord. This is ſo obvious that to prove it is to loſe time. It not only aſſerts the Divinity of Chriſt but alſo ſhews how vain is the pretence that in the diſputed Text, the only true God ſhould exclude the Son or the holy ſpirit. As if any rational Man durſt infer from thence, that becauſe Chriſt is call'd the only Lord God, Therefore the Father is neither Lord, nor God.

Theſe Gentlemen have taken no notice of this Text in any of their writings, that I have ſeen, and ſo have ſay'd nothing to it. But yet becauſe a proof muſt be clear and candid; and remove, if poſſible, all objections, what can be oppos'd to it amounts to this. That the old latin Interpreter and ſome Greek Manuſcripts of a conſiderable Authority, do not read the word God, and that Eraſmus has tranſlated, not, the only Lord God and Lord of us Jeſus Chriſt; But God, who is the only Lord, and our Lord Jeſus Chriſt. Eraſmus and one or two more Modern Interpreters, who with all the care imaginable have endeavour'd to obſcure, or prevert all thoſe Texts which ſpeak openly of the Divinity of Chriſt, are parties in the caſe, even by the confeſſion of our Adverſaries, and ſo not to be heard. But in this it is viſible even to the moſt zealous Socinian, that he has groſly, and ſhameleſly corrupted this Text. The word, God, not being in the Text is really an objection; but if truely conſider'd rather confirms than weakens the aſſertion. For the only Lord can no more be reſtrain'd to Chriſt excluſively to the Father, than the only true God can be reſtrain'd to the Father excluſively to Chriſt. The word God, adds nothing to the force of the expreſſion, The only Lord being a Phraſe of as large an extent and as full an importance as the only true God. This takes off at once all the other Texts depending from this, on which this Author has ſo much inſiſted. 1 Cor 8.6. Eph. 4.4, 5, 6. 1 Tim. 2.5, &c.

A 2d objection which indeed this Author has not made, though he has ſcarce left a Text untouch't, whether it made for his purpoſe or no, and was a reaſon, or only look't like one, but is made by the Author of ſome thoughts upon Dr. Sherlock's Vindication of the Trininy, is taken from Joh. 10.35, 36. If he call'd them Gods unto whom the word of God came, and the Scripture cannot be broken, ſay ye of him whom the Father has ſanctify'd, and ſent into the world, thou blaſphemeſt, becauſe I ſay'd I am the Son of God. He does not ſay, I whom the Father has begotten from all Eternity, ſays the Author pag 4. of his own ſubſtance, But I whom the Father has ſanctify'd. Which plainly ſhews that when he ſays he was the Son of God, his meaning was, that he was only ſo in a ſence of conſecration and of miſſion; and conſequently that his unity with the Father is not an Eſſential and natural unity, but meerly moral and relative, of works, not of Eſſence which is really incommunicable. pag. 6. I ſhould think this paſſage written with the very finger of truth to be unanſwerable, were it not that I know the Orthodox are wont to darken the moſt bright light at the coſt of ſincerity and good ſence, and make no ſcruple of the groſſeſt contradictions and abſurdities, ſo they may but caſt duſt in the Eyes of ſimple men.

Paſſing by the complement which is of a ſingular nature, and a barbarous aſperſion on perſons whom they themſelves own to have an extraordinary piety and learning, I muſt beg leave to admire the difference of Men's perceptions. This Author thinks this paſſage to be written with the very finger of truth, and not to be anſwerable. I think ſo too: But he ſays againſt the Eternal being of Chriſt, and I ſaw for it. The cauſe of this difference between us lyes here. He fancies that thoſe Verſes are an Explication of what Chriſt had ſaid before, v. 30. I and my Father are one, for which v. 31. the Jews took up ſtones to ſtone him, and which, v. 33. they call Blaſphemy, and becauſe that he being a man makes himſelf God; and that to avoid their anger he declares to them that he is no otherwiſe God, than thoſe very Men who by their law are call'd Gods, not becauſe they are ſo indeed, but becauſe they have the Power, and Authority of God communicated to them.

Now I think that theſe words are not an Explication, Excuſe, or Apology for what he had ſaid, I and the Father are one; But an open and free continuation of what was before, and a new aſſertion of his Divinity. This will appear if the whole context is taken together. Chriſt had ſaid, v. 9. that he is the door, that by him if any man enters he ſhall be ſav'd. Agreeable to this expreſſion of Revel. 7.3. He that is holy, he that is true ... he that opens, and no man ſhuts, and ſhuts and no man opens. v. 28. that he gives his ſheep Eternal life; and that they might not wonder at thoſe Characters which can agree to no creature, he carries yet the point higher. He tells them, v. 30. I and my Father are one. That though they ſee him in the form of a Servant and in all things like Man, yet he is God with his Father, and partaker of the ſame Divine Nature. This aſſertion to Men whoſe hearts were not purify'd by Faith ſeem'd ſtrange and impious, v. 31. They took ſtones to ſtone him. He tells them with that unconcernedneſs which truth and innocence gives, that he has done amongſt them many miraculous works to prove this his Union with his Father. He asks which of theſe works has provok'd their blind zeal to ſtone him? They anſwer him, v. 33. that it is not for any of thoſe good and miraculous works, But becauſe being but a man he makes himſelf, not A. God, but God. He does not at all excuſe the thing, or parts with his firſt aſſertion. He pities but not fear their malice; and uſes a plain and forcible Argument to inſtruct them. Though the name of God be Sacred, and the moſt reverend appellation in the World, yet your law, ſays Chriſt, will allow it to them who ſpeak to you from him. If it be ſo then, and you cannot deny it, becauſe it is writen in your law, Pſ. 82.6. I have ſay'd ye are Gods. If Men are ſometime allow'd to be call'd Gods, How much more may I make my ſelf God, and this without the leaſt danger of Blaſphemy, who am above any thing that is created, to whom every Knee muſt bow of things in Heaven, and things in the Earth, and things under the Earth? Whom the Father has ſanctify'd, not only by a peculiar deſignation as a King, or a Prophet, but by an Eternal Communication of his nature by which He and I are one, and ſo ſent me into the World to ſave you and the reſt of Mankind. If I did not do the works which none but the Son of God can do, you might have ſome ground not to believe me. But as long as I do theſe miraculous works, it is to you a ſufficient argument of perſwaſion. You ought to believe that the Father is in me and I in him, v. 38.

That the Jews underſtood this anſwer litterally, as they had done the allegation, That they did not take it as an Apology for the pretended Blaſphemy, but a further proof of his being one with the Father, appears by their not relenting; but v. 39. Therefore they ſought again to take him, but be eſcap't out of their hands.

I beg leave then of this Author, and of Calvin whom he has cited, blaming the Fathers for miſapplying this Text, to ſay that the Fathers were in the right, and that nothing can be more obvious than this. It will be much confirm'd, if we conſider that this is not the only time that the Jews quarrell'd with Chriſt upon the ſame account; and he always anſwer'd, not by denying, but juſtifying the aſſertion. Mark 2.5. He tells one who was brought to him Sick of the Palſy, Thy ſins be forgiven thee, v. 7. They preſently accuſe him of Blaſphemy, and that upon a known and undoubted principle that none can forgive ſins but God. He does not at all excuſe the thing, or make himſelf a deputed God, or a God by deputation, a ſort of God of theſe Gentlemens making. He grants that none but God can forgive ſins. Then he convinces them by a Miracle, and leaves them the concluſion to draw, Which is eaſier to cure, or to forgive? He that does the one muſt be God, with an Article too, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; and he that does the other muſt be abſolute Maſter of nature, and that is, God.

The Jews were ſo far perſwaded that Chriſt by calling God his Father ſpoke of himſelf, not as of a Son by adoption, or any other title, but as a Son by nature co-equal and co-eternal, that they never underſtood him otherwiſe. This is as clear as the Sun, from Joh. 5. Chriſt cures a Man of an infirmity of 38. Years ſtanding, v. 9. But it being on the Sabbath day, v. 16. The Jews preſecuted him, and ſought to ſlay him. He anſwers, v. 17. My Father works hitherto, and I work. They take from theſe words a new occaſion to accuſe him. At firſt they were only angry for his healing on the Sabbath, but now v. 18. they ſought the more to kill him ... becauſe he ſaid alſo that God was his Father. His own Father, ſays the Evangeliſt, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , making himſelf equal with God. That Equality could not ariſe ſimply from calling God his Father. This was the privilege of the Jews, as it is now of Chriſtians. But they made it to conſiſt in this aſſertion, that as the Father was above the Sabbath, the Divine nature not being confin'd to thoſe rules which it preſcribes to us mortals; Chriſt ſaying the ſame of himſelf, He made himſelf the Son of God equal to his Father. Which equality of the Son with the Father the Jews ſuppoſe and acknowledge; But ſeek to kill him, becauſe he pretended to aſſume it to himſelf. This the Fathers urg'd againſt the Arrians.

Now Chriſt replies without any variation, equivocation, or ſubterfuge. He is plain, and proves all along the Unity and ſameneſs of nature with the Father. He ſays v. 19. that he can do nothing of himſelf, which does not imply weakneſs and inſufficiency, as the Author of the Breif Hiſt. has abus'd that Text pag. 6. but ſhews only that he can act from no other principle but that by which he exiſts. That he has his operation from him, from whom he has his being, and, as an infallible proof that this is the true ſence of that place, he ſhews an extent of operation as great as the Father: What things ſoever the Father does theſe does the Son likewiſe. This is the Divinity of Theodoret, or, rather of Alexander Biſhop of Alexandria, inſerted in the firſt Book of his Hiſtory. It is that of St. Baſil, or the Author of the firſt Book contr. Eunom. and of the Generality of the Greek Fathers. It is that of St. Hilary, lib. 7. de Trin. It is that of St. Auſtin, who tract. 20. in Joann. has theſe admirable words. Whatſover the Son has to do, he has from the Father the power to do it. Why, does he receive from the Father the power to act, becauſe he has receiv'd of the Father to be his Son? He has his power from the Father, becauſe from the Father he has his Eſſence.

Chriſt proſecutes the Argument and ſhews how God has communicated all things to him, even as a reward of his profound humiliation in taking our nature upon him, v. 27. becauſe he is the Son of Man. But that, notwithſtanding his outward appearance in infirmity and weakneſs, he has an Original and Eternal Being with the Father, v. 26. As the Father has life in himſelf, ſo has he given the Son to have life in himſelf. St. Auſtin lib. 3. contra Maxim. c. 14. He has given him the ſame life that he has. Such as he has it himſelf he has given it him; He has given it as Infinite as he has it in himſelf. He concludes, that all men ſhould honour the Son, even as they honour the Father, the ſame honour being due to the ſame Divine Eſſence.

The ſum of all is this. Chriſt does not at all grant that he is an inferior or a repreſentative God, as theſe Gentlemen would have it, by the conceſſion that ſome Men are call'd Gods; but concludes on the contrary, that if Men are not guilty of Blaſphemy by taking that name; How much leſs is he who is, and on every occaſion aſſerts himſelf to be the true God.

This takes off at once the Objections from all thoſe Texts which the Author of the Brief Hiſt. thought unanſwerable. That he was faithful to him that made him; that we are Chriſt's and Chriſt is God's. That he humbl'd himſelf and became obedient. That the Son ſhall be ſubject to him, who put all things under him. That his doctrine is not his doctrine. That he intercedes with God for us; and a great many more.

This Author lays a great weight on all thoſe Texts which prove the Humanity of Chriſt. His firſt Letter contains whatſoever the Evangeliſts have ſaid of the paſſions and infirmities of our Nature. We are ſo far from denying any part of this, that we think it the greateſt comfort Religion can give, that Chriſt was truly Man. We own it and Glory in it, that Jeſus Chriſt the Righteous our Advocate with the Father, was in all things like us, Sin only excepted. But the Scriptures of the Old and New Teſtament ſpeaking ſo fully to his Divinity with the Father in the communication of the ſame Nature and Eternal Being, lead us not to ſay that he is not God, becauſe he is Man, or that he is not Man, becauſe he is God: This is not to interpret, but to deſtory one Scripture by another. They lead us to take both the parts of the Myſtery as the ſpirit of God propoſes it, and to believe that he is truly God, and truly Man.

In ſhort, theſe Gentlemen can never ſatisify any Man's conſcience in this point, nor can they juſtifie themſelves to the Chriſtian Church from whoſe Faith they have departed; All that Wit and Eloquence which they are ſo much Maſters of, and all thoſe Arguments which they have treated with ſo much accuracy, being of no force againſt the proof alledg'd. I will conclude this Letter of Chriſt's Pre-Eternity with this place of Origen contr. Celſ. lib. 6. This Father ſpeaks of the knowledge of God, and how difficult it is to know him who has made darkneſs his Pavilion round about him. He ſays, that the Father is known truly, and, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , only by the Word. He proves this, by Matt. 11.27. Neither knows any man the Father, ſave the Son, and he to whomſoever the Son will reveal him. For none, ſays he, can know him truly, and as he deſerves to be known, who is begotten from all Eternity, and born before any created ſubſtance but the Father who has begot him. Nor can any know the Father after the ſame manner, but his living word, who is both his wiſdom and truth.

I remain, SIR, Your humble, &c.
THE Fourth LETTER. SIR,

HAving prov'd the Pre-Exiſtence and Pre-Eternity of Chriſt, his Antemundane and Eternal Being with God, before he aſſum'd our Nature, and ſhew'd how deficient, or to uſe the very words of your Friends, in the Brief Hiſt. pag. 23. how harſh and ſtrain'd their anſwers ſeem to be to the Texts produc't againſt them, it remains to make good that Chriſt is God by a communication of the Divine Eſſence, and that the Scriptures repreſent him to be God after a manner applicable to no Creature.

The firſt of theſe two aſſertions is grounded on Phil. 2.6. and foll. v. The Apoſtle propoſes Chriſt to the Philippians as a Divine inſtance of Humility, and Obedience. He makes both to conſiſt in this, that being really God, and equal with God, yet he made himſelf of no reputation, but became Man, and humbl'd himſelf to the Death of the Croſs. The words of the Text are clearer than any Commentary. v. 6. Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God. The form of God is here the Nature and Eſſence of God; For though in ſome other places of Scripture, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Form, ſignifies no more than an Image, or a perſonal appearance, yet in this it is determin'd to this ſence of Nature and Eſſence by the next Verſe, where the form of a Servant is certainly the Nature and Eſſence of a Servant. The word, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , ſubſiſting, rather than being in the form of God, as theſe Gentlemen will not deny that it ſhould have been tranſlated, implies a real and an actual in-being in the Divine Nature. St. Paul having aſſerted that Chriſt ſubſiſted in the form of God, ſays, that he thought it not robbery to be equal with God, an expreſſion which crumbles to duſt the poor notion of a God by deputation, as Socinus has contriv'd, and an inferior though an excellent God, as Arrius. For what inferior or deputed God dares claim an equality with the God of Heaven and Earth? audet pariari Deo? ſays Tertullian. What Moſes, Solomon, what Lord Lieutenant of a County, or Mayor of a Town, becauſe the Scripture calls Magiſtrates Gods, would pretend it to be no robbery to equal themſelves with God?

The exceſſive humility of Chriſt appears then in this, that though God, and equal with God, yet v. 7. He made himſelf of no reputation, ſemetipſum exinanivit, reads the Old Latin, exhauſted himſelf, ſays Tertullian contr. Marci. more agreeable to the Original, he leſſen'd, he empty'd himſelf. He took upon him the form of a ſervant, and was made in the likeneſs of men, both ſo Highly Diſproportionate to the Infinite Being of God. v. 8. He carry'd yet the humiliation to a more ſtupendious degree; For being found in faſhion as a man, he humbl'd himſelf, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the Croſs. There is then not only a plain aſſertion but a viſible Union of the two Natures. There is a God becoming a Servant, and a Man, and ſuffering for us in that humanity which he was pleas'd to aſſume.

The Author of the Brief Hiſtory, pag. 37. excepts againſt this. He ſays 1ſt, That it cannot be the deſign of the former part of theſe words to intimate that Chriſt is God, becauſe 'tis added at laſt, that God has exalted him, and given him a name that is above every name. Theſe words plainly diſtinguiſh Chriſt from God, as one who is not himſelf God, but exalted by God. 2ly, That this has oblig'd ſeveral judicious and learned Trinitarians to interpret the whole Context of Chriſt, as he is a Man. 3ly, He explains pag. 38. being in the form of God, only to be like God by a communication of the Divine Power. 4ly, He does not tranſlate as we do, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but, committed not robbery to be equal with God, i. e. did not rob God of his honour by arrogating to himſelf to be God.

The Anſwerer to Mr. Milbourn, pag. 36. and foll. ſays almoſt the ſame things; only he brings in a Tale, and a Proverb. The Tale is of a Countryman, who without a remnant of Greek or Latin, did yet puzzle his Vicar by asking, whether It was in the Original? whether the true reading was, thought it not robbery, or only thought not robbery; to which laſt the Vicar yielding, the Countryman was ſatisfy'd, that this Text did deſtroy the Divinity of Chriſt. The Proverb is, that every like is not the ſame, and therefore that ſince Chriſt was in the form of God, that is, like God, as Adam, and all other Men, he cannot be God. He ſays further, that it is both Morally and Phyſically impoſſible, that God ſhould do any of theſe things, and undergo any of theſe changes. He obſerves, and that Socinus had done before, that if Chriſt is equal with God, he cannot be God, ſince nothing can be equal to it ſelf. He cites Chriſtopher Sandius, who has made a conſiderable Collection of Authors, Fathers, as well as modern, who confeſs, that this Text is to be underſtood of Chriſt as Man, and not as God.

The Anſwerer to two Diſcourſes of one Monſieur la Motté, done out of French, repeats all this in other words: Only he is ſo confident that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , muſt not be tranſlated, thought it not robbery, that pag. 11. he ſends us to the School Boys, and pag. 8. to the Lexicon.

I hope they are Perſons of too much judgment to take this for an Anſwer, that Chriſt is not God, becauſe God has exalted him, and God cannot exalt God. For all that is, or ever was pretended from thence, is not that God has exalted God; But God has exalted that humane nature, that Man Chriſt Jeſus, aſſum'd by the word, to the participation of the honour due to God.

That other ſort of reaſoning is as bad as this; that if he is equal with God, He cannot be God, becauſe nothing can be equal to it ſelf. I ſuppoſe they mean, becauſe equality implies compariſon, and compariſon excludes identity. This is certainly falſe in Geometry, and falſe again in Divinity. But admitting the Propoſition as it lyes, It is nothing at all to the Queſtion. The deſign of the Apoſtle is not to compare Chriſt with God, or a God with another God. But only to ſhew, that Chriſt is that ſupreme God, who humbled himſelf to that degree as to take upon him the form of a Servant. Now what more ſignificant ſort of expreſſion could be us'd than this, that though he was God, and had reaſon to think all the perfections and glory of the Divine Nature to be his own, which is the full, and only importance of being equal with God, yet he humbl'd himſelf to death, &c.

I hope alſo, that they are not in earneſt, when they bring Sandius with his Catalogue of moſt Learned and Judicious Trinitarians; ſince they cannot be ignorant that All the Greek Fathers concern'd in this diſpute, who underſtood I hope their own language better than any of us, It being more than highly probable that the Author of the Brief Hiſtory, and of the Anſwer to Mr. Milbourn, who are really accurate Writers, can give a far better account of any Engliſh Phraſe now in uſe, and better underſtand the extent and importance of it, than a Frenchman or a Dutchman, who though never ſo Learned, and Judicious, will twelve or thirteen hundred Years hence Criticiſe, Paraphraſe, and give another ſence to that Phraſe than what they gave themſelves; ſince I ſay all the Greek Fathers, who underſtood the force of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , thought theſe words an undoubted and clear teſtimony of Chriſt's Divinity.

The natural impoſſibility of the thing is an old objection made to Lactantius, and confuted by that Father. Negant Deo dignum ut Homo fieri vellet .... ut paſſionibus, ut doloribus ſeſe ipſe ſubjiceret. They deny that it is worthy of God to become man, and ſubject himſelf to Grief, and Sufferings. This is the conſtant mothod of theſe Gentlemen always to return to the How can it be? It is not ſo, becauſe it is impoſſible. We ſay it is poſſible becauſe it is ſo, and it is ſo becauſe it is reveal'd. It is dinſingenuous to be ever parting from the point in Queſtion which is the Revelation, to the manner of the thing it ſelf which is above our reach. All theſe things conſider'd which really are not worth anſwering, may not I have the liberty to tell your Friends what they ſaid to Monſieur la Motté, pag. 10. T'is a very thin Sophiſtry, this; when an Author leaves off to ſpeak to the vulgar, and would needs undertake in this very paſſage, Phil. 2.6, 7, 8. to ſpeak to the learned, he ſhould bring ſomething more ſubſtantial to blind ſuch Eyes as theirs.

In ſhort, the ſtreſs of the difficulty lies here. Whether to be in the form of God, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Signifies the nature, or only the likeneſs of God, ſuch as Adam, and all other Men have? And whether the Tranſlation is right, thought it not robbery to be equal with God. That the form of God is the Divine Eſſence is evinc't from the Authority of the Greek Fathers, Theodoret, Baſil, St. Chryſoſtom; Theophilact, who not only ſpoke their own language, but were Men of an admirable Eloquence and purity of ſpeech; And indeed if we conſider the force of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , ſubſiſting, it cannot be otherwiſe. It is againſt all the rules of Philoſophy, of ſence, of Speech, if form is no more than an accidental form, to uſe the word ſubſiſting, which implies of it ſelf a communication, participation, or in-being in the ſame nature. To ſay that a Man ſubſiſts in the form of a Man, is not to ſay that he is like other Men, or has the figure of a Man, but that he is really a Man, that he has human nature communicated to him.

To pretend that the form of God is only a communication of a Divine power of miracles, &c. If this flows from a communication of Eſſence, as Matt. 28.18. All power is given me in Heaven and in earth. Joh. 14.10. The Father that dwells in me he does the works. Act. 2.22. Jeſus of Nazareth a man approv'd of God amongſt you by miracles .... which God did by him in the midſt of you, is a notion tolerable, though very improper. But if it is only a communication of a power foreign to us, to which we have no relation, and in which we are only inſtrumental, ſuch as was in Moſes, in the Prophets, and Apoſtles, is a ridiculous notion. To ſubſiſt in a miraculous power, that is, to be a miraculous power, is an irrational and unintelligible way of ſpeaking. The Great Eraſmus then, and the Illuſtrious Grotius from whom they have borrow'd this Explication, are greatly and Illuſtriouſly miſtaken. To deal with candor, I humbly beg what ſence can be made of this? Let this mind be in you which was in Chriſt Jeſus, who being in the form of God, a Man made in the ſimilitude of God as other Men are, yet became Man for your ſakes.

To ſay that Chriſt making himſelf of no reputation was the concealing of his Miracles, as theſe Gentlemen interpret it, is unreaſonable and contrary to the Goſpel. His miraculous Birth of a Virgin, his Star in the Eaſt, his being reveal'd to the Shepherds by the Angels, his being Preach't by the Baptiſt, God owning him for his Son, his doing good amongſt all Men, his miraculous works, the raiſing of Lazarus, The prodigious Eclipſe at his Death, the continual attendance of the multitudes upon him made him the moſt Famous Perſon in the World. The Goſpel wholly contradicts the injurious aſſertion, Matt. 4.24. Matt. 9.31. and 14.1. Luk. 1.15. Mark. 1.28.

That thought it not robbery to be equal with God, is truly tranſlated, I have this to Offer: 1ſt, That the Generality of the Latin Fathers render'd it thus, and that no exception was made againſt it by the Arrians, to whom they produc't this Text. 2ly, That all the publick, Authentick, and receiv'd tranſlations read it as we do. 3ly, That the It which this ſharp-nos'd Countryman ſmelt to be wanting in the Text, adds nothing to its force; and that thought no robbery, is as home to the queſtion, as thought it not robbery, ſince the natural ſence of the words, the very firſt impreſſion which they naturally give, is that Chriſt did not think to be a Robber, Guilty of Theft and Injuſtice in equalling himſelf to God. The other being ſtrain'd, a ſence of yeſterday and invented in theſe latter times to ſerve a turn. 4ly, That the firſt part of the Verſe, who ſubſiſting in the form of God, makes that ſence impoſſible, for if he ſubſiſted in the form, or nature of God, how could he who was God, arrogate to himſelf to be God? 5ly, That the tranſlation of theſe Gentlemen, committed not robbery by equalling himſelf with God, is a moſt notorious falſification of a Text. I will not ſend them to School Boys and Lexicons to know the ſence of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Civility and Breeding muſt never be Baniſh't from the hotteſt diſputes. I will only ſay, en paſſant, that Learned men uſe to Correct Lexicons and Dictionaries, and not to be corrected by them. But I appeal to themſelves, and beg of them to know, 1ſt, Whether 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , does not ſignify all the World over, Robbery? And 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , thought, judg'd, counted, and therefore whether thought not, counted not robbery to be equal with God is not an exact Tranſlation. 2ly, I beg that they would produce any one Greek Author either Sacred or profane who renders 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to commit robbery. I paſs by that other ſtrange ſtroke, of rendring to be equal with God, by equalling himſelf with God.

Thus you ſee, Sir, your Friends are ſo taken up with their new Creation, that they aſſume to themſelves a power to create a new ſence to ſome words, a ſence which they never had, nor can never have.

Coloſſ. 2.9. The Apoſtle has aſſerted this Sacred truth in few words but comprehenſive, v. 3. In him, Chriſt, are hid all the treaſures of wiſdom and knowledge. v. 7. The Coloſſians are to be rooted, and built up in him. v. 8. Philoſophy will rather deceive than inform them. The traditions of men and the Elements of the World, whether the weak notices of the Gentiles, or the obſervances of the Jewiſh Oeconomy are all inſufficient. None but Chriſt can ſupply their wants, and make them truly knowing and good. St. Paul gives this reaſon for it, For in him dwells all the fulneſs of the Godhead bodily.

Our tranſlation comes ſhort of the energy of the Greek Text, which ſhould have been render'd thus; For in him dwells the whole fulneſs of the Godhead Eſſentially, a notion of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , uſual in the Scriptures. This proves then all that the ſeveral ſorts of Hereticks have deny'd of Chriſt. A Communication not of power or Vertue, as in Moſes or the Prophets, but of nature, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , of the Divine Nature. A Communication not Figurative, Sacramental, or repreſentative, but real and ſubſtantial. A Communication not partial, tranſient, or begun in time, but the whole nature, the whole fullneſs of the Godhead. A Communication ſuppoſing a diſtinction of Perſons againſt the Sabellians, him who communicates, and him to whom it is communicated, Col. 1.19. For it pleas'd the Father that in him the whole fullneſs ſhould dwell. A Communication which clearly ſhews againſt Arrians, Neſtorians, Socinians, the Hypoſtatical Union of the two natures in Chriſt. For it is in him, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , in his adorable Perſon, in Chriſt the word made Fleſh, that this Divine Nature dwells, with all the Properties, Attributes, Qualifications which belong to it; All human apprehenſions and expreſſions being infinitely ſhort of this inſpir'd way of ſpeaking of St. Paul, all the fullneſs of the Godhead bodily.

To this the Author of the Brief Hiſt. pag. 39. anſwers ſomewhat confuſedly contrary to his Cuſtom. He ſays, that the fulneſs of the Godhead is the fulneſs of the knowledge of God, which he pretends to prove, by Eph. 3.19. where the Apoſtle wiſhes that they may be fill'd with all the fullneſs of God. This Chriſt had, and he has fill'd us Chriſtians with it. He ſays that this knowledge dwelt in him bodily, in oppoſition to that imperfect, umbratile, and unſincere knowledge of God, which the Apoſtle affirms, v. 8. to be found in the Philoſophy and Philoſophers of Greece, who in St. Paul's time were in great Eſteem amongſt the Coloſſians. He adds that this is the Interpretation of the moſt Learned and Orthodox Interpreters.

It is true that ſome Interpreters, whom theſe Gentlemen always honour with the Title of moſt learned, if they but ſpeak what pleaſes them, have oppos'd theſe words, not only to the Philoſophy of the Greeks, but even to the law which was only a ſhadow of things to come, Chriſt being the Body, as the Syriack reads the 17. v. the ſubſtance and perfection of knowledge, and there being as much difference between their Doctrine and his, as there is between the ſhadow and the body. But two things this Author has not taken notice of; 1ſt, That theſe moſt Learned Interpreters do only deliver this as a ſecondary interpretation, leaving the Primary, which I have laid before you, in its full force. 2ly, That this Interpretation really ſuppoſes and reſolves it ſelf into the firſt. The Apoſtle deſires the Coloſſians to avoid the vain Philoſophy of the Greeks, that ſcience falſly ſo call'd, and the rudiments of the World, thoſe imperfect ways of men's invention to bring and reconcile them to God; even all the Ceremonial Law, which though preſcrib'd by God himſelf, yet was only in order to ſomewhat better; and that they ſhould ſtick to Chriſt, be rooted, and built up in him, in whom and by whom they ſhould be fill'd and compleated. He gives the reaſon of this, becauſe in him are hid the treaſures of wiſdom and knowledge; and he is the head of all Principality, and Power; and all this is true, becauſe he is not only a wiſe and a rational Man according to the World, for ſuch were the Philoſophers; Nor a Man ſent from God, for ſuch were Moſes and the Prophets, but he was God himſelf come down in our Fleſh, for in him dwells the whole fullneſs of the Godhead bodily, Subſtantially, Eſſentially.

I am ſatisfy'd that this Author does not believe the application of Eph. 3.19. to have any ſolidity. But there is in the diſputed Text, the fullneſs of the Godhead, and in this the fullneſs of God. Theſe two words are alike, and therefore muſt be made to jump. When he cannot but know that all the Interpreters, even the beloved Eraſmus, and Grotius, tell us that the Apoſtle means no more by this, than that Chriſt may dwell in our hearts by Faith, and that we may have as much of the favour and grace of God as we can.

I beg to know with what candor he has tranſlated 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , God by the Deity, or The Divine Nature, which though ſometimes Synonymous, yet cannot be ſo here.

But what can more effectually prove the communication of the Divine Nature to Chriſt, than that he is the only begotten Son of God, Joh. 1.18. No man has ſeen God at any time, the only begotten Son which is in the boſom of the Father, he has declar'd him. A title peculiar to Chriſt, and expreſſive of all that can be conceiv'd of him, his Conſubſtantiality, his Co-Eternity, his Equality with the Father.

Theſe Gentlemen think it a very ſtrong Argument that Chriſt is not God, becauſe in the Apoſtolical Creed, the unchangeable rule of our Faith, the firſt Article gives the name of God only to the Father. I believe in God The Father, and the ſecond does not ſay, and in God the Son, but and in Jeſus Chriſt his only Son our Lord; not conſidering that the word only Son, the ſame with only begotten here, is a fuller expreſſion of his Divinity than if the name God had been given him in the Article. For this would not have ſatisfy'd theſe Gentlemen. They would have been apt to ſay ſtill that the firſt Article is ſpoken of him who is only and eminently God, and the ſecond, or third of a God by deputation, of one not truly God, but only honour'd with the title of God. This would not have remov'd the objection, nor prevented that of the Tritheiſts, who ſeeing every Perſon in the Creed nam'd, God, would have concluded not a Trinity of Perſons in one God, but Three real Gods. Whereas the All-wiſe God has effectually obviated this, by propoſing the Divine Nature to our belief, I believe in God, in which Three Perſons ſubſiſt: The Father who is Maker of Heaven and Earth, His only Son who is our Lord, and the Holy Spirit who Sancti ies the Catholick Church.

This expreſſion the only Son, or the only begotten, is a ſtop to all thoſe exceptions. For he cannot be a deputed God who is a Son, an only Son, begotten, as the Fathers and Councils expreſs it, of the ſubſtance of the Father. He muſt be God of God, very God of very God. The Eternal God of the Eternal God. This ſuppos'd, there is no objection can be pretended. God cannot have a Son but it muſt be by a communication of his ſubſtance. An Eternal being cannot communicate it ſelf, as we mortals do, within the meaſures and ſucceſſions of time. A mortal begets another mortal; He can give no other ſubſtance then what he has. An Eternal being gives what he is himſelf, an Eternal and Divine being. This leads to the true ſence of Col. 1.15. 2. Cor. 4.4. Heb. 1.3. where Chriſt is call'd the image of God, the brightneſs of his glory, the expreſs image of his Perſon. Texts ſo reverenc't by the Fathers of the Chriſtian Church, and ſo abus'd by Socinus and the Author of the Brief Hiſt. pag. 38. who ſays, That thoſe Texts are demonſtrations that Chriſt is not God, it being ſimply impoſſible that the image ſhould be the very being, or thing whoſe image it is. Were this reaſoning true, which is a meer Sophiſm to reaſon of an Eternal and Increated Being, by the rules of things mortal and created, it can reach to no more than this, that the Son is not the Father, becauſe he is the expreſs Image of his Perſon, which is true; but at the ſame time it proves, that becauſe he is his Image, he muſt have a communication of his ſubſtance, becauſe he is his only Image, as he is his only begotten Son.

But ſay theſe Gentlemen, you run on, but ſtill you ſuppoſe the thing to be prov'd. We agree that Chriſt is the only Son our Lord: but we deny that the only begotten implies a communication of ſubſtance. Chriſt, ſays the Authour of the Brief Hiſt. pag. 28. is call'd the only begotten, on ſeveral accounts. This eſpecially, that he only was begotten by the Divine Power on a Woman. He is the only begotten, ſays Chrellius, becauſe of all the Sons of God he is the beſt, and moſt dear to him.

Time is too precious to ſpend it in anſwering ſuch things as theſe are. The Interpretation of Chrellius is trifling; and that of the Brief Hiſt. is abſurd. God is a Father antecedently to the Creation of the World. God is not the Father of Chriſt, but as he is the Father of the word who aſſum'd our nature. Had there been nothing created, there would have been ſtill a Father, and Father of it ſelf ſuppoſes a Son. If the Father is from ever, the Son is from ever. Theſe ancient aſſertions of the Primitive Fathers deſtroy the notion of theſe Gentlemen of the only begotten. A notion ſo ſtrange, ſo new, ſo contrary to the language of Scripture, and to that of the Church, that the Old Hereticks durſt never offer at it.

It ruines the difference between Chriſt and the reſt of men. For we are all the Sons of God. Nay, we can no more be the Sons of God, being only Sons of God by adoption, and only adopted in Chriſt Jeſus, who if he is adopted himſelf, and only a Coheir with us, as we are Coheirs with him, there is no more adoption, the great bleſſing of Chriſtianity. Now if Chriſt is the only begotten of the Father, by reaſon of his being conceiv'd of a Woman by the Divine Power, it is viſible that he is no more than an adopted Son as we are. This ſecond Adam has no more of the Divine Nature than the firſt, who was made of the Earth by the Divine power, as the other was made of a Woman, and was only an adopted Son. Whereas the Scripture is ſo careful to diſtinguiſh between us the adopted Sons, and that Son who is not adopted; and is call'd the true Son, the only Son, his own Son, his only begotten Son, that Son who is ſent, Gal. 4.4. that we might receive the adoption of Sons.

It offers violence to theſe Texts, to which the Author of the Brief Hiſt. has done the advantage to ſhew that they are proofs againſt all the Turns of Wit, Joh. 10.30. I and my Father are one. Joh. 7.29. I know him, for I am from him. Joh. 10.38. The Father is in me, and I in him: I came out from the Father; and to all the unanimous confeſſions in the Goſpel, Thou are the Chriſt the Son of the living God.

I commend this Author to have in this place given an anſwer without a reaſon to ſupport it. He has in this as in other places evaded and ſhifted the difficulty. He ſees what ſtraights his Explication of the only begotten is lyable to, and too much modeſty to have laid down the pretended reaſons of his Friends. They would put a ſober Philoſopher to the bluſh. I cannot without Horror read Smalcius de vero & natur. dei fil. And all that can be ſaid to this, is what St. Auſtin ſaid almoſt on the ſame account, that it is Sceleratiſſima opinio, a moſt execrable opinion. Serm. 191. de temp.

I will multiply no more Arguments on this ſubject, the places alledg'd being ſo full and forcible, and the ſhifts of theſe Gentlemen ſo viſible, that it is enough to perſwade any equitable perſon. I paſs to the ſecond part of the aſſertion, that the name of God is given to the Saviour after a manner applicable to no creature. I will not lay down the rules which the Socinians have invented to diſcern when the word God muſt be underſtood of that God who is ſo by nature, and of the deputed God, who is only ſo by Office. They are Criticiſms for the moſt part falſe, and always little and uncertain.

I humbly conceive that, 1 Tim. 3.16. is ſpoken of the God by nature. And without controverſy great is the Myſtery of Godlineſs: God was manifeſt in the Fleſh, juſtify'd in the ſpirit, ſeen of Angels, preach't to the Gentiles, believ'd on in the world receiv'd up into Glory. I humbly conceive alſo that every word of this is accompliſh't in Chriſt Jeſus, and that this Text is an Epitome of the Goſpel. God was manifeſt in the Fleſh, is the explication of Joh. 1.1. and the word was made Fleſh. Juſtify'd in the ſpirit, is the explication of Matt. 3.16, 17. and lo the Heavens were open'd, and the ſpirit of God deſcending ... and lo a voice from Heaven, this is my beloved Son. Seen of Angels, is the explication of Matt. 4.11. and behold Angels came and Miniſter'd to him. Preach't to the Gentiles, is the explication of Matt. 28.18. Teach all nations. Believ'd on in the World, is the explication of Joh. 6.69. and many places of this nature. Receiv'd up into Glory, is the Explication of Mark 16.19. He was receiv'd up into Heaven. This Text is expreſs for the Incarnation, and the Union of the two Natures. A Myſtery truly great and incomprehenſible, God made Man! An admirable inſtance of the love of God to us, and a moſt powerfull motive of our Obedience to him.

Theſe Gentlemen have made two ſorts of Objections to this. The one they have taken from Chrellius and their other profeſs't Friends, the other from Eraſmus and Grotius. For the 1ſt, the Author of the Brief Hiſt. pag. 40. ſays, That if we will make ſence of this Text, we muſt tranſlate, Great is the Myſtery of Godlineſs, God was manifeſted by Fleſh, i. e. God's nature and will was manifeſted by Fleſh; that is, by Man, by Jeſus Chriſt and his Apoſtles to us Gentiles. Was juſtify'd in the ſpirit, i. e. the ſame will and nature of God was verify'd by miracles done by the ſpirit or power of God. Was ſeen of Angels, i. e. was known to the Angels who were deſirous to underſtand this new revelation. Believ'd on in the world, receiv'd with Glory, or Gloriouſly, and not receiv'd up into Glory. The Author of the Anſwer to Mr. Milbourn, ſays, That by Godwe may underſtand here, as in divers other Texts the Trinitarians themſelves do, not the Perſon, but the will and mind of God. This was manifeſted to us by Fleſh, that is by Chriſt and his Apoſtles. They have as much reaſon to tranſlate by inſtead of in Fleſh, as we have to tranſlate by the ſpirit, inſtead of, in the ſpirit. It ought not to be tranſlated receiv'd up into Glory, but receiv'd gloriouſly, i. e. extoll'd, magnify'd, lifted up. He gives this reaſon for underſtanding the word God not of God himſelf, but of his will and mind, that we interpret it thus, Gal. 1.10. do I now perſwade men or God? Do I ſeek to perſwade human invention ..... or the very will and commands of God?

Thus ſilly and bold Criticiſms are made uſe of to undermine the Chriſtian Faith. The poverty of this new tranſlation will be evident from this very obſervation, that God to expreſs the mind and the will of God is a dialect which they may have us'd themſelves to but is wholly unknown and unpractis'd in Scripture. They are deſir'd to give any one ſingle inſtance of it, but clear, plain, and lyable to no exception. Gal. 1.10. is far from being of that nature. Men, do not ſignify there human inventions, nor God, the will and commands of God. The Generality of Interpreters and indeed the nature of the thing it ſelf leading us to this ſence of the place: Do I ſeek to approve my ſelf to men, or to od? ..... For if yet I pleas'd men, I ſhould not be the Servant of Chriſt.

Their tranſlating 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , by Fleſh, is contrary to the original, to the Faith of all tranſlations, and to the ſence of Manknd. The reaſon which they give for it, that we tranſlate 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by the ſpirit, is wholly falſe. But the laſt part of this Text, receiv'd gloriouſly, that is, as they ſay, extoll'd, magnify'd, and not receiv'd up into glory, is an inſufferable attempt on the Eyes and ſence of men. They ſhould have imitated Eraſmus, who having ſtrain'd as much as poſſible every part of this Text, was ſo ſtruck with the evidence of this laſt expreſſion, that though a great Wit and a great Critick he thought it the beſt way to let it alone and ſay nothing to it. He ſaw clearly that the will and mind of God taken up to Heaven is a barbarous way of expreſſion. He was ſenſible that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the dialect of the Scripture, Mark 16.19. Act. 1.11. Act. 1.22. is an actual, real, perſonal being taken up of Chriſt into Heaven. He knew that this is the language of both the Teſtaments, and that the ſame is us'd of Enoch, of Moſes and of Elias.

The firſt part then of their anſwer is not ſolid, and if they had no more to ſay than this they muſt be look't upon as unreaſonable and obſtinate men. Indeed the Author of the Anſwer to Mr. Milbourn has made a pretty paraphraſe, and very intelligible. It has only that unhappineſs that he has given us his ſence and not the ſence of the Apoſtle, and abſolutely departed from the truth and meaning of the Text, which a Paraphraſt ought not to do. It is very diverting to read theſe Gentlemen's Paraphraſes: They make what words they will, and give them what ſence they pleaſe. Then they muſter all up, and end in a pretty Speech.

What they have borrow'd of Grotius conſiſts in this, That the word God is not in the Text. Brief Hiſt. pag. 44. This appears by the Syriack, Latin, Ethiopick, Armenian, Arabick, and moſt ancient Greek Bibles, by great many citations out of the Greek and Latin Fathers, who read not God was manifeſted, but which was manifeſted. Macedonius was the firſt who corrupted this Text, by ſubſtituting the word God, inſtead of the word which, and for this and other matters he was depos'd by the Emperour Anaſtaſius, about the Year 512. The Anſwerer to Mr. Milbourn, pag. 2, & 3. ſays, That the Latin, Syriack, and Armenian Tranſlations, the Council of Nice, and St. Jerom himſelf, a bigotted Trinitarian, read which, and not God. Eraſmus ſays, that Multa vetera exemplaria, many (but not very many, as the anſwerer has tranſlated it) of the ancient Copies read which, a reading approv'd by Eraſmus himſelf. Grotius cites Hincmarus Archbiſhop of Rhemes, ſaying that the Neſtorians ſubſtituted God in the room of which, the better to defend themſelves from the Eutychians. Liberatus the Archdeacon of Carthage aſſures us, that Macedonius was depos'd for ſo doing. This, and ſome heats againſt Mr. Milbourn, is the ſum of what he has to ſay.

What Eraſmus ſays of his many, or as this Author will have it, very many ancient Greek Copies that read which and not God, with the leave of that great Man, is a real miſtake. Beza examining himſelf this very place of Eraſmus, anſwers plainly, Verum repugnant perpetuo conſenſu omnes Graeci codices. But All the Greek Copies with an univerſal conſent give him the lye. All the Greek Copies do agree in the word God, ſays one of the beſt and moſt learned Prelates this Nation ever had. The joint conſent, ſays he in another place, of the Greek Copies and Interpreters are above the Authority of theſe two Tranſlations; He means the Latin and Syriack.

But to examine this moſt particularly; Grotius does not condemn, or reject, but only inſinuates that he has ſome cauſe to ſuſpect the reading, God. The Latin Interpreter as the moſt ancient is the great objection, for all the reſt, Armenian, Ethiopick, Arabick, are names ſerve only to fill the Page, and make the ſimple Reader to ſtare. But it will prove at laſt no Objection. For if a thouſand Tranſlations read contrary to the Original Text, we ought not to depart from it, if the Text is true, genuine, and indiſputable. But it is not ſo, replies the Author. Grotius affirms, that Hincmarus, a Prelate ſo famous in his time, is poſitive, that the word God was thruſt into the Text by the Neſtorians, and in particular by Macedonius, who corrupted the ſincere reading of that very place.

I never ſaw either Mr. Milbourn, or his Book, but he might have told his Anſwerer that Grotius is ſtrangely miſtaken, and ſo muſt the Learned Prelate be whom he has cited. All the World cannot make me apprehend how the Neſtorians ſhould thruſt the word, God, into a Text by which they ruin'd themſelves and their Doctrines to all intents and purpoſes. Neſtorius, ſays this very Author in his Anſwer to the late Archbiſhop, pag. 61. ſaid, That God was not Hypoſtatically united, or after the manner of a Perſon, to the Man Chriſt Jeſus. But only dwelt in him by a more plentiful effuſion, or exertion of the Divine Preſence and Attributes, than in former Prophets. This led him to ſay, that our Saviour ought to be call'd Chriſt, and not God. He deny'd that he could call him God, &c. I ask then, How it can be conceiv'd, that it ſhould come into the head of the Neſtorians, to change the Particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which, the only thing that could favour their Doctrine, into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , God, the only word that could ruine it. Is it rational to think, that a Sect of men who are profeſſedly bent againſt the Incarnation of Chriſt, ſhall alter a plain Text to put in a word which will make it undiſputable? Will it be believ'd in the next Age, if Socinianiſm is ſo long liv'd, that the Socinians would alter a Text which does not prove the Divinity of Chriſt, and add words to it, by which it may clearly be prov'd?

It is a great miſtake to ſay that Macedonius was turn'd out of the Sea of Conſtantinople for falſifying this Text. It is true that Anaſtaſius turn'd him out, but it does not appear that it was upon any ſuch account. That that makes this to be undeniable is, that this Text is read by the Fathers with the word God, before Macedonius was born, and even long before the Hereſy of Neſtorius. St. Chryſoſtom Patriarch himſelf of Conſtantinople long before Neſtorius reads in this place God was manifeſted, &c. So does Theodoret, ſo does St. Cyril, even againſt this very Neſtorius, ſo do ſeveral other Fathers, too tedious to inſert. I will add, that whoever reads attentively the place of Hincmarus which theſe Gentlemen have not cited, but is Opuſc. 55. cap. 18. & Liberatus cap. 19. and he will find even in their own account the addition of the word God to have been impoſſible.

Another Objection is that of the Council of Nice, of next Authority with us, ſays the Author, and with a great deal of truth, to the ſacred Scriptures. One having repeated this Text with the word God taken probably out of ſome Marginal note, where he found the word God, put as an Explanation of the word, which in the Text, was anſwer'd by Macarius Biſhop of Jeruſalem, that he miſtook the reading, the words being which was manifeſted in the fleſh. This makes nothing againſt us. It proves that this reading was ancienter than the Council of Nice. It proves, if the Author's wild conjecture may be admitted, that if there was even any Copy where the word God was not, that the which by the force of the following parts of the Verſe, and the ſence of that age having put to it that marginal note, was to be underſtood of God. It proves that the Arrians had begun early to corrupt thoſe Texts which were plaineſt for the Divinity of Chriſt. Had this Author ſhew'd, that upon this allegation of Macarius, the ſacred Council had rejected this Text, it would have been of ſome weight; but the miſtake of that Biſhop appears by the unanimous conſent of the Greek Fathers uſing this Text with the word God, in the time of, and after the Council.

But even in the Latin Church where the Interpreter reads which, The Fathers underſtood that Myſtery, which the Apoſtle calls confeſſedly ſo great, of the Incarnation of Jeſus Chriſt. Nor is the aſſumptum eſt in gloria, of the vulgar Latin, taken up into Glory, capable of any other ſence. Theſe Gentlemen have a great diſadvantage, that when they have never ſo finely ſhap't an interpretation, and put it in never ſo pretty a dreſs, not only the new but alſo the old Chriſtian World riſes againſt it. It was the wiſh no doubt of a good Man, that his Soul might reſt with the Philoſophers. Let mine reſt with the Primitive Fathers, and Councils of the Church. In all Arts and Sciences, the further we go, the greater are our improvements, But in the caſe of Religion, the nearer we return to the Spring, the more purity and truth we meet with.

Rom. 9.5. is another ſtaring Text. Whoſe are the Fathers, and of whom as concerning the fleſh Chriſt came, who is over all God bleſſed for ever, Amen. That the title of bleſſed over all for ever is only due, and was only given to the Almighty, is evident from the Old and New Teſtament, and the conſtant practices of Jews and Chriſtians. If the word, God, was not in this Text it would loſe nothing of its force; The bleſſed over all implying with all the Jewiſh Doctors that Eſſential Happineſs, that Abſolute Dominion, that Incomprehenſible Greatneſs which belong to none but him who is God by nature. But ſince all this is ſaid of Chriſt in plain and expreſs words, the conſequence is eaſy, he muſt be that God. Should all Mankind conſpire to find words clear and poſitive to repreſent the two natures, and God made Man, they muſt come ſhort of this Apoſtle, who ſhews the one in this part of the Text, of whom as concerning the Fleſh Chriſt came, and the other in that, who is over all God bleſſed for ever. Proclus in his Book de fid. looks on this Text alone, as a confutation of all the Hereſies concerning Chriſt. Athanaſius and the Catholick Fathers urg'd it with vehemence againſt the Arrians. Theophilact the great Admirer, and even the Tranſcriber of St. Chryſoſtom, ſays in this place, that St. Paul by Proclaiming Chriſt God over all, has publiſht the ſhame of Arrius who deny'd it, to all the World.

The Author of the Brief Hiſt. pag. 35. ſays to this. 1ſt, That it is very probable by the Syriack, and ſome paſſages in Ignatius, and other Fathers, that the word, God, was not originally in this Text. For they read it without. 2ly, Admitting the reading in the vulgar Editions of the Greek, Eraſmus and Curcellaeus obſerve that it ſhould have been thus tranſlated; Of whom as concerning the Fleſh Chriſt came; God who is over all be bleſſed for ever. 3ly, That theſe words, according to the Fleſh, or concerning the Fleſh, never ſignify according to his human nature, as if he had alſo a Divine Nature, Rom. 9.3. My Kinſman according to the Fleſh, Rom. 4.1. Abraham our Father as pertaining to the Fleſh. Coloſſ. 3.22. Servants obey in all things your Maſters according to the Fleſh. Which places do not ſuppoſe that they had a Divine Nature, but only mean that Abraham is the Father of the Jews, according to their Bodies, as God is the Father of their Souls and Spirits. Therefore the meaning can only be, that according to the body, Chriſt deſcended from Abraham and David.

This laſt part of the Anſwer is perfectly Socinian. The ſecond he has borrow'd of Eraſmus, and the firſt of Grotius. The Author of the Anſwer to Mr. Milbourn ſays the ſame things. He adds, That Mr. Milbourn might have taken notice out of Grotius, that the Greek Copies us'd by the Author of the Syriack had not the word God. They only ſay the bleſſed over all. That the ſame Illuſtrious Interpreter obſerves that Eraſmus had noted, that the Copies of St. Cyprian, Chryſoſtom, Hilary, had only, the Bleſſed over all, without the word God. Then the Anſwerer grows angry. Theſe are, ſays he, Obſervations which deſtroy our Author's Arguments from this Text. But becauſe he knew not what to ſay to them, he took no notice of them. It is an impious thing for a Writer to endeavour to cheat his Reader in ſuch queſtions as theſe. When it appears by ſuch great Authorities, that the ancient reading was otherwiſe, or various, or uncertain; how can ſuch Texts be admitted as proofs in ſo great a queſtion as this?

At laſt he gives the reaſon why Eraſmus has made a Tranſlation contrary to all the Tranſlations in the World, becauſe he obſerves, that if the words God over all, had been intended of Chriſt, the Apoſtle ſhould have ſaid 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . I doubt not, ſays he, that our Author was aware that thoſe Criticks were in the right, and therefore he willingly overlook't both the Tranſlation and the reaſon of it. Thus far this Author, pag. 34.35. of his Anſwer. This is indeed very ſevere, and much exceeding the bounds of common civility; but ſtrangely barbarous, if all this is made to appear to be trifling and inconſiderable.

1ſt, This Gentlemen who chid Mr. Milbourn for not taking notice out of the Illuſtrious Grotius, that the word God is not in the Syriack, ſhould not have truſted Grotius, who is really miſtaken in this; but ſhould have gone to the Syraick it ſelf, and there would have found the word, God. He ſhould have ſeen alſo that he was deceiv'd by Grotius, as Grotius was by Eraſmus, an Illuſtrious Perſon often deceiving another, about St. Cyprian, St. Chryſoſtom, and St. Hilary. For ſeveral Copies of St. Cyprian read the word, God. And that that demonſtrates beyond the poſſibility of denyal, that if it is not in ſome Copies, it muſt have been the fault of the Tranſcriber, is this, that St. Cyprian makes uſe of this Text lib. 2. adv. Jud. and brings into the Catalogue of thoſe Texts which call Chriſt od. He had it from Tertullian diſputing againſt Praxeas and alledging this Text twice; a thing ordinary to St. Cyprian, who us'd to call the learned African his Maſter. This ſhews by the way, how theſe Gentlemen can aſſure that the Antenicene Fathers did not believe Chriſt to be God. Eraſmus has alſo miſtaken St. Chryſoſtom, who is ſo far from reading, the bleſſed over all, without, God, that in his Expoſition he reads neither the one nor the other, but both when he cites this Text. But for St. Hilary, I am amaz'd to hear his Authority diſputed who has not only cited this Text with the words, God bleſſed over all, but added an Explication to it, which is levell'd againſt the very Soul of Socinianiſm, the beloved notion of a deputed, or of a made God. Non ignorat Paulus Chriſtum Deum, dicens, quorum ſunt Patres, & ex quibus Chriſtus qui eſt ſuper omnia Deus. Non hic Creatura in Deum deputatur, ſed Creaturarum Deus eſt qui ſuper omnia Deus. Paul is not ignorant that Chriſt is God, who ſays, whoſe are the Fathers, and of whom Chriſt came who is God over all. Here a Creature is not a deputed God, but he is the God of Creatures, who is God over all. Hil. de Trin.

The Author of the Brief Hiſt. was ſenſible of this, and modeſtly declin'd the naming of theſe Fathers. But how could Mr. Milbourn's Adverſary ſo ſeverely reflect upon him when he himſelf was certainly in the wrong? May I ſpeak to him in his own words: either he knew all this, or he did not. If he did not, how could he call a reading various and uncertain, when their is none ſo clear, and ſo free from exceptions; and if he did, how could he have the Conſcience to do it?

But admitting that God is not in the Text, what then? The ſtreſs of the Argument does not lye in the word God, which theſe Gentlemen underſtand as they pleaſe, but in the word bleſſed over all, which belongs to none but God. Mark. 14.61. Art thou the Chriſt, the Son of the bleſſed? By which word bleſſed the the High-Prieſt underſtands in the dialect of the Jews, the Holy one, the Almighty, the only true God. Rom. 1.25. and 11.36. 2. Cor. 11.31. Gal. 1.5. 1 Tim. 1.7. in all which places and great many more is a perpetual acknowledgement of that Eternal Glory which is God's, and infinitely tranſcends any Created Being. Nor can there be a more ſubſtantial proof of the Divinity of Chriſt, than this, that that Glory is given him, as in this Text, which by the unanimous conſent of the Scriptures is given only to God. Heb. 13.22. 1 Pet. 4.11. and 5.11. 2 Pet. 3.18. Rev. 1.6.

2ly, The punctuation of Eraſmus and Curcellaeus, and the addition of the word be, is a bold and preſumptuous attempt, unknown to all Antiquity, and which the Arrians themſelves never thought of. If this liberty is granted there is not a place in Scripture but what may be perverted; men muſt leave off to talk and reaſon. There can be no Faith, no candor left in diſputes. The honeſteſt diſcourſe by the means of a different punctuation of the words may be made obſcure and infamous. But it is the ſickneſs of theſe Gentlemen; The Bible will not ſay, what they would have it to ſay, and therefore they muſt add Particles, and Comma's, and alter an order which ought to be Sacred and inviolable. But after all this, the Criticiſm, ſays Beza, on this place is little and ſilly. It is known to any one who has the ſmalleſt tincture of the Greek Tongue, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 with a Participle is the ſame as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . He ſends Eraſmus for this to School; and this uſe of the Greek Tongue I take to be the reaſon that neither Aſterius the Grammarian, nor the other Arrians who underſtood the extent of their own language ever made this exception.

3ly, That theſe words concerning the Fleſh, do no more ſuppoſe a Divine nature in Chriſt, than in Abraham, theſe Gentlemen are not pleas'd to obſerve that there is in the Text an actual compariſon of two natures; of Chriſt as Man, and of Chriſt who is God bleſſed over all; of Chriſt who in the firſt capacity is deſcended from the Jews, and is a Jew according to the Fleſh: and of Chriſt who in the other has a communication of the Divine Nature, and is God bleſſed over all. It is eaſy to ſee, ſays the Author of the Anſwer to Mr Milbourn, that theſe expreſſions in the places cited by him, are only as much as to ſay, according to the Body. I grant it. But I affirm, that it is eaſy to ſee that the Apoſtle ſpeaks in thoſe places Abſolutely, and without relation to any thing elſe; and that here he ſpeaks relatively to another being which Chriſt has. This appears not only from the thing it ſelf where there is an obvious compariſon; but from the very way of expreſſing of the Greek, which our language cannot reach. In all the places cited by theſe Gentlemen, according to the Fleſh is expreſs'd without any Article, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to determine it to any ſence than what really it has. But when this is ſay'd of Chriſt, There the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , by which it is compar'd to ſomewhat elſe. The Apoſtle has it clearly, Rom. 1.2, and 3. made according to the Fleſh; where the Fleſh does not ſignify the body, as the places which they have cited to elude the force of this Text; but the humane nature of Chriſt, in oppoſition to theſe words, according to the Spirit of Holineſs, by which the Divine is expreſs'd. This explication is of St. Chryſoſtom on this place, Theodoret, and long before of Tertullian adv. Prax. Made of the ſeed of David, according to the Fleſh, ſays that Father, Here is the man, and the Son of man. And declar'd to be the Son of God, according to the Holy Spirit. Hic eſt Deus & ſermo Dei filius. This is the God, and the word the Son of God. This was the Divinity of Tertullian's time before the Council of Nice.

Having done with this Text, I paſs to Act. 20.28. St. Paul taking his leave of the Aſian Biſhops, exhorts them pathetically to that diligence and care which is the ſource of all Paſtoral Vertues. He urges it on theſe two Motives; 1ſt, That they have receiv'd their power from the Holy Ghoſt. 2ly, That the Church which he exhorts them to feed, is the Church for which God has been pleas'd to dye. Feed the Church of God which he has purchas'd with his own blood. This is ſpoken of a God by nature, ſince according to the Socinian Rule God is nam'd here with an Article. It is not only a God, but the God. He has purchas'd to himſelf a Church, he has bought us with a price; and becauſe without remiſſion of Sin there is no redemption, and there is no remiſſion without blood, he has purchas'd us with blood. But the blood of Goats and Calves, the blood of others being of it ſelf ineffectual, and only Figurative, he has ſhed his own blood for us. This cannot be ſay'd of the Father who theſe Gentlemen deny and with a great deal of reaſon to have ſuffer'd. Nor can it be aſſerted of the Holy Spirit, ſince they aſſure him to be only a power, and an energy; and it is ridiculous to ſay, that an energy ſhed his own blood. In can be ſay'd of none but the Son, who having taken our nature upon him became our Mediator, and High-Prieſt, and by his own blood, that blood which he ſhed for the Church, obtain'd eternal redemption for us. But that High-Prieſt, that Mediator, that Chriſt, is ſay'd to be the God; therefore he muſt be partaker of the Divine Nature; and ſince the Father is the God, and he is alſo the God, there muſt be more perſons than one ſubſiſting in the Deity.

This is deciding and concluſive. Yet the Author of the Brief Hiſt. pag. 34. makes theſe exceptions. 1ſt, That in the Armenian, Syriack, and the moſt ancient of the Greek Bibles, the reading is not the Church of God, but of Chriſt. 2ly, That admitting the reading God in the vulgar Editions of the Greek, yet ſome great Maſters of the Greek Tongue have render'd the Greek words thus. Feed the Church of God which he has purchas'd with his own Son's blood. 3ly, That admitting the Tranſlation in our Engliſh Bibles, ſome learned men, particularly Eraſmus, have noted, that the blood of Chriſt is here call'd the blood of God, becauſe it was the blood which God gave for the redemption of the World: ſo Joh 1.36. This is the lamb of God, that is, the lamb of Sacrifice which God gives for the ſins of the world.

Theſe Gentlemen have the misfortune to call every thing an Anſwer. 1ſt, It is true that in ſome Copies theſe words have been read with ſome alteration, but nothing at all to their purpoſe; ſome few have read, the Churc of the Lord, others, the Church of the Lord and God; but none the Church of Chriſt. They will much oblige the Common-wealth of Learning, if they will produce any of theſe beſt and moſt ancient Copies. A very learned Man of this Age has pretended to prove, that the Church of Chriſt is not the language of the Scripture; and that when the Church is ſpoken of, by way of eminence, as it is in this Text, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , The Church, it is often ſay'd to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , The Church of God, but never the Church of Chriſt: And this Criticiſm they will find true, if they give themſelves the trouble to examine it. The Syriack Interpreter is rather an Expoſitor than a Tranſlator: The Latin who is wholly a Tranſlator and not an Expoſitor reads Eccleſiam Dei, The Church of God.

The ſecond part of their Anſwer that ſome great Maſters of the Greek Tongue have render'd, his own Son's blood, inſtead of his own blood, is a crying, notorious, and unpardonable falſification of a Text. What will be the end of our diſputes, if when we are preſs'd with the undenyable evidence of a Scripture, we preſume to add words to it, and uſher in that Sacrilegious attempt upon the word of God, with ſaying, ſome great Maſters of the Greek Tongue? When theſe Gentlemen talk of Syriack, Arabick, Coptick, Armenian, they may eaſily impoſe upon the ſimple; but for Greek which is common to all profeſſions in this Kingdom, to tell us, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , with his own proper blood, is with his Son's blood; to make the falſification Authentick by Attributing it to the great Maſters of the Greek Tongue, and call this an Anſwer to a ſolid Objection is a piece of an Incomprehenſible Confidence.

3ly, Socinus and Chrellius were more dexterous; who being preſs'd by this Text very fairly lay'd aſide the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , own, wherein lyes the ſtreſs of the Argument; but call'd it as Eraſmus has done, the blood of God the Father; that is, the blood which God gave for the redemption of the World. They muſt forgive me, if I ſay that this is a meer trifle. God's own Lamb is the Lamb of God. God's own Son, is the Son of God. And God's own blood is the blood of him who is God.

Tit. 2.13 was urg'd by the Fathers againſt the Arrians, as a clear proof of the Divinity of Chriſt, Looking for that bleſſed hope and the glorious appearing of the Great God, and our Saviour Jeſus Chriſt.

The Author of the Brief Hiſtor. pag.—ſays to this, 1ſt. That nothing hinders that we may believe that not only the Lord Chriſt, but God himſelf will appear at the laſt judgment. 2ly, That the Glory of the Great God, is the Pomp, Power and Angels that God even the Father will cauſe to accompany Chriſt in that day. Matt. 16.27. The Son ſhall appear in the Glory of his Father with his, the Father's Angels.

The firſt of theſe two aſſertions is contrary to the Goſpel, Joh. 5.22. The Father judges no man, but has committed all judgment to the Son. The ſecond is as contrary as the firſt, Matt. 25.31. When the Son of man ſhall come in his Glory .... Then ſhall he ſit upon the Throne of his Glory.

But all this is nothing to the purpoſe, and diverts inſtead of reſolving the queſtion. The only difficulty which can be propos'd the Author of the Hiſtory has declin'd. We prove from this Text that the Great God and our Saviour Jeſus Chriſt is the ſame Perſon. That the Great God and Saviour are predicated, or ſay'd of Chriſt. This ought to have been deny'd, and reaſons given for it; and this would have been to the purpoſe. But This Author ſaw it was not poſſible, and that the Greek dialect excludes in this place all the little Criticiſms which come in heaps in other places. I wonder that thoſe great Maſters of the Greek Tongue, who did preſume in the Text diſputed of before this, to put the blood of his own Son, in the room of his own blood, have not here added an Article, and read, The Great God and the Saviour J. C. and pretended ſome ancient Copies, that Curcellaeus, or ſome body elſe had ſeen. This Text then is undoubtedly ours. The Great God and Saviour of us, is the ſame way of ſpeaking as The God and Father of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, The conjunctive Particle which unites God and Father, uniting alſo God and Saviour. Nor can they ſo much as dream here of a deputed God; ſince there is an Article here, and the Epithet Great added to it.

But nothing ſhews ſo much how far theſe Gentlemen are prejudic'd againſt the plaineſt evidence, than their anſwers to Joh. 20.28. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . The Lord of me, and the God of me. Socinus, ſays the Author of the Anſwer to Mr. Milbourn, pag. 32, and 34. with two more learned Unitarians contend, That it was the intention of Thomas to call our Saviour His Lord, and his God, but it is in no other ſenſe than Solomon, Pſ. 45. Moſes, and Samuel. That God is us'd amongſt the Eaſtern People, as the word Lord is us'd amongſt us, who do not deſign to make a Man a God becauſe we ſpeak to him with a name which we alſo uſe to God. Yet though this comes from Socinus, this Author is not willing to ſtand to it. He ſays, This interpretation is likely to be true, but that divers learned Perſons amongſt their Oppoſers, and even of old Neſtorius and Theodore of Mopſweſt were of opinion, that My Lord, and My God, are only words of admiration and thanks, directed not to our Saviour, but to God. They are an exclamation expreſſing the Apoſtle's amazement to find his Maſter was riſen. He ſends us to the Brief Hiſtory.

The Author of that Hiſtory is ſo little taken with the deputed God of Socinus, that he has not one Syllable of it. He ſays, pag. 32. That Neſtorius was of opinion that the words were not deſign'd to Chriſt, but to God. For though the Evangeliſt ſays, Thomas anſwer'd and ſay'd to him, yet the exclamation might be adreſs'd to God, as its object, and the anſwer, to our Saviour. ...... It may be admitted as true what others ſay. O my Lord, are words of congratulation to our Saviour, O my God, words of admiration and praiſe to God.

Thus theſe Gentlemen cut and ſlaſh the Scripture, and ſhew how men who depart from the truth, are inconſiſtent with themſelves. Socinus overcome by the evidence of the thing, acknowledges the words to be ſpoken to Chriſt, but contrary to his own rule, though the words are with an Article and ſo muſt belong to the true God, will have them to be underſtood of a deputed God, or a God by Office. Neſtorius, Theodore and theſe Gentlemen are convinc't that the God ſpoken of here, is the Almighty. But though the Text expreſsly ſays, and homas anſwer'd and ſay'd to him, My Lord, and My God, yet it muſt not be to him, but to God himſelf. They ſeparate what the ſpirit of God has join'd; and though it is as clear as the Sun, that the word, My God, is ſay'd to him to whom the word My Lord is ſpoken, being both join'd by the Particle and, yet this will not do, one part muſt be a Compliment to Chriſt, the other a Prayer to God.

Theſe Gentlemen would fain have new Bibles. The Author of the Anſwer to My Lord of Sarum, pag. 30. There will be no need of our Anſwers, or Defences, if there were but an honeſt Edition of the Bible. ..... We have no reform'd Bibles, none that have been corrected to ſpeak the Doctrines of the Church, rather than of the Goſpel. But 'tis above 1200 Years that others have been Modelling the common Bibles, by the Doctrines, and Articles of our Holy Mother Church. I think they do not ask enough. I would have them alſo find out a new Language, new ways for men to expreſs themſelves by. I would have them procure an Act of Parliament by which it ſhall be Enacted, that to Anſwer, and to ſpeak to a Man, ſhall not be to anſwer, and to ſpeak to him, but to ſome body elſe. I would have them take ſuch vulgar notions as theſe out of men's heads, and create in them new methods of thinking and receving impreſſions from what they hear, by being perſwaded that though they receive an anſwer, yet it is not to them that it is given. Truly had I been in the Fifth General Council, where this anſwer of Theodore was condemn'd by the Fathers, ſyn. 5. coll. 4. I would not only have Anathematis'd the Impiety, but alſo the folly and impertinence of the Opinion. Theſe two anſwers then invincibly conſute one another. S cinus confutes that part which would not have the words to be ſpoken to the Saviour; and theſe Gentlemen confute that part which makes the God who is ſpoken to, to be a deputed God. They lead us to the true ſence of this Text, that Thomas an Apoſtle has fully acknowledg'd that Chriſt is truly, and really God.

This Text has the advantage that it is unconteſted, and come down to us without the leaſt alteration. All is plain and clear in it. The reſurection of Chriſt was deny'd by Thomas. His incredulity, ſays elegantly St. Auſtin, was more uſeful to the Church, than the Faith of the other Apoſtles. He proteſted that except he ſaw in his hands the prints of the nails, &c. he would not believe. The merciful Saviour condeſcends to let him make the Experiment which draws preſently that noble confeſſion of his Faith, My Lord, and My God: Which is the ſame as if he had ſay'd, I believe that thou art my Lord and my God. This interpretation is evident; 1ſt, By the words of Chriſt in the next Verſe, where the Saviour takes no kind of notice of any Admiration, or Exclamation, as theſe Gentlemen would have it, but only replies to that profeſſion of his Faith, Becauſe thou haſt ſeen Me thou haſt believ'd; and lays down this Maxim the comfort of Chriſtians in all ſucceeding Ages; Bleſſed are they that have not ſeen, and yet have believ'd. 2ly, The laſt Verſe of this Chapter intimates that this Hiſtory is written, that by that Zealous confeſſion of his Faith, we might alſo be induc'd to believe, v. 31. But theſe things are written that you might believe that Jeſus is the Chriſt, the Son of God. 3ly, The reſurrection of Chriſt was to be a proof of his Divinity. Rom, 1.4. declar'd to be the Son of God with power .... by the reſurrection from the dead. It was not by being riſen from the dead that Jeſus was the Son of God: But his reſurrection was a Declaration to all Mankind, that he was ſo; and therefore Thomas being ſatisfy'd of his Reſurrection, owns him for His Lord and his God.

The Fancy then of a deputed God has nothing to do here, nor indeed any where elſe. The Notion it ſelf is contradictory and impoſſible. I eaſily apprehend how a Man may be ſent from God, and intruſted with his commands to the reſt of his Fellow Creatures. But the very name of God excludes office and deputation. A made God is that which cannot be made; A deputed God is that which cannot be deputed. The office of God is God himſelf. When the Lord ſays to Moſes Exod. 7.1. See I have made thee a God to Pharaoh, he explains what that is in the next Verſe, Thou ſhalt ſpeak all that I command thee. This is no deputed Divinity. There is not a God in Heaven, and a deputed God upon Earth. If the expreſſion ſignifies no more than to ſpeak or act from God, not only Moſes and the Prophets, but every Father of a Family is a deputed God. If it imports no more, the notion is ſilly, and if it does, it is raſh and unintelligible.

Socinus ſeeing Chriſt call'd God, and the Son of God ſo very often in Scripture, thought it a very eaſy way to rid himſelf of ſo many pregnant places gave him by this imaginary or deputed God, which he thought to have found in this miſtaken place of Exod. and in Pſ. 45. As if theſe two ſolitary Expreſſions could ballance, or equal thoſe repeated ones which aſſure us, that Chriſt is truly God. In one ſingle place of Scripture Moſes is ſay'd to be a God to Pharaoh. In innumerable places of Scripture Chriſt is call'd God, the Son of God, has the Names, the Attributes, the Nature of God, given him; Therefore Moſes is God as Chriſt, and Chriſt God as Moſes, both deputed Gods. A wild and irregular way of reaſoning! Nor do I wonder that Socinus ſhould be guilty of this: Though a Man of learning and parts, and the unhappy reſtorer of an Hereſy long ſince bury'd in a deep Oblivion, and the firſt of a Sect to which he has left his name. It happen'd to him as to many who have not time to refine their Arguments, and do not ſo well underſtand their own ſyſtem as they that come after. But I admire that Gentlemen who have receded from ſo many inadvertencies of Socinus, and of his outlandiſh followers, and have really given a turn and a force to great many of their Arguments which they themſelves did not, nor could ever have done, have not yet parted from this poor, mean, empty, and if I am not too rude, ridiculous notion of a deputed God.

But admitting that Moſes is ſuch, and that his perſonal qualifications, the diginity of his Office, his commerce with God, and his diſtinction from a people which it ſelf was diſtinguiſh'd from all the Nations in the Earth, give him a title to it, St. Paul has clearly ſtated the difference, and ſhews that if Moſes in theſe Gentlemen's Principles is a God by Office, Chriſt muſt be a God by Nature. Heb. 3.2, 3, 4. The Author of the Epiſtle compares Chriſt with Moſes. He ſays that Chriſt our High-Prieſt was faithful to him that appointed him, as alſo Moſes was faithful in all his houſe; then v. 3. he ſhews how much Chriſt excells Moſes, even as much as an Architect excell his own work, in as much as he that built the houſe, has more honour than the houſe. In as much as the maker of Moſes is more excellent than Moſes himſelf. He concludes v. 4. every houſe is built by ſome man, but he that builds all theſe things, not all things, as our tranſlation reads, is God. Every building has ſome Man for its Architect, but theſe things which are built by Chriſt do far excel, becauſe the builder is God. If Moſes then in theſe Gentlemen's ſuppoſition is a God by Office, what ſort of God is Chriſt, who is the Maker of the God by Office? And how much of their aſſurance muſt theſe Gentlemen abate, who when any preſſing place is cited of Chriſt being call'd God, ſend us dogmatically to Moſes.

The Author of the Brief Hiſtory, pag. 41. has cited indeed both this Chapter and theſe Verſes, but has been very careful to avoid the objection by overlooking the 4. v. and indeed I commend him for it; The difficulty is real and ſolid. He plays at croſs purpoſes, and after his Laconick way of ſpeaking, he tells us, that the Houſe here is not mens bodies, but the Church of Chriſt, which he under God is ſaid to build: and ſo he diſmiſſes us: whereas the Text does not ſay, he builds under God, but that he is God who builds all theſe things.

Many other places might be alledg'd to that purpoſe, but theſe are ſo clear, and the pretended Anſwers to them ſo inſufficient, that the aſſertion of the Author of the Conſider. on the Sermon of the Biſhop of Worceſter, pag. 11. will appear ſtrangely confident, That it cannot be ſatisfactorily prov'd that any Authentick Copies of the Bible, do give Chriſt the title of God, as he ſays the Author of the Brief Hiſt. has abundantly ſhewn. The Author of the Hiſtory has not, and none of theſe Gentlemen will ever be able to do it. But it is the character of this Author in this Book, in the Anſwer to Mr. Milbourn, in that to Mr. la Motté, to venture upon any thing that comes firſt to hand, and to want that candor and modeſty, that cool temper which the Author of the Hiſtory has, and would be a great Ornament to his Parts and Learning.

One thing more I have to ſay before I conclude this, and it is, that beſides thoſe Arguments which have been lay'd before you, no Man can ſeriouſly read the ſacred writings, but he will find thoſe things ſay'd of Chriſt and to Chriſt, which no meer Creature is capable of.

1ſt, He is repreſented to us in ſuch a height as tranſcends all Created Beings. Phil. 2.9, 10. That in the name of Jeſus, every knee ſhould bow, of things in Heaven, and things in Earth, and things under the Earth. 1 Pet. 3.22. Angels and authorities and powers are made ſubject to him. Matt. 28.18. All power is given me in Heaven and Earth. Joh. 15.16. All things that the Father has are mine, Joh. 15.5. without me you can do nothing. He commands the Sea, the Winds, the Devils, &c. He gives to others the power that he has, Mark. 16.17, 18. In my name ſhall they caſt out Devils, &c. All this looks like Omnipotency. If he is not God, men are naturally lead to Idolatry, by ſeeing in a Man all that we adore in God, and by which he is known to us.

2ly, Some men are call'd the Sons of God as Adam, the Angels, and juſt men who are all God's adopted Sons. But Chriſt is call'd the Son of God, ſo very often, ſo very Emphatically, with ſo great a ſolemnity, that it is unconceivable how this can be ſay'd of one who has no other relation to God, but to be the work of his hands, or the object of his favour. Act. 8.37. And Philip ſay'd, if thou believ'ſt with all thy heart, thou may'ſt; and he Anſwer'd and ſay'd, I believe that Jeſus Chriſt is the Son of God. In the great uncertainty who that miraculous Perſon was, whether Elias, or John the Baptiſt, or any of the Prophets, St. Peter makes this confeſſion, Matt. 16.16. thou art Chriſt the Son of the living God. Chriſt himſelf replies, that on this confeſſion the Church is buil't, on this the ſalvation of men depends. v. 17. That this is not the reſult of natural inquiry, and that Fleſh and blood has not reveal'd it to him; but my Father which is in Heaven. A declaration made not only by poor men here below, but come down from above, once at his Baptiſm, Matt. 3.17. a ſecond time in the glory of his transfiguration. Matt. 17.5. This is my beloved Son. An homage which the very unclean ſpirits, the Devils themſelves pay'd him. Mark. 3.11. and the unclean ſpirits when they ſaw him fell before him .... thou art the Son of God. and Mark. 5.7. the Son of the moſt High God. If to be the Son of God is no more than to be remarkable by the examples of a holy life, though in as great a meaſure as our nature is capable of; Is it not unaccountable that revelation ſhould be neceſſary; that Heaven ſhould inform us, that the very Devils ſhould proclaim it; that our Faith, and Eternal Salvation ſhould be built upon it? Does not this naturally incline men to believe that this very Jeſus in that deſpicable nature by which he appears as a Man, has another which none but the Father could reveal, and is far beyond the diſcoveries of Fleſh and Blood?

3ly, None but God could deſcend to the incredible humiliation of Chriſt Jeſus. No Man can properly be ſay'd to humble himſelf, no not to the death of the Croſs. None humbles himſelf in dying, who is form'd to dye. No Creature humbles it ſelf in ſuffering who is born to ſuffer, and is ſubject to vanity. I underſtand how God humbles himſelf in becoming Man. This is eaſy to apprehend. But how the beſt of men can humble himſelf in becoming Man when it is not at all his choice; and in ſuffering for his Fellow Creatures, which even in the ſence of bad men is the moſt glorious thing in the World, is paſt my apprehenſion. None but he can humble himſelf, in whom is found between the ſtate that he is in, and that which he aſſumes, an infinite diſproportion. Nothing ſhews more evidently what Chriſt was before his humiliation than that ſeries and order of ſtupendous Miracles which attend that very ſtate. To be figur'd by the Patriarchs, announc't by the Prophets, to be born of a Virgin, to be declar'd by the Angels, Immanuel, God with us; to exerciſe a deſpotick power over the whole Creation, to riſe from the dead, to aſcond to Heaven, to ſit at the right hand of God, are convincing Arguments that he is more than a Creature.

3ly, The name of Lord is given him, which all the Interpreters agree is the Jehovah of the Hebrews. Theſe Gentlemen muſt own this themſelves. I know that the Author of the Conſiderat. on the Biſhop of Sarum's Fourth Diſcourſe pag. 22. has quarrell'd with his Lordſhip, becauſe he ſays that it is the peculiar name of God. He tells him that the Socinians deny it, and pretend to prove that the name Jehovah is given to particular Perſons and communities, and pag. 23, 24. that we are like to have great many Jehovahs, ſince if the word Lord is Jehovah, that Pontius Pilate is call'd ſo, Matt. 27.63. that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Lord, is no more than Maſter, and Sir, Joh. 20.15.

But I know alſo that all this is a quibble, and that ſuch things as theſe are ſhould not drop from the Pen of a Learned Man, as this Author is; nor to ſuch a knowing Perſon as the Biſhop. For who is he that has the leaſt tincture of Hebrew but knows that the facred name Jehovah ſignifies Eſſence, Exiſtence, and nothing elſe. As God himſelf has expreſs'd it, Exod. 3.14. I am, that I am; which if it is not peculiar to God a Primitive and Self Exiſtent being, I know nothing that is peculiar to him. This is ſo true, that Chrellius himſelf has own'd that it follows the nature of proper names. It is undenyable, that the Tranſlators of the Old Teſtament, have conſtantly render'd Jehovah by the word, Lord; and it is from thence that the ſacred writers of the New Teſtament, who as the Biſhop obſerves, were Jews, ſpoke like Jews, and underſtood the full importance of their own language, have Attributed it to Chriſt. And though the word Lord ſometimes ſignifies no more, than Sir, or Maſter, as in the inſtances produc't by this Author, yet the ſtream of the Scriptures is againſt this mean ſhift. Act. 10.36. he is Lord of all. Act. 2.36. God has made him Lord and Chriſt. Rom. 14.9. The Lord both of the dead and living. 1 Cor. 2.8. The Lord of Glory. Revel. 19.16. Lord of Lords. But particularly 1 Cor. 8.5, 6. For though there be that are call'd Gods, whether in Heaven, and in Earth, as there be Gods many, and Lords many, To us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things and we in him, and one Lord Jeſus Chriſt by whom are all things, and we by him. None of theſe places can be underſtood of Maſter, and Sir. The firſt notion which they preſent to the mind is of a ſovereign, ſupreme, and Divine Authority. The name Johovah being given to Perſons, Angels, places, and communities, is another miſerable evaſion. Nay, it is a ſubſtantial proof for us; For if that ſacred name was only given to places which God honour'd with his preſence, or to them in whom he ſpoke; It ſhews that the preſence of God was the only reaſon of the name. It remains ſtill proper to him; and there being no prefence of God ſo great and ſo intimate as the Union of the two Natures, and God appearing viſibly ſo much in no Man as in Chriſt Jeſus, he is truly our Jehovah.

4ly, Who can think Chriſt a meer Man, a meer Creature, as theſe Gentlemen call him, who ſeriouſly conſiders the words of St. Peter, act. 4.12. Neither is there Salvation in any other, for there is no other name under Heaven, given amongſt men, by which we muſt be ſav'd: Coloſſ. 3.17. Whatſoever you do, in word, or deed, do all in the name of Jeſus. Matt. 1.21. he ſhall ſave his People from their ſins. Eph. 1.7. in whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveneſs of ſins. I beg of them to leave Mankind to the common notices which they bring with them into the World, and not to overrule that univerſal way of thinking which the Creator has given them. Is this ſpoken of the Doctrine or of the Perſon of the Holy Jeſus? Does not all this ſuppoſe an excellency which no Created being can attain to? Can ſaving, redeeming, forgiving, atoning, be the privilege of any creature? If the Prophet ſpeaking of men's natural death ſays, Pſal. 49.7. that no man can redeem his brother, nor give to God a ranſom for him, how much leſs can any one free us from the Eternal Condemnation due to Sin?

5ly, The coming of no Man into the World is expreſs'd as that of Chriſt. Leave one to himſelf out of the noiſe and prejudice of a diſpute, and in the reading of the Scripture he will eaſily ſee that it ſuppoſes knowledge, Choice, Pre-Exiſtence in him, who took our nature. 2 Cor. 8.9. You know the Grace of our Lord J. C. that though he was rich, yet for our ſakes he became poor, that we through his proverty might become rich. Phil. 2.7. He took upon him the form of a ſervant, was made in the likeneſs of men was found in faſhion as a man. Heb. 2.16. he took not on him the nature of Angels, but he took on him the ſeed of Abraham. 1 Joh. 5.20. and we know that the Son of God vs come. 1 Joh. 3.8. For this purpoſe the Son of God was manifeſted, appear'd, to deſtroy the works of the Devil. Heb. 9.25. he has appear'd to put away ſin by the ſacrifice of himſelf.

6ly, The Grace of God by which he pardons our ſins, and capacitates us for an Eternal Life is ſo peculiar to God that no Man has yet pretended to deny it. But how often is it attributed to Chriſt? Act. 15.11. but we believe that through the Grace of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, we ſhall be ſaved, even as they. 2 Cor. 12.9. and he ſay'd to me, my Grace is ſufficient for thee, for my ſtrength is made perfect in weakneſs; moſt gladly therefore will I glory in my infirmities, that the power of Chriſt may reſt upon me. The Author of the Brief Hiſt. pag. 37. is ſtrangely Embaraſs'd to anſwer this. He ſays, That the words before the Text cited, I beſought the Lord thrice, ..... are ſpoken to God, not to Chriſt. The power of Chriſt is the ſtrength which he procures by his mediation with God. The Socinians for the moſt part grant that the word, or power of God abiding in Chriſt does qualify him to hear our Prayers.

I would ask this Author, if the words are ſpoken to God, what ſignifies this Socinian acknowledgment of Chriſt hearing our Prayers, which overthrows all the reſt? And if they are ſpoken to Chriſt, why did he not conſider better before he deny'd it? He ſaw, and ſo muſt the moſt infatuated Perſon, that the power of Chriſt, is that Grace, which is ſufficient and was ſo earneſtly pray'd for, and that it is the Grace of him who was pray'd to, and who anſwer'd the Apoſtle, Gal. 2.8. He that wrought effectually in Peter to the Apoſtleſhip of the circumciſion, the ſame was mighty in me to ard the Gentiles, Eph. 2.13. But now in C.J. you who were ſometimes afar off, are made nigh by the blood of Chriſt. Tit. 3.7. that being juſtify'd by his Grace we ſhould be made heirs according to the hope of Eternal life, Rom. 16.24. The Grace of our Lord J.C. be with you all. And more fully. 2 Cor. 13.14. The Grace of the Lord Jeſus Chriſt, the Love of God, and the fellowſhip of the Holy Ghoſt be with you all.

Theſe two laſt places they have excepted againſt. This laſt Text demonſtrates, ſays the Author of the Brief Hiſt. pag. 31. that neither the Lord Chriſt nor the Holy Spirit are God; for it plainly diſtinguiſhes them from God. I ſay that it demonſtates that the Lord Chriſt is God, ſince he is the Author and giver of Grace; and that the Holy Spirit is God ſince he communicates thoſe graces to us, which none but God can give, and both are join'd to God, who, as this very Author explains it in this very place, is the Father. So that it plainly diſtinguiſhes them not from God, but only from the Father, and ſhews excellently the operations of the Three Perſons. The Author of the anſwer to My Lord of Sarum, has foreſeen this, and therefore winds another way, and ſays pag. 21. that it is true, that Grace, Mercy and Peace are pray'd for from the Lord Chriſt, but that they are alſo pray'd from them who certainly are no Gods. Rev. 1.4. Grace be to you and peace from him which is, and which was, and which is to come, and from the ſeven ſpirits that are before his throne, and from J. C. But he ſeems to make no difference between a Salutation, and a Prayer. The one is the introduction to what St. John had to ſay, and from whom he ſpoke. The other is the concluſion of a diſcourſe which to make the more effectual, he prays to Chriſt without whom we can do nothing, to give us his grace; to the Father, to continue thoſe repeated Teſtimones of his love to us, and to the Holy ſpirit, to influence us into the practice of the duty commanded. I may wiſh peace and grace to any Man from all the Angels in Heaven; but I muſt not pray for Grace Peace and Mercy to any created being.

This Author in the ſame page has given us a ſpecimen how eaſy it is to extricate one ſelf of the moſt ſubſtantial difficulties. 'Tis a folly to read, or think. There is a quicker way to ſtrike dumb a Man of the Biſhop's parts and judgment. His Lordſhip ſays that Chriſt cannot be a Creature, becauſe the Apoſtle ſpeaking of him ſays, Gal. 1.5. to whom be glory for ever, and ever, an Eulogy given to none in Scripture but the Almighty. The Prelate follow'd in this the conſtant notion of the Jews, ſo viſible in both the Teſtaments, that no truth is clearer, conceiving by the word Glory, either the eſſential happineſs of God, his incomprehenſible greatneſs, or his glorious appearance to men, and the earneſt wiſhes of pious Souls that this ſhould be for ever acknowledg'd by all his creatures. Matt. 6.13. for thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory for ever. 1 Sam. 4.21. Exod. 24.16. Eſay. 6.1. Joh. 12.41. Act. 7.55. Mark. 8.38. 2 Pet. 1.3. and very many other places. The way to anſwer this, is either to deny the notion, and ſhew that it is either falſe or miſtaken: or elſe to prove that this way of expreſſion is not us'd only to God. But this cannot be done; and therefore this Author replies, That glory and honour are Equivalent Terms in the Greek: that for ever and ever is no more than for ever: that Daniel who ſay'd to a heathen Prince, O king live for ever, would not have ſcrupl'd to ſay, O king, I wiſh thee glory for ever: that he ſhould not be reckon'd an Idolater for wiſhing His Lordſhip perpetual honour.

One muſt have a great deal of charity to believe theſe Gentlemen to be in earneſt, and not endeavour to banter Religion out of doors, when ſuch crude and indigeſted anſwers drop from their Pen. Glory with them is no more than Honour, and Lord is no more than Maſter, and Sir, and Worſhip is the ſame as how do you do? To worſhip another, ſays this Author, pag. 27. often fignifies no more than to ſalute them by bowing and the like, which ſuperiors do to inferiors. This is true. But when God brings the firſt begotten into the World, the Emanuel, the God with us, the Redeemer of Mankind, his only Son, when he ſubjects the whole Creation to him, and commands the very Angels to adore him, Heb. 1.7. and let all the Angels of God worſhip him, does all this amount to no more than asking how he does do?

I will give one inſtance more how theſe Gentlemen take the wrong ſide of a thing when they pleaſe. His Lordſhip has inſiſted that it is a vaſt abſurditiy that the ſame acts in which we adore God ſhould be at the ſame time offer'd to a Creature, than which nothing is truer. But his Lordſhip, ſays this Author, pag. 26. is guilty of a much vaſter inadvertency, as he himſelf will be oblig'd to confeſs, when he caſts his Eye upon the following Text, 1 Chr. 29.20. All the congregation bleſſed the Lord God of their Fathers, and bowing their heads worſhipped the Lord and the King. In which words worſhip is given to the King, as to the Lord, and yet is no Idolatry. But this Author is himſelf guilty of a vaſt miſtake. For worſhip as it is an act of Religion, is pay'd neither to the Lord, nor to the King, in this laſt part of the Text. That that is adreſs'd to God is in the firſt. All the congregation bleſſed the Lord God of their Fathers. The reſt is no more than a civility pay'd, at their parting, to the King, who was then preſent, and to the place where they worſhip'd; as at this time we bow either in the Church, or towards the Altar; and yet on this ſort of trifling anſwers, theſe Gentlemen gravely inſiſt, to oppoſe the plaineſt and cleareſt truths.

Another Text he has cited to this purpoſe, 1 Tim. 5.21. I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jeſus Chriſt, and the elect Angels, where ſays this Author an Apoſtle joins Creatures with God in the Higheſt act of Religion, i.e. an adjuration. I can ſee nothing in this like Religious worſhip. The Apoſtle prays neither to God, nor to Chriſt, nor to the Angels. He might as well have added before the Holy City, and before all the World. St. Paul had given thoſe directions to Timothy which have been the ground of all the Canons made ſince in the Church. He inſiſts that he ſhould be faithful to them, and as a motive to his obedience, he intreats him by all that is holy, by God, by J. C. by the Elect Angels. This I find to be the ſence of moſt Interpreters; nor do I know any amongſt the ancients, or the Proteſtant Commentators, who ſo much as dream't that this did import adoration to any creature.

7ly, To adore, to truſt in, to believe, are Acts which can have none but God for their object. But all this is ſo often attributed to Chriſt, that it cannot be deny'd with any ſort of modeſty. Heb. 1.7. let all the Angels of God woſhip him, Matt. 12.21. in his name ſhall the Gentiles truſt, render'd by the Apoſtle, in him ſhall the Gentiles truſt. Eph. 1.12, 13. that we ſhould be to the praiſe of his glory who firſt truſted in Chriſt, in whom alſo you truſted after that you heard the word of truth, the Goſpel of your ſalvation, in whom alſo after that you believ'd, you were ſeal'd with that holy ſpirit of promiſe, Act. 20.21. repentance towards God and Faith towards our Lord J.C. 2 Tim. 3.15. which are able to make thee wiſe to ſalvation through faith which is in C.J. Gal. 2.16. knowing that a man is not juſtify'd .... but by the Faith of J.C. even we have believ'd in J.C. that we might be juſtify'd by the faith of Chriſt. The Scripture is ſo full to this, that it is not ſo much to cite as to tranſcribe.

But is this Author ſerious when pag. 26. of his anſwer to the Biſhop, to elude the ſtrength of this, and of five hundred places more, he brings in dogmatically, 1 Sam. 12.18. The people greatly fear'd the Lord and Samuel, and Exod. 14.31. The people believ'd the Lord, and his ſervant Moſes. I wonder he has omitted, fear God and honour the King, for it is as much to the purpoſe. Will men ever be guilty of that crying injuſtice to pretend to overthrow the Faith once deliver'd to the Saints, and ruine at once the Authority of vaſt many Texts, by one or two ſingle and ſolitary places of Scripture, which when all is done ſignify nothing to the queſtion in hand. Chriſt is propos'd to Mankind as the Son of God, as the Saviour and Redeemer of their Souls, as the only name under Heaven by which we can be ſav'd. The end of the Scripture is that we ſhould believe in him; he that believes ſhall be ſav'd: he that does not believe is condemn'd already, and we are put off with Moſes and Samuel, whom the people did believe, becauſe they confirm'd, by a Miracle, the truth which they deliver'd.

8ly, He that is pray'd to is God, for none but God can be the object of our Prayers. To hear, to know, to relieve our wants naturally ſuppoſes Omniſcience and Omnipotence. It is incomprehenſible that the generality of Socinians ſhould contend that Chriſt is to be pray'd to, which is the aſſertion of the Author of one Brief Hiſtory, pag. 33, and worſhip'd with divine worſhip, and yet deny him to be God. To give Divine worſhip to a creature, is a plain, and inexcuſable Idolatry. Strange! that the force of truth ſhould extort from them that he is to be ador'd, and yet that he is not God the only being whom we ought to adore!

The Engliſh Socinians ſee the force of this conſequence, therefore they deny that Chriſt is to be pray'd to. But one cannot read without indignation this aſſertion of the Author in their defence, pag. 33. It appears, ſays he, by St. Auſtin and Photius, that Origen deny'd that the Son was to be ador'd, or pray'd to. He cites Origen lib. 8. contr. Celſ. who ſays he, expreſly deny'd that Chriſt is to be invocated; he adds, that it cannot be doubted, that Origen ſpoke the ſence of the Catholick Church of his time. This Author then is poſitive, that neither Origen, nor the Church in his time, believ'd it lawful to pray to Chriſt. But he ſhould have taken the pains to read the place which he has cited. He muſt have been convinc't that he has cited at random, and that Origen has no ſuch thing. The 8th Book alledg'd with ſo much aſſurance by the Author has not a ſingle line which ſeems to have a tendency to this. On the contrary it has invincible proofs that Origen, and conſequently the Catholick Church of his time did think it not only lawful, but even neceſſary to pray to Chriſt.

The Father begins that very Book by imploring the help of God, and of the word the only begotten of God, on himſelf who having finiſh'd the 7th, was now writing the 8th Book againſt the lyes and ſlanders of Celſus. Having aſſerted the Pre-Exiſtence and Eternity of Chriſt, his moſt intimate Union with the Father, he ſays, pag. 386. Edit. Cantab. We adore one God, and his only Son, his word, and his image with our ſupplications, offering our prayers to God through his only Son, to whom firſt we addreſs them, beſeeching him, that as he is a propitiation for our ſins, he would like our High-Prieſt, offer to the moſt b ••• God, our prayers, interceſſions, ſacrifices, &c. pag. 3 5. None is to be pray'd to but the moſt High God, and to only begotten, the firſt born of every Creature, the word of God, pag. 422. We ſing Hymns only to God who is above all things and to God the word his only begotten Son. This ſhews the practice and belief of the Church o that time and of the very Primitive Church before, to adore Chriſt in thoſe Hymns made in his praiſe. Carmen Chriſto quaſi Deo, dicere ſecum invicem ſays Pliny to the Emperor, lib. 10 Epiſ. 97. to ſing an Hymn amongſt themſelves to Chriſt, as God. An authority brought by Tertullian Apol. c. 2. which teaches us, that all that Pliny could know of their Religious rites, was that they met before day, ad canendum Chriſto ut Deo, to ſing Hymns to Chriſt as to their God. I know that theſe Gentlemen, who under pretence of Critiſing will alter any writings, have pretended to read Chriſto & Deo, to Chriſt and to God. But I know this to be a willful miſtake, the ancient and genuine reading being Chriſto ut Deo. Thus Euſebius citing this very place of Tertullian Chron. l. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . tranſlated by St. Jerom in Ter ullian's own words, to ſing to Chriſt as God. A practice which the ſame Euſebius, Hiſt. lib. 5. c. 28. ſays to have been of Juſtin Martyr, Miltiades, Tatianus, Clemens, Melito, Jrence, The earlieſt and beſt times of Chriſtianity having given this teſtimony to Chriſt's Divinity, and to the Prayers offer'd him.

But how could it ever enter into theſe Gentlemen's heads to deny praying to Chriſt upon ſuch unconcluding Arg ments as the Anſwerer to Mr. Milbourn, and the Author of the Brief Hiſt. have us'd, when they cannot but ſee it practis'd in Scripture, Luk. 17.5. Lord increaſe our haith, Mark 9.24. Lord I believe, help thou my unbelief. Nor will the mean evaſion ſerve, that it is no more than recommending our ſelves to one another's Prayers. What Creature dares to ſay to another Creature, without Blaſphemy, or Idolatry, increaſe my Faith, help my unbelief, Acts 7.59. They ſton'd Stephen calling upon God, and ſaying, Lord Jeſus receive my Spirit. If this be not praying, adoring, and exerciſing the higheſt act of truſt imaginable, there is no ſuch thing in the World. Compare this place with 1 Pet. 4.19. commit the keeping of their Souls to him ..... as unto a faithful Creator; and tell me the difference between committing our Souls, and offering our Spirit to be receiv'd.

The anſwer of the Author of the Hiſt. to this pag. 32. is ſo ſtrange, that had I ſeen it in any Book but his own, I wou'd have ſaid that it is a Satyr upon him, and a groſs ſlander. 1ſt Says he, the name God, is not in any Greek Copy. True: But does not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to pray, to implore, or as the Latin Interpreter, to invocate, imply the word God? ſince the very action has God for its object. The Prebendaries of Weſtminſter are gone to pray; therefore they do not pray to God, becauſe the word God is not nam'd in the Propoſition. This is all fooliſh, ſince the very nature of the thing imports that it is to God to whom they make their addreſſes. 2ly, He ſays, that the Greek render'd Grammatically makes this ſence, O Lord of Jeſus receive my ſpirit, which is falſe, trifling, ridiculous, and not worth a reply. 3ly, He pretends the meaning to be only this, Stephen call'd upon God, and ſay'd Lord Jeſus, becauſe at the ſame time he ſaw Jeſus in a Prophetick Viſion, ſtanding at the right hand of God. This is ſillily and falſly alledged, Stephen call'd upon God and ſaid,—He who he ſpoke to, was he whom he call'd upon. Whether he ſaw him or no is not the queſtion? But the offering his departing Soul into his hands, and praying that he would receive it into his mercy, is the ſtreſs of the Argument, and is praying, adoring, relying upon him; acts of ſuch a nature, as cannot without Blaſphemy and Idolatry be offer'd to any but God.

9thly, Can any thing more viſibly infer the Omnipreſence, and Omniſcience of Chriſt than Matt. 18.20. Where two or three are gather'd together in my name, there am I in the midſt of them, Matt. 28.20. and lo I am with you always, even to the end of the World, Mark 2.8. When Jeſus perceiv'd in his ſpirit that they ſo reaſon'd within themſelves, he ſay'd unto them, why reaſon ye theſe things in your hearts, Joh. 2.29. he knew all men, and needed not that any ſhould teſtify of man, for he knew what was in man, 1 Cor. 4.5. who will both bring to light the hidden things of darkneſs, and will make manifeſt the counſels of the hearts, Rev. 2.23. I am he who ſearches the reins, and hearts, and I will give to every one of you according to your works. Compare theſe Texts with thoſe by which God diſcovers his Divine qualifications to us, and you will be forc'd to acknowledge that they are not more full and home then theſe.

The anſwers to moſt of theſe Texts, as moſt of Socinian anſwers, are all fram'd to elude, and not to reſolve the difficulty. They conſiſt in a bad reaſon, and in a place of Scripture ſtrangely miſunderſtood, and worſe apply'd. The reaſon is, Brief Hiſt. pag. 44, and 36. that the knowledge of Chriſt which he has, or ſhall have of any one's ſecret thoughts is a revelation made to him by God, as it was alſo, and may be to other Prophets. The Text which right or wrong they repeat at every turn, is Revel. 1.1. The revelation of J.C. which God gave to him to ſhew to his ſervants.

The reaſon is worth nothing; For God's revealing of men's thoughts to a Prophet, no not the fulleſt revelation that ever was made, can come up to that extent which belongs to none but God, I am he who ſearches the reins and the hearts. No inſtance in Scripture can be produc'd of this. Though God has been pleas'd to reveal to a Man, the thoughts of another Man; 2 King. 6.12. yet this was ever particular and declar'd that God did it then. None ever aſſum'd to himſelf to make manifeſt the counſels of the hearts of all men. It is ſo much God's Prerogative and Character, that by it he is known to us.

Their Explication of Rev. 1.1. is as bad. They make it to ſuppoſe ignorance in Chriſt, whom we have prov'd to know all things, and is inconſiſtent with that Omniſcience ſo clearly ſpoken of before. Had theſe Gentlemen vouchſaf'd to lend one Ear to the Fathers and to the latter Divines of the greateſt reputation, they would have met with theſe judicious Obſervations on this Text. 1ſt It ſhews at moſt that whatſoever Chriſt knows, he knows it from the Father receiving his knowledge as he receives his Eſſence, that is, from Everlaſting. 2ly, It proves that God reveals nothing to men, but by the intervention of C. J. the Eternal and only mediator between God and Man. 1 Tim. 3.5. in whom we have boldneſs and acceſs with confidence by the faith of him. Eph. 3.12. by whom we have acceſs by faith into his Grace. Rom. 5.2. who is to us the fountain of all knowledge, For no man hath ſeen God at any time, the only begotten Son of the Father he has declar'd him. Joh. 1.18. and v. 16. and of his fullneſs we have all receiv'd. The ſence then of the Text is, that God has appointed in this, as in all other things, that men might come to God by him, and be inform'd of the future events lay'd in this Sacred Book. That that ſhews the ſolidity if this interpretation, is that no part of the Sacred Writings has clearer teſtimonies of the Divinity of our Saviour than this, and God will not contradict in the very firſt Verſe what he has ſo plainly aſſerted afterwards. The very Text it ſelf, if ſeriouſly conſider'd, is a proof of Chriſts equality with God, by his being above Angels whoſe Miniſtery he ſo often commands in this Book, and above men who are call'd here his Servants, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the ſervants of him, Chriſt. No intelligent ſubſtance being above the Angelical or human, but the Divine.

I am afraid I have tir'd you, and will therefore draw to a Concluſion. If you take together all that has been ſay'd, I doubt not but that you will be ſatisfy'd that Socinianiſm is inconſiſtent with that revelation which God has made of himſelf. I have lay'd before you two ſorts of proofs. Very many of them are direct, and ſhew invincibly that Chriſt is God. The other are indirect, but yet of that force and clearneſs, that they make it evident that all this cannot be ſay'd of a creature how excellent ſoever, no Creature in the utmoſt extent of perfection imaginable, being capable of what the Scripture attributes to Chriſt.

The firſt reading of the Socinian Writings will impoſe upon an unwary Reader, the ſecond and third will have quite another effect, and diſcover an incredible weakneſs. They oppoſe a few miſunderſtood places to the ſtream of Scripture. Theſe they urge with obſtinacy, and inſtead of reducing theſe few Texts, to the vaſt many aſſertions of the Sacred Writers, and giving them that ſence which they are really capable of; They ſtrain and endeavour to reduce to them the whole body of Divine truths, than which nothing is more unjuſt or unſincere. In human diſputes ſuch a way of arguing would be laught out of doors. How much leſs is it to be ſuffer'd in a controverſy of ſo ſacred a nature as this is. They catch at Moſes being ſay'd to be a God to Pharaoh. At the Angels being call'd Elohim; At Magiſtrates having the name of Gods given them: And on this they build aſſertions which give the lye to the conſtant Doctrines of the Scriptures. They have rak't all that the ancient and modern Hereticks have blaſphem'd againſt the Faith; and this they boldly oppoſe to the decrees of the moſt ancient, moſt univerſal, and moſt venerable Councils, to the unanimous conſent of the whole Chriſtian World, to the writings of the pious and learned Fathers.

The holy Jeſus is the ſame yeſterday, to day, and for ever. His Church has been in poſſeſſion above ſixteen hundred years of adoring and praying to him. His infinite merits are the only comfort and ſecurity of dying ſinners. The Eternal word made Fleſh has been all along the great object of our Faith, and we have to deal now with a ſort of unreaſonable men, who pretend to unravil all this, and lay the Divine Fabrick to the ground, by mean ſhifts, poor evaſions, and by dilapidating plain Texts with endleſs and groundleſs Criticiſms.

I hope that you will be juſt to your ſelf, and make all the haſte you can to return to the Faith. To deny the Lord that has bought us, is an execrable piece of ingratitude; and it is ſtrange that people who read the Scripture with any ſhare of humility and ſincerity ſhould fall into that exceſs. That God would open your Eyes, that you may ſee the glorious Goſpel of his Son J C. and give you Grace to ſubject whatſoever exalts it ſelf in you againſt his knowledge and Service is the paſſionate wiſh of,

SIR, Your humble, and Faithful Servant,L.
FINIS.

THE Reader is humbly deſir'd to excuſe the Errors of the Preſs, by reaſon of my not being in Town.

BOOKS lately Printed for Thomas Bennet.

THE Lives of all the Princes of Orange, from William the Great, Founder of the Commonwealth of the Ʋnited Provinces. Written in French by the Baron Maurier, in 1682: whoſe Father was Twenty Years Ambaſſador at the Hague. And Publiſhed at Paris by Order of the French King. To which is added the Life of His Preſent Majeſty, King William the Third. By Mr. Thomas Brown. Together with each Prince's Head before his Life. Done from Original Draughts, by Mr. Robert White.

Mr. Boſſu's Treatiſe of the Epick Poem, containing Curious Reflections, very uſeful and neceſſary for the right Underſtanding and Judging of the excellency of Homer and Virgil: done into Engliſh, with ſome Reflections on Prince Arthur, by W. S. To which are added an Eſſay on Satyr, by Mr. Dacier, and a Treatiſe of Paſtoral Poetry, by Monſieur Fontanelle.

Monſicur Rapine's Reflections upon Ariſtotle's Poetry, Engliſhed by Mr. Rymer, together with ſome Reflections on our Modern Poets.

A Sermon Preach'd at Whitehall, on Sunday Sept: 8. 1695. being the Day of Thankſgiving for the taking of Namur. By J. Adams, A. M. Rector of St. Alban's Woodſtreet. Publiſhed by Order of the Lords Juſtices.

The Fooliſh Abuſe, and Wiſe Uſe of Riches. A Sermon Preach'd in the Pariſh Church of Bromſgrove, in Worceſterſhire, May 1. 1695. By Will. Talbot, D. D. and Dean of Worceſter.

Malebranch's Treatiſe concerning the Search after Truth; the whole Work compleat: To which is added a Treatiſe of Nature and Grace, by the ſame Author; being a conſequence of his Principles contained in the Search. Together with F. Malebranch's Defence againſt Mr. De la Ville, and ſeveral other Adverſaries. All Engliſhed by T. Taylor, M. A. of Magdalen College, and Printed at Oxford. In Folio.

A Voyage to the World, of Des Cartes. Engliſhed by T. Taylor, M. A. of Magdalen-College.

In the Preſs. Sermons upon ſeveral Occaſions, by R. Meggot, D. D. late Dean of Wincheſter.