Of the Deity of our Saviour.

THE Author of the Considerations having taken a liberty of dispersing the matter before him without any just order, doth accordingly often repeat things of the same kind; making some ventures upon a Point in one place, and taking it up again in another; so that his Reader is often rather amused than satisfied. Tho withal, he takes occasion to quicken his Matter (which would otherwise have proved nauseous and heavy) with several part Remarks and Reflections. But being my design is not like a Man of Mystery (as he scoffingly represents it) to darken the Cause, or to cast a mist before the Eyes of the Reader; I shall gently lead him by the hand, and endeavour to put what I have to say, into that order, that whatever force is in it, the Reader may soon discover; or what defects may be in it, he may be able to detect.

This Author allows His Grace to be open and ingenuous in declaring his Opinion of the Trinity; and is pleased to allow him a right to alledge particular Scriptures to prove the Divinity of our Saviour. And whether he has proved it or not, is the Point in Controversy.

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

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

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

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

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

Here his Adversary labours with all his might to put by the force of those Arguments. Doth the Archbishop reason from the Context? If you will believe this Author, this Text is alledged impertinently by him for the Trinitarians, which it doth not favour, no, not in the least. That his Grace can raise the Expressions no higher than Arianism, p. 46. That as for the Historical Occasion assigned by his Grace, there is no Historian (he is sure, no Ancient Historian) assigns it. And that many of the Ancients did believe that Cerinthus was the true Author of the Gospel imputed to St. John; and that the Ancient Unitarians did reject the Gospel, Epistles, and Revelation now attributed to him, p. 49, 50.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is certain, that there was not the least occasion given him from the Point in dispute to enter upon this matter, where both sides agreed, or would be thought to be agreed about the Authority of the Book they reason from: And which he saith, is with great Colour alledged for the Arian Doctrine, p. 46. and that Socinus's Explication of it, would perfectly agree to the Lord Christ. But I must confess, he has given too great reason to suspect, that he is in this Point of the same mind with the Ancient Vnitarians; and would allow Cerinthus, or Simon Magus, or any of the like Rabble, to be Author of those Writings, rather than that Divine Apostle. But as he wisely observes, that those Ancient Vnitarians that had rejected them; Yet, because they saw it begun to grow into Credit among the other Denominations of Christians, many of which had been seduced by the Platonick Philosophers that came over to Christianity; therefore they were careful to show them, that it was capable of a very allowable Sense; and that it doth not appear, that either St. John, or Cerinthus, intended to advance a Second God, p. 53. a

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

Now which part our Author will take to, whether that of the Ancient Vnitarians, Who, he saith, were Contemporaries to the First Fathers of the Church, and were Older than any of those Fathers whose Works are now extant (if we will believe him); whether, I say, he will take to them and reject these Books, or whether forsake his Friends, and side with those Fathers whose Works are now extant, and the rest of the Catholick Church in receiving them, I am not able positively to determine; for he holds us in suspence and saith, He will affirm nothing in the matter, but should be glad to see a good Answer to the Exceptions against these Books, which we receive as St. John's, that were made by the Ancient Unitarians.

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

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

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

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

As for Epiphanius, our Author saith, He hath written very largely of this matter: but if he has, it had become him to have observ'd that it was because of the Answer he has given to the Arguments which the Alogi (in our Author's English, the Unitarians) alledged against St. John's Writings, in which that Historian is very particular; and not to propose them as if they had stood the shock of several Ages, and to this day wanted a Reply; for after this manner he introduces them, I should be glad to see a good Answer to the Exceptions of the Unitarians, against the Books which we receive as St. John's. But perhaps in his esteem what Epiphanius hath said, is not a good Answer; and as impertinent and ridiculous as that he makes for him in the case of Thyatira, of which more anon.

It's time now to examine them.

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

A. The Answer Epiphanius gives to that Clause about Cerinthus, is, How could Cerinthus be the Author of that which was directly opposite to him: for Cerinthus would have Christ to be a meer and late-born man, whereas St. John saith, the Word always was, and came from Heaven, and was made flesh. Now I conceive this Answer of Epiphanius to be good, unless they would have Cerinthus to contradict himself.

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

1. There were some Books of St. John, of which there never was any question in the Christian Church, which Eusebius calls 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Eccles. Hist. l. 3. c. 24. & 25. such is his Gospel, which Irenaus, and Eusebius from him, say he published, while at Ephesus, at the Instance of the Asian Bishops, Iren. l. 3. c. 1. and as such is often quoted by the Fathers. This Sandius, Euseb. l. 5. c. 8. a late Author of the Unitarians acknowledges, who saith, The Gospel was always accounted Canonical. Such again is the first Epistle of St. John, Hieron. Eccles. Script. Sandius de Script. Eccles. which, saith Eusebius, is admitted by the present as it was by the ancient Christians without dispute. So St. Jerom; upon which Grotius saith, That it was never doubted to be St. John's. So Sandius again.

2. Those Books that were not so generally receiv'd as St. John's, were yet for the most part receiv'd as Canonical. Such were the 2d. and 3d. Epistles; of which some would have another John, call'd John the Presbyter, to be the Author, as St. Jerom saith, and Grotius from him; but for the most part it was believed to be St. John the Evangelist Euseb. l. 7. c. 24.: Against which (it seems) the Ancient Unitarians had nothing particularly to object; for else we should have learn'd it from our Author.

Of this sort is the Apocalypse; of which, saith our Author, it was scarce doubted by any to be the Work of Cerinthus. Eusebius indeed saith, Some do question it: But who and how many were they on the other side that did not doubt of either its Authority or Author, even such as Justin Martyr, Irenaus, Tertullian, &c. Iren. l. 4. c. 37. & 50. Euseb. l. 5. c. 8. Tertull. advers. Marcion. c. 4. Hieron. Script. Eccles. Origen. Homil. In principio. some of which interpreted it, (as St. Jerom saith) and say that St. John wrote it when in Patmos. But I shall refer our Author for the rest to Grotius and Sandius; the latter of which charges them with Blasphemy that would attribute it to Cerinthus.

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

A. Dionysius Alexandrinus was of the number of those that questioned whether St. John the Evangelist were the Author; and for this indeed he offers several Reasons, but of so little force, that if our Author hath seen them, as he has not so he could not have the confidence to propose them in behalf of his Ancient Unitarians. But whatever that Father thought of the Author, he allowed the Book to be Divine.

There were indeed some others of the Catholick Persuasion, that Dionysius spoke of in the same Book, (as Eusebius Eccles. Hist. lib. 5. cap. 24. relates) that would have the Apocalypse wrote by Cerinthus; but they were few, and such as were troubled with a sort of Millenaries, Followers of Nepos an Egyptian Bishop, (of Repute for his Learning, Faith, and Knowledge of the Scripture) who for their Opinion quoted the Apocalypse. And it seems, as the Ancient Unitarians rejected St. John's Writings, because they favour'd the Divinity of our Saviour; so those (otherwise Orthodox) would, it's likely, have rejected the Apocalypse, because it favoured (as they thought) the Cause of the Millennium.

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

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

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

Or will it prove that the Gospel is a Valentinian, a Cerinthian, or Gnostick Gospel? Then so would the other Scriptures be such as the Sects were that quoted them, that corrupted and wrested them, to serve their purpose. And thus Irenaeus tells us the Gnosticks did, as he gives Instances enough, Haer. l. 1. c. 15, 16, 17. Nay, Cerinthus himself owned the Gospel of St. Matthew, at least part of it; will it therefore follow that the Doctrine of Cerinthus was favoured in that Gospel, Ephiphan. Haer. 28.5. Philostrius • ar. or might be proved from it?

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

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

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

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

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

But what then will become of the other Evangelists? Must they be excluded out of the number of the Canonical? No surely. But we are to consider when each Evangelist begins, and what he takes in hand to pursue, of which Epiphanius gives a very good account. Haer. 51.5, 6.

And if we take this course, we shall find the latter Evangelists often to supply the Omissions of the preceding. V. Wolzegen in loc. And so St. John, who lived the longest, and wrote last of them, doth in the Case before us, and distributes the time of our Saviour's Ministry into Annals, or Passovers, after the Jewish way of Computation, beginning his Account from our Saviour's Baptism, and connecting it to John the Baptist's Imprisonment (where the other Evangelists begin) by which means the History is made compleat, and the Evangelists are found to agree, as Eusebius, and St. Jerom observe. The Omission of which, by the other Evangelists, makes it no more a Contradiction, than when St. Matthew begins the Genealogy of our Saviour with Abraham, St. Luke carries it to Adam, and St. John makes him to exist before the World. Omissions are no Contradictions, and such as these no unaccountable Omissions. And as for that single Passeover, the other three speak of, it was not, as that was a Chronological Character of Time, circumscribing the whole space of our Saviour's Ministry; but a remarkable Point, denoting the special Season he suffer'd in, with relation to the great Type under the Law, and for which he is sometime called our Passover. This, I say, no more describes the compleat Time of his Ministry, than it will follow that because Pontius Pilate was then said to be Governor of Judea, that he was Governor but one Year only.

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

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

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

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

(2.) That there was a distance of time between our Saviour's Baptism, and that time that John the Baptist had the Discourse with the Pharisees at Bethabara, ver. 19, 24, 28. which was the day before he met Andrew, ver. 35.

3. It's not at all unreasonable to suppose, That our Saviour's Temptation in the Wilderness, &c. did fall in with that time; for after his Baptism he immediately went into the Wilderness, Mark 1.12. And John the Baptist may well be supposed to have spent that time in Preaching and Baptizing near to Jordan, and in the parts adjoyning to it; all which St. John omits, as having been before recorded by the other Evangelists, as well as our Saviour's Baptism.

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

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

A. 1. It's far from being certain, that there was no Church, and if St. John be of any Authority, it's as certain there was a Church there, as in the other Six Cities, for it's in the same Stile; and it may be as well said, there was no Church at Ephesus, as at Thyatira, if the way of writing is to be regarded.

2. It's not probable that there should be no Church there, when Churches were planted all about, and that it's granted all the other Six were Churches then in being.

3. If I understand Epiphanius, he is far from granting it: All that he saith, is,

(1.) Supposing it to be so 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . which the Latin Translator has not reached. , what will follow? why, 'These very Persons are forced from the things which they object against it, by their own Confession, to assent to the truth; that St. John foretold things to come by Divine Inspiration, concerning the Corruption of that Church, and those false Prophetesses that should arise in it Ninety three Years after our Lord's Ascension.

(2.) He positively saith, There was a Church there in St. John's time; for saith he, St. John foresaw that after the time of the Apostles, and of St. John, the Church would fall from the truth into Error, even that of the Cataphryges, of which were the pretended Prophetesses, Priscilla, Maximilla, and Quintilla.

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

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

It seems that the Church there had been either destroyed by Persecution, or corrupted by the Cataphryges, out of which Condition it having recovered a Hundred and twelve years after, (as Epiphanius saith) the Alogi ignorantly concluded there never had been a Church there till that time; or however, made use of this pretence to countenance their impious Design of overthrowing the Authority of that Book: A design that our Author hath shewed himself too great a well-wisher to, by so formal a Repetition of those sorry, and so often baffled Objections; and by adding what force he (under the name of the Ancient Unitarians) could to support them. Which brings into my mind an unhappy passage in Serm. 2. of the Archbishop, concerning the Doctrine of Socinus, and his uncoucht way of managing of it. It was only to serve and support an Opinion which he had entertained before, and therefore was resolved one way or other to bring the Scripture to comply with it: And if he could not have done it, it is greatly to be fear'd, that he would at last have called in question the Divine Authority of St. John's Gospel, rather than have quitted his Opinion.

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

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

This name of the Unitarians and Ancient Unitarians, is a Title much made use of, of late; and it is a term of Latitude, that to those that know not the difference, adds much to the number; for under that, they would comprehend all that deny a Trinity, or think not alike of it with the Catholick Church, whether Arians, or Photinians and Socinians; though at the same time they disagree, as well among themselves, (as I shall shew) as with us, and particularly in the point in question, viz. the Authority of St. John's Gospel, &c. Our Author often speaks of the Ancient Unitarians; and if we would know how ancient they are, he tells us, they were Contemporaries to the first Fathers of the Church, and were older than any of those Fathers whose works are now extant, p. 50. that is, St. Clemens himself contemporary to St. Paul.

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

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

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

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

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

How! Socinus mistake! rather let St. John's Gospel, and all his other Works, labour and sink under the Exceptions of the Ancient Unitarians; and lye by the walls till the world can give a good Answer to them. Rather let St. John take up words by chance (as our Author saith, p. 49.) and use the words Life, Fulness, Only begotten, as they came in his way, without any design, than the great Socinus should be blamed. St. John, indeed, may be said to use words by chance; but Sociinus, formed, and thought, and concluded, and understood; and according as he formed, and thought, and concluded, so it must be meant. He was the man that saw plainly, (as he words it again, p. 48.) And if his Grace, in Vindication of St. John, and in compliance with the Ancient Historians, will adventure to Interpret him from the occasion of his Writing, he deserves to be treated with contempt. The Serene Republick owns none of these Titles, Bishop and Archbishop, &c. Thus scoffingly and boyishly doth he introduce this serious Argument. O he! says his Grace, How strangely has this man [Socinus] mistook for want of the Light of Ancient History! thus he Interprets Scripture by Scripture, and by Reason and Wit, not by the Fathers and the old Historians of the Chruches Party, &c. I could find in my heart to Transcribe what his Grace has Wrote upon this case; his words are these: It was the great and fatal mistake of Socinus, to go to Interpret Scripture merely by Criticising upon words, and searching into all the Senses that they are capable of, till he can find one, though never so forced and foreign, that will save harmless the Opinion which he was resolved beforehand to maintain, even against the most natural and obvious Sense of the Text which he undertakes to interpret. Just as if a man should interpret Ancient Statutes and Records, by mere critical Skill in words, without regard to the true occasion upon which they were made, and without any manner of knowledge and insight into the History of the Age in which they were written, p.. 18.

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

Well, but supposing that our Author is content to have the Historical Occasion of St. John's Writing inquired into; yet, as for that assign'd by his Grace, it was, he saith, below the Gravity of the Apostle to confute the Wild Gnosticks, &c. And if you will take his word for it, he adds, I am of opinion, That there is no Historian (I am sure there is no Ancient Historian) who assigns that Historical Occasion of St. John's Writings, even the Gnosticks and their Eons, mentioned by his Grace. In short, he hath not very justly blamed Socinus, for not knowing an Historical Occasion, which is mentioned in no Historian, p. 49.

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

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

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

Here our Author interposes, and saith, the account given of this matter by the Ancient, is very different from this of his Grace. For they say, according to our Author's antique Translation, That the other Evangelists having committed to writing only the Gests of our Saviour, during one Years space: Therefore the Apostle John, being thereto requested, declared in a Gospel according to him, the time that was passed over by the other Evangelists, and what was done by our Saviour therein Euseb. l. 3. c. 24..

It is very true, That the one of these is different from the other; but tho they are different, they are not contradictory and inconsistent. For then, not only the Archbishop would contradict himself, who elsewhere gives the same account, and tells us from Eusebius That St John wrote his Gospel last, and that on purpose to supply the Omissions of the other Evangelists Serm. 2. p. 94.; but the Fathers also would contradict one another, and often themselves; who sometimes give the one, and sometimes the other, and sometimes both as the reasons of St. John's writing, (as I shall presently shew). By which way of arguing, Epiphanius, Eusebius, and St. Jerome, &c. will closh one with another; when the first of these saith, St. John wrote his Gospel Haer. 51.12. by the impulse of the Holy Ghost; and the other says, it was at the instance of the Asian Bishops. But now, as these two may well be accommodated, and are consistent; so it is in the Account given by the Ancients of the occasion of St. John's writing the Gospel; therefore St. Jerom Script. Eccles. joyns them together, and after he had said, That St. John wrote it in Confutation of Cerinthus, and other Hereticks; adds, there is also another Cause, and then falls in with Eusebius.

So Irenaeus expresly Advers. Haer. l. 3. c. 11. So Epiphanius.

And thus Sandius doth acknowledg, That against the Heresy of Cerinthus and Ebion, V. Epiphan. Haer. 51.2, 12, 13., St. John (as we have it by Tradition) wrote his Gospel.

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

First, As to Ebion, concerning him, It is, saith he, doubted by the Criticks, whether there was any such Man: Nay, a little after, he is got above the Criticks, and positively affirms, That Ebion never was. Now, supposing his Modern Opposers, and among them the Archbishop, for want of consulting the Indexes of Names in Church History, had mistaken; yet, how will that confute his Modern Opposers, who use to quote Irenaeus, Epiphanius, &c. for their Assertion, that St. John wrote against the Ebionites? For tho Ebion never was, yet the Ebionites were an early Sect, and as early as they make him.

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

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

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

So Epiphanius expresly, Haer. 30. Ebionites were so called from Ebion; whose Followers, saith he, would be so called from their being poor like the Apostles: But, saith that Father, This is a Fiction of their own; For Ebion was a proper Name.

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

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

He cannot deny, but that the Terms, Word, Light, Fulness, Only Begotten, are the Phraseology of the Gnosticks, or else he must never have read Irenaeus; which also are used by St. John. Now the question will be, Whether St. John hath used them by chance, as our Author imagines? Or that in Opposition to these Dreams, St. John shews all these Titles did truly belong to our Saviour, and to which there is a Perpetual Allusion, as his Grace affirms. I verily believe, That if a Gnostick had accidentally light upon that Chapter, as the Platonick Amelius is said to have done, he would no less have been convinced there was this Allusion to their Hypothesis, than that Philosopher was that the Evangelist did Platonize. Hence it was, That the following Gnosticks would have confirmed their Conjugations and Eons from thence. Iren. l. 1. c. 1. l. 3. c. 11.

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

Why so? When this Sect so far prevailed, That during the Lives of the Apostles, it grew to a great height, to the great Prejudice and Disturbance of the Christian Religion, as his Grace observes; for whose Purity and Preservation it became even this great Evangelist to be concerned. And tho our Sage Philosopher may call them, Chimaera's and Sickly Dreams, (as in truth they were) and so too trivial a Subject for the Apostolical Pen to write of; yet, when we consider how far those Heresies spread, how long they continued, and what mischief they did (as may be seen in Irenaeus, Tertullian, Epiphanius, &c.) we may agree to what Epiphanius saith upon this occasion. Neither, saith he, Haer. 27.7. let any one contemn these Dogmata, as full of folly; for foolish People are perswaded by foolish things. Nay, prudent Persons may decline from the right way, if the mind be not exercised in the way of truth; as that Father gives an instance of himself, Adv. Haer. l. 26. c. 17. when likely to be perverted by the Gnosticks.

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

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

But to put this past dispute, besides what is elsewhere, let our Author turn to Irenaeus, and he will find that Ancient Author expresly affirming, Adv. Haer. l. 3. c. 11. That St John wrote his Gospel against the Error of Cerinthus; and a little after, that St. John took away all ground of Dissention; and by the words, the World was made by him, he confuted the Gnosticks. So that if our Author was of that Opinion, it was without any ground.

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

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

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

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

As for the Phraseology, that is to be understood by the common use of the Words, or the Subject, or Science they relate to; and accordingly were these Phrases in St. John applied in their proper and ordinary signification, as not only the Orthodox Christians, but even the Arians, and Amelius the Platonist did understand them, (as his Grace observes from Eusebius) and our Author is forced to confess as much; for in the account he gives of the Historical occasion (viz. of Socinus's new Project) he thus introduces it, Socinus finding it to be the first of all God's Declarations, I am the Lord thy God. &c. he understood in the beginning, to be in the beginning of the Gospel state; and the Word was a God in a sense of Office; and the World he made, a spiritual World.

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

But supposing it to be so, yet, saith our Author, Socinus observed, that the Scriptures abound with such Metaphors and Figures even when they speak of God, as when God is said to have Eyes, Arms and Bowels, &c. to denote the sight, power and mercies of God. P. 49. a.

It's granted; but withal, as he saith, the Scriptures therein trust to the judgment of the most common Readers, and question not but the most ordinary capacity will so understand them. But then how comes this to pass, that from the time of St. John downwards, not the most common and ordinary, nay, the most accurate Readers, and extraordinary Capacities, were ever so happy as to make this discovery before the fortunate Socinus? And why were not they as well able to find out in this discourse of St. John the Ministerial Deity of our Saviour, the beginning of the Gospel state, and the spiritual World, (the only Key, it seems, to unlock the sense of that Divine Writer) as they were by the Hands, Eyes and Bowels of God, to understand his Power, Sight and Mercies? It's evident that the most ordinary Capacities did, generally speaking, by these Corporeal Members, understand the abovesaid Attributes of the Deity to be described. And it is also evident that for Socinus's explication of that Evangelist, the most famed Expositors, and much more common Readers, no more thought of it, than the Ancient Navigators did dream of that new World, which Columbus two Ages ago was so happy as to discover. So that it evidently appears, that there is not the same reason to interpret the Phrases, In the Beginning, and the Word was God, and all things were made by Him, in a metaphorical and figurative sense, as there is for the understanding the Corporeal Organs of Speech and Action, &c. after that manner, when applied to God: but that rather they must be understood properly and literally, as the Orthodox, the Arians, and all others have understood, and his Grace has expounded them.

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

Well, supposing this, yet if his Exposition hold so far good, the Socinian Hypothesis, that will not allow our Saviour to have any existence before his Nativity of the Virgin Mary, will then be utterly overthrown.

But what doth our Author mean? When he affirms or denies, as he pleases, what Irenaeus, Eusebius and Epiphanius say; they are Books few understand, and fewer have: but methinks he should be a little more cautious when he uses the same liberty in a Book published but the last year, and that has the good hap to be generally well received and read. How then can he say that his Grace can raise - the expressions no higher than Arianism? when it's the first of his Corollaries, viz. The Word here described by St. John, is not a Creature. And then follows, This Conclusion is directly against the Arians, who affirmed that the Son of God was a Creature. p. 39.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. He objects, Though he [Archbishop] cannot find the Coeternity in the words of St. John, yet he can interpret his own interpretation of his words, so as to make out the Coeternity: For he saith, in the Beginning, that is, the Son-already was, when things began to be; and by Consequence, the Son was without a Beginning; for that which was never made, could have no Beginning of its Being. And then he smartly returns upon him, How, Sir, is that a good Consequence, or any Consequence at all? For supposing the Son was when the World began to be, which is not yet Six thousand years ago, will it follow, that therefore he was absolutely without a Beginning, or was never made? &c.

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

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

So that if the Consequence be not good, or if it be no Consequence at all, the Scripture is to be blamed, and not his Grace for following it in a line of Argumentation. According to the Scripture way of speaking, that which was before the world, is accounted eternal: And therefore what was in the Beginning had no Beginning; and so the whole Cause of Arianism, that would have Christ to be part of the Creation, though before the world was, must unavoidably miscarry; which was the Case in hand, and what his Grace undertook to prove. But this was fit to be conceal'd; for otherwise our Author would have had as little to say to the Archbishop's Explication of the Phrase, In the Beginning, as he has to the other Phrases of the Evangelist. Therefore he chuses rather to wind off with a bare Repetition or two, to the Socinian Hypothesis, to try whether he can with better success encounter his Adversary upon his own Principles, than upon those of the Arian. p. 47. a. b.

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

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

As to the first of these, His Grace saith, Sermon II. p. 75. According to this rate of liberty in Interpreting Scripture, it will signify very little or nothing, when any Person or Party is concerned, to oppose any Doctrine contained in it; and the plainest Texts for any Article of Faith, how Fundamental and necessary soever, may by the same arts and ways of Interpretation be eluded and rendred utterly ineffectual for the establishing of it. For example, if any man had a mind to call in question that Article of the Creed, concerning the Creation of the World, why might he not, according to Socinus his way of Interpreting St. John, understand the first Chapter of Genesis concerning the Beginning of the Mosaical Dispensation; and Interpret the Creation of the Heaven and the Earth, to be the Institution of the Jewish Polity and Religion, as by the New Heavens and the New Earth, they pretend to be understood the New state of things under the Gospel, &c. It is certain that it was not Phrase of St. John misled Socinus, or gave him any occasion for his novel Interpretation, but a pre-conceived Principle (as has been before observed); for indeed the Phrase of St. John bears such a conformity to that of the First of Genesis, that one seems to be a key to the other; and in the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth, is so like to in the beginning was the Word, — and all things were made by him; that one is naturally led to think that as they in words seem to relate to the same state of things, so that the Word that thus was in the beginning, and made all things, was truly God; and that the whole Phraseology of it is as properly and literally to be understood in St. John, as in Genesis; and that the one can no more admit of a Moral and Allegorical Interpretation, than the other.

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

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

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

2. It contains somewhat untrue, as when to make out his Parallel, he saith, The first Chapter of St. John speaks of a certain Person the Lord Christ, who is confessed to have been a man, and yet it saith of him, All things were made by him. For he knows very well, that the Person there spoken of, is not confessed by any of his Adversaries to have been a Man, when that is spoken of him, that all things were made by him. For then he was the Logos, the Word, the only begotten Son of God; and was not a Man, or made Flesh, till about Four thousand Years after the Creation.

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

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

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

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

And then the Book of Genesis might as well have begun in the same Phrase with Moses, as St. John with the Word; after this manner, In the beginning was Moses, and Moses was with God, and Moses was God [or a God, as he will have it]. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. Such pitiful and sorry shifts are those drove to that first resolve upon an Hypothesis, and then are to seek how to maintain and defend it.

The only Point remaining with our Author is, That the Evangelist, who was a Jew, speaks here of the Messias, in the usual Stile and Language of the Jews, who were want to say, and say it in almost all their Ancient Books, that the Messias should make a New World, he should abolish Paganism and Idolatry from among the Nations; and thereby (as the Prophets also speak) Create a New Heaven and a New Earth.

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

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

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

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

What saith our Author to this?

Suppose this; Why may we not own that time and long consideration do improve all sorts of Sciences, and every part of Learning, whether Divine or Humane? I do not think it to be any Diminution of Socinus, that it may said of him, and of this Context, he hath rescued it from that Darkness in which it long lay.

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

1. That the literal Sense was so obvious, that the Orthodox, and even the Arians and Platonists (as Amelius) agreed in it. But here our Author, like a flying Tartar that dares not in a Pursuit look behind him, throws a spiteful Dart at his Adversary. As to Friend Amelius, I think it sufficient to say, That the Credit of the Trinitarian Cause runs very low; when an uncertain Tale of an obscure Platonist, of no Reputation either for Learning or Wit, is made to be a good part of the Proof that can be alledged for these Doctrines. This is spoke at all adventures; for if he had read Eusebius Praepar. p. 540. upon it, he would have found the Platonist to have deserv'd a better Character, and neither the Person to be so obscure, nor the Relation of it such an uncertain Tale, as he would represent it V. Sandius, p. 115, 119..

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

Let him however take or refuse Friend Amelius, it's a small part of the proof depends upon that Tale; the use made of that in concurrence with the Judgment of the Orthodox and Arians, was, that not one of them ever imagined that there was any other World alluded to in that place, than the Natural and Material World, nor other Beginning than that of the Creation.

2. His Grace goes on; Surely it ought to be very considerable in this Case, that the most Ancient Christian Writers, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, &c. and even Origen himself, are most express and positive in this matter, &c. And if this Interpretation of Socinus be true, it's almost incredible that those who lived so very near St. John's time, and were most likely to know his meaning, should so widely mistake it. And then that the whole Christan World should for so many Ages together be deceived in the ground of so important an Article of the Faith; and that no man did understand this Passage of St. John aright before Socinus. This very consideration alone, if there were no other, were sufficient to stagger any prudent man's Belief of this Misrepresentation.

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

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

But tho in words he will not allow it a Diminution, yet he in Fact betrays it; and after all, is not willing to own the Charge. For thus he argues, Why doth his Grace say, That not only all the Fathers, but all Christians have for this Fifteen Ages, agreed in his Interpretation of this Context? Have there been no Christians in the World for 1500 Years, but only the Arians and Trinitarians?

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

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

What an obscure Writer doth he make his Grace to be, when he is, as it were, forced to come again and again upon the Enquiry, and at length to conclude with, it may be it was his meaning? And yet at last he is so unfortunate as to mistake it.

For his Grace doth no more say, That Socinus was the first man that departed from the Arian and Trinitarian Sense of the Context, than he saith, That not only the Fathers, but all Christians have for Fifteen Ages agreed in it. For he knew full well, that there were Cerinthians, and Ebioniter, and Photinians, and others, that went under the General Name of Christians, that differ'd as well from the Arians as the Orthodox, and would allow our Saviour no other Existence, than he had as the Son of Mary, and so could not with consistence to their Principle, expound St. John, as the Orthodox and Arians expounded him. But let his Grace speak for himself, viz. Not only all the Ancient Fathers of the Christian Church, but, so far as I can find, all Interpreters whatsoever for Fifteen hundred years together did understand this passage of St. John in a quite different Sense, [from Socinus] namely of the Creation of the Material, and not of the Renovation of the Moral World.

And however our Author would evade and molify it, his Grace had proved it beyond Contradiction by the Confession of his great Oracle Socinus, and his Advocate Schlictingius, that own the true Sense of these Words was never before rightly explained V. Archb. Serm. 2. p. 69..

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

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

But if our Author is of any Credit, they did not only possess whole Provinces, but Ages too, the two first undoubtedly (as he suggests). And saith he, We are ready to dispute it in the presence of the Learned World, that the Fathers mentioned by his Grace were less of the mind of the Trinitarians, than of ours. They held the Doctrine that was afterwards called Arianism, p. 52. b. 54. a.

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

The second false Step, is his way of proof, which is this, We will [saith he] wrest it from all the World, that the Apostolick Creed, which was the only Creed of the three first Ages, is wholly Vnitarian, and perfectly contradicts that Interpretation of the beginning of St. John's Gospel, which his Grace seeks to advance, p. 52.

How that is, we must seek further, viz. p. 53. b. where he takes it up again. In the Apostles Creed, The Lord Christ is uncontestably spoken of, as having no Existence before he was generated in the Womb of the Blessed Mary, by the Spirit of God.

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

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

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

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

What is it then his Grace alledges this Text for? Why, it is to justify St. John, when he saith, That all things were made by the Word; and consequently the Word that made all things must be God. The Proposition is St. John's, the Consequence is indeed his Grace's, but what will necessarily follow, as he has proved it from Heb. 1.2. I perceive our Author needs to be remembred upon occasion: For tho this is the use his Grace makes of that Quotation in Sermon First, yet our Author is to know there is a Second Sermon, where his Grace doth not criticise upon Words, and shew how they may be expounded this way and that way, and leave it, in our Author's Phrase an uncertain Text; but fully shews, That this Verse, and Col. 1.16. must necessarily be understood of the old Creation of the Natural World and not of the Moral World, and the Renovation and Reformation of the Minds and Manners of men by the Gospel. And this he not only at large confirms, but also gives a particular Answer to the Comment of Schlictingius and Crellius upon it; Sermon II. p 103, 106 &c. Now our Author in reason should have interposed to the behalf of these his deserted Friends, and have given a just Reply to their Adversary; but his business is rather to propose, and repeat, and make some sudden fallies, than grapple with his Opponent, and come to downright Blows.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A. 1. I hope he will admit those to be Criticks that are in the Critici Sacri, or those whom Mr. Pool has inserted into his Synopsis; but if we may pass a judgment upon the Learned I • erpreters by them, we shall be far from finding a Number, and I believe it will be a Number of one, if he will be so favourable to us as to allow Grotius to be one of his Grace's Party.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For the clearer understanding of which, I shall take liberty to set before the Reader the connexion of a few Verses. The Apostle, v. 14 speaking of our Saviour, in whom we have redemption through his blood, &c. proceeds to shew who this Redeemer was, and that in a two-fold capacity. First, in respect of his Divine Nature, who is the image of God, the first-born or heir of the whole creation: And then gives the reason of such his preheminence, and why he bestows so great a Title upon him; and that is v. 16, 17. For by him were all things created, &c. From thence he proceeds to discourse of him as to his Human Nature, and the station he is in, v. 18. And he is the head of the body &c. And this done v. 20. he returns to the point where he set forth, v. 14. And accordingly his Lordship's Explication is very easy and natural, p. 34. Who is the image of God, the heir and Lord of the whole creation; for by him all things were created.

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

Of the Pre-existence of our Saviour.

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

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

1. Those which expresly assert the Son of God to have been, and to have been in Heaven with God, and partaker with him in his Glory, before his Incarnation and appearance in the World.

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

Of the first sort are Joh. 3.13. 6.62. 8.58. 13.3. 16.27. 17.5. 1 Joh. 1.1. in which it's said of our Saviour, that he came down from Heaven, was with God, was before Abraham; that he had a Glory with the Father before the World was.

To those which say our Saviour was in Heaven, and came down from Heaven, our Author returns some general Answers, (as for method's sake I shall consider them.)

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

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

And if as much as this is true of every Prophet, then it may be said of every Prophet, and of John the Baptist as well as our Saviour, that he ascended into Heaven, and came down from Heaven, and was with God, and had a Glory with him before the World was, &c. But where do we find the Scripture to express it self after this manner of any but our Saviour, no not of Moses, as much a Friend of God, and conversant with him, as he is affirmed to be?

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

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

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

As for what he adds from these latter Texts, Would our Saviour have said he came from God, is sent by God, to deliver a Doctrine which is not the Messenger's, if he had himself pretended to be God?

A. This, I am sure is nothing to the purpose; for what is this to the Pre existence of our Saviour, the present subject of the Discourse? But however, what inconsistence is there in this, for our Saviour to say, the Doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me, tho he himself be God, and partake of the same Nature with the Father, when he is the only begotten of the Father, and was also Man? Why is this any more inconsistent, than to have it said, that he is God, and yet the Man Christ Jesus; that he was in the beginning with God, and yet born in the fulness of time; that he knew all things, John 16.30.21.17. and yet knew not the time or day of Judgment? Mark 13.32, &c.

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

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

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

2. Where is it expresly said in that, or any other Text, that our Saviour ascended into Heaven before his Ministry? It is not so expresly said, That our Saviour ascended into Heaven, but that Servetus understood it Spiritually, and saith that it was so express'd, because his Spirit was from the beginning in Heaven, and that his words were heavenly. But it's neither there, nor any where expresly said, That our Saviour ascended into Heaven before his Ministry, and then came down from Heaven to declare the Will of God to Men. That is wholly a Fiction of a Case, as his Lordship has sufficiently proved. Our Author, indeed, would represent it, as if his Grace had only found fault with them for this their Opinion; and after the having bestowed a few hard words upon it, and call'd it an Arbitrary and Precarious Supposition, (tho he himself understands the Text in a literal Sense) should then give it up.

But that this is a Fiction of their own, I may say again, his Lordship has sufficiently proved; and so much the more reason have I now to say it, as his Adversary has not dared so much as to take to task any one Argument or Paragraph relating to it. For with what strength doth his Grace argue against it from the exact History of our Saviour's Life, from the importance of the matter (if true), from the Silence of the Evangelists, and especially of St. John? How doth he argue against it from the Weakness of the Socinian attempts to prove it, and for which in effect they have nothing to say? How from the inconsistency of it with Scripture? and that whereas St. John saith, The Word was in the beginning, and then was made Flesh: They say, That he was first made Flesh, and then a great while after was in the beginning with God. How, lastly, doth he argue from the disagreement in the several parts of this their Interpretation; as it may be worth the Reader's while himself to observe Serm. 2. p. 93, &c. ?

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

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

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

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

But supposing it were literally to be understood, yet will it not serve their purpose. For then, according to the letter of it, our Saviour must have come down from Heaven before he ascended thither. If it had been worded, that no man hath come down from Heaven, but he that hath ascended into Heaven, then he would have ascended first, and after that have descended: But when it's said, No man hath ascended into Heaven, but he that came down from Heaven, (if the manner of speaking is to be our Guide) then he must have came down before he ascended, after the way the Apostle speaks, Ephes. 4.9, 10. Now that he ascended, what is it, but that he also descended first, &c.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. I may add, If the sense of this Prayer of our Saviour is, Father, glorify me with thine own self, with the glory which I had with thee in thy Decree and Promise before the world was; then (according to what our Saviour saith, ver. 22. The glory which thou hast given me, I have given them, the like Glory being promised to and decreed for all the Faithful) every good man may use the same Prayer with our Saviour, and say, Father, • lorify me with thine own self, with the glory which I had with thee before the World was. But I suppose St. Austin, (who our Author saith was for this decretal sense) would not have presumed to do so.

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

The second Text produced by the Archbishop, is John 8.58. Before Abraham was, I am: The obvious sense of which words (saith his Grace) is, That he had a real Existence before Abraham was actually in Being, p. 86.

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

That this is nothing but what might have been said of any other man, and even of Araham himself; and that our Saviour had then no preference or advantage above Abraham. And then argues from the words I am, as the proper Name of God, whereby is signified the Eternal Duration and Permanency of his B • ing. Which he confirms by several other places.

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

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

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

But what if those Proofs run no higher than Arianism? they are sufficient: For all his Grace was under any obligation at this time to prove, was our Saviour's Pre-existence, against the Socinians, Serm II. p. 56, &c. (having in his former Sermon maintained the Point of our Saviour's Deity, against the Arians, &c.) And if he has proved that, he has gained the Point under Consideration.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fairly offered, and fit to be accepted.

In the first place, I take it for granted, that I need not remind him of what his Grace has observed, That these Expressions are the common Description which the Scripture gives of the Eternity of God, whose Being is commensurate to all the several respects of Duration, past, present, and to come. For this is the reason why our Author denies this to belong to our Saviour, since that would be to ascribe such a Being to him, as is commensurate to all these Durations. Therefore with his usual assurance, he affirms, That they are not spoken of our Lord Christ, seems to me as clear as Meridian Light, from what is said v. 4. From him which is, which was, and which is to come, and from Jesus Christ. Where we see plainly, that Jesus Christ is distinguished as a different person from that Almighty who is, and who was, and who is to come; therefore he cannot be intended in the Description, v. 8.

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

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

I shall begin with v. 8. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. All the question is, who is the Lord that thus saith of himself, I am Alpha and Omega, &c? For this we must consult the context, and then the Character will appear to be his that cometh with Clouds, v. 7. That made us Kings and Priests unto God and his Father, v. 6. the first begotten of the Dead, the Prince of the Kings of the earth, that loved us and washed us in his blood, even Jesus Christ, v. 5. So that he is no less the Alpha and Omega, than he is the Prince of the Kings of the earth.

But let us go on with that Divine Writer, whom we find after the same manner describing our Saviour, v. 11. I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last. And that it's given as a Character belonging to him, is evident, for he is the same that commanded St. John to write, and whose Voice he heard, the Son of man that he saw in the midst of the seven candlesticks, v. 12, 13. So again, v. 17. he that saith of himself, I am the first and the last, is the same with him that saith of himself, v. 18. I am he that liveth and was dead, and behold I am alive for evermore. So again, he saith of himself, chap. 2.8. These things saith the first and the last, which was dead and is alive. And as St. John begins, so he ends this Prophetical Book, cap. 22.13. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last; viz. the same with him that saith, ver. 12, & 20. Behold, I come quickly; — Jesus that sent his Angel to testify these things, v. 16.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In which his Grace observes two Difficulties and Absurdities. 1. That they hereby bring Idolatry by a back-door into the Christian Religion, as they give Divine Worship to a mere Creature, and as they willingly admit two Gods, the one by Nature, and the other by Office. 2. That they cannot vindicate themselves in this point in any other way, than what will in a great measure acquit both the Pagans and Papists from the charge of Idolatry.

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

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

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

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

His Answer to this is well worthy our Observation.

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

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

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

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

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

A. This is much as if when charged with Idolatry for giving Divine Worship to Christ, if a mere Man, he should say, Will his Grace deny positively and directly, that Christ is a Man? For though he denies not Christ to be a Man, yet he affirms, That Christ, if no more than a Man, is not to be worshipped with Divine Honour. So tho he should not deny Christ to be a God by Representation and Office, yet he affirms that one who is so and no more, cannot be the True God, nor be worshipped as God; for that would establish a Plurality of Gods. But his Grace on the other hand took not himself concerned, nor doth the Case require, that he should positively assert, That Christ is a God by Representation; for that is more than our Author himself dares to do, who faintly enough concludes, That as Moses is called a God, so also Christ may be called a God by Mission, Representation, and Office.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Of the Incarnation of our Blessed Saviour.

AFTER a Discourse of several Pages, which our Author declines, his Lordship proceeded to the most usual and considerable Objections of his Adversaries against the Doctrine of Christ's Incarnation. As,

Object. 1. They say, That this Union of the Divinity with the Humane Nature, is, if not altogether impossible, yet very unintelligible.

To this his Grace replies, That there is no impossibility, is evident from the Union between the Soul and Body of a man, p. 147, and 158.

Against this our Author makes two Exceptions.

Except. 1. In a personal Vnion of a Soul with a Body, the Vnion is between two Finite and Commensurate things; which is not only possible, but very conceivable. But in the pretended personal Vnion of God to Man, and Man to God, the Vnion is between Finite and Infinite.

Answer. Here our Author over-runs the Point, when he considers the personal Union of a Soul and Body, merely as a Union between two Finites; for instances between such, the World is full of: Whereas the Difficulty is, as the Union is between Soul and Body, that is, Spirit and Matter, which are two extreams, and so incommensurate; and yet notwithstanding they are not only vitally united, but they both retain their distinct Natures and Properties, as his Grace observes. Under which Notion, the personal Union between two such unequals is as difficult to conceive (were it not that we are sure that it is) as the personal Union between the divine and humane Natures in our Saviour.

But our Author pursues his Point. For, saith he,

The personal Union of God to Man is between Finite and Infinite; which cannot be without admitting one of these things; Either that Finite and Infinite are Commensurate; which every one knows is false: Or, that the Finite is united only to some part of the Infinite, and is disjoyned from the rest of it; which all Trinitarians deny and abhor; because if so, Jesus Christ should not be perfect God, but only God in part.

Answer. By this way of arguing our Author may as well undertake to prove, that there is no such thing as a personal Vnion between the Soul and Body; For, that cannot be imagined without admitting one of these two things; either that Soul and Body are commensurate and equal, and alike extended, which every one knows is false: Or, That Body and Soul are united as to some part only, which is disjoyned from the rest, and that is of a Spirit to make it material. What more plain, if his Argument be true, than that there can be no personal Union between the Soul and Body, such distant extremes? So that you may as soon expect that the soft and impalpable Air should be united to a Thunderbolt, or a Speculative thought to a Milstone, as that there can be a Union between things so incommensurate and unequal, as a Body and a Soul are. But if notwithstanding such conceived Difficulties, Soul and Body are thus found to be united; then is it alike consistent that the two Natures in our Blessed Saviour be united in one Person.

Again, by the same way he may go on and prove that Immensity is no perfection of the Divine Nature; and that it's impossible God should be every where, and Essentially present. For Immensity (if it be) has a relation to place, that is, Infinite to Finite: but such a relation cannot be in God, without one of these two things, that Finite [place] and Infinite [immensity] are Commensurate, which every one knows is false: Or, that the Finite [place] has a relation to some part of the Infinite, and is disjoyned from the rest of it; and so the Divine Essence is particle and divisible, which all deny: The Difficulty we see presses as hard upon the personal Union of Soul and Body, and God's Immensity, as upon the Union of the Divine and Humane Natures in our Saviour; and which he must deny, or give up his Argument.

Indeed it is not for us to talk Metaphysically of the Divine Nature, till we understand our own; nor of the Nature, Kinds and Modes in higher matters, till we understand the Connexion and Union of parts in a pebble or a bubble: left by such an Attempt we run our selves into Heresie, a dangerous and inevitable Rock, as our Author represents the Case; or into his downright Nonsense, of uniting two Understandings, or Persons, by the Abolition of one of them.

Except. 2. The Vnion of Soul and Body may be personal, that is, may constitute or make one Person: because it is not the Vnion of two Persons, but only of one Person (the Soul) to a thing which is otherways without Life, Reason, Memory, or Free-Will — But in the (pretended) Vnion of God with Man, there are two distinct, and very different Lives, Reasons, Memories and Free-Wills, which utterly destroy the Notion of a personnl Vnion. For a personal Vnion supposes but one Life, one Reason, one Memory, one Free-Will. Because if these things which constitute a Person are found more than once, there is no longer one Person but two, and consequently no personal Vnion in the sense in which we are arguing.

Answer. I deny that two Lives, or two Understandings, or two Free Wills, do necessarily make two different Persons or Beings, when there is a Subordination between them; for then they receive their Denomination or Title from the Supreme. As we usually say there are three sorts of Life, Vegetation in Plants, Animality in Brutes, and Rationality in men; now if one of these is alone, that gives Denomination to it, as a Plant is called a Vegetable. But when the Vegetative life is united to the Animal, it loses that Character, and the Creature then is called an Animal, and is so called as if there was no Principle in it of Vegetation. And the rational (though there be Vegetation and Animality) is so called, as if there was no Vegetation or Animality. That is, when there are several Powers one in Subordination to another, they make not several Beings (as they would do if alone) but the Supream gives the Denomination to the whole.

And thus it is in the Case before us, where there are two Natures, the Divine and Humane; two Lives, the Immortal and Mortal; two Understandings, an infinite and a Limited; two Wills; and yet not two Persons: because the Understanding and Will of the Inferior (the Humane Nature) is subordinate to the Superior (the Divine) and so the Person is as much one, as if there had been but one Nature, one Life, one Understanding, and one Will.

As to our Author's History of Apollinarius, Nestorius, and Eutyches, (were I disposed to make Excursions) I could present him with the Rhapsody and Bedrole of the Opinions of those he calls Vnitarians, from Cerinthus and Ebion downward to Socinus, and of the Violences and Outrages of the Arians against the Photinians and Orthodox; and of the Rancour of the Photinians against the Arians and Orthodox: but that I shall refer to a more proper occasion.

Object. 2. 'Tis a thing incongruous, and much beneath the Dignity of the Son of God, to be united to Humane Nature.

To this his Grace makes a large Reply, and amongst other things saith: The lower any Being, be he never so high, condescends to do good, the Glory of his Goodness shines so much the brighter.

To this passage alone our Author returns an Answer, if I may call a Representation so, and in requital I shall return him the Reverse of his Comparison, mutatis mutandis. If Christ by the just interest he has in the favour of his Father, procures the pardon of Sinners, and to keep them for the time to come from the like bad courses, should obtain the Grant of eternal Happiness, and then give them such Counsel and Precepts, as might best dispose them to a new Course of Life; — Would not this Care and Benignity be sufficient, unless the Son of God himself came, and be content to be cloathed with the Rags of Humanity, and to be bound and buffetted, Imprisoned, Arraigned, Condemned and Crucified for them? In his Judgment, Such a Scene would have more of Folly than Goodness. And he concludes, Therefore much less is it to be supposed of God, than of a Wise man.

This needs no farther Animadversion, the Impiety of it is a sufficient Reply.

Object. 3. The Incarnation is not necessary, saith he. For our Opposers grant this, that the pardon of Sin might have been offer'd to mankind by a Prophet in the name of God; so that there was no apparent cogent Necessity, no extraordinary and indispensable cause for it; and so must be allowed an unaccountable, causeless Debasement of the Divine Majesty; and seeing no such cause is assigned, saith he, we have leave to believe it never was.

A. The Objection is of our Author's own forming; and there are two Uses he makes of his Adversary's Concession (which for the present we will take as he represents it.)

1. That if there was no apparent cogent Necessity, no indispensable cause for the Incarnation, it must be an unaccountable and causeless Debasement.

2. Seeing no such cause is assigned, therefore they have reason to believe it never was.

As to the First, it's a gross Mistake; for there may be a good and sufficient cause for that, which there is no Cogent and Indispensable, and much more no Apparent necessity for: He tells us, That the Gospel and pardon of Sin might have been offer'd to Mankind by a Prophet in the name of God, and so there was no Apparent and Cogent necessity for Christ's Incarnation. And surely if the offering Pardon by a Prophet was sufficient, there was no Apparent, Cogent, and indispensable Necessity for Christ's coming into the World; and then (according to our Author's way of arguing) Christ's coming into the World is as unaccountable, and causeless, as he would have his Incarnation to be.

2. As to the Second: Seeing no such cause is assigned, therefore the Son of God was never incarnate.

A. I answer, By this way of arguing, Christ was never Crucified, any more than he was Incarnate. For if there was no Indispensable cause for it, it might have been omitted; and there was no Indispensable cause for it, where the Teaching of a Prophet was sufficient. And without an Indispensable cause, our Author has taught us The Wisdom of God would not stoop to such a Humiliation; And consequently, our Saviour was no more Crucified than he was Incarnate, if our Author argues right.

Under the covert of this Objection, our Author takes to Task the Reasons which his Grace offers for our Saviour's being Incarnate; and excepting the case of Mysteries (which I shall reserve for another place) our Author frames one general Answer to them all, viz.

'That these Considerations do not prove the Incarnation expedient in the Age of Augustus; for they were much more forcible in the Time of Adam, than of Augustus. For in the last, God could propound only to reclaim Men from their Idolatries, Errors and Impieties; but if he had been incarnate in the Age of Adam he had prevented them. And if these are good Arguments, 'tis Morally impossible, either that there was in the Age of Augustus, or ever shall be an Incarnation. He concludes, I think I may say, this is an accurate and just Reasoning: it being founded on this Maxim of common Prudence, that what was more expedient to be done at first than afterwards, would have been at first, if it had been at all expedient to be done.

A. The Reasons given of Christ's Incarnation, viz. The reclaiming Mankind from their Idolatries, Errors and Impieties, are the same with the Reasons for Christ's coming into the World: And where the Reasons are the same, they are to be tryed in the same way. Let us therefore put Christ's coming into the World, into the room of his being Incarnate; and we shall find it as requisite (if our Author's Argument be of any force) that he should have come into the World from the beginning, as that he should have been Incarnate from the beginning; and as Morally impossible he should have been born in the Age of Augustus, as that he should have been Incarnate in his time. For these Reasons were much more forcible in the Age of Adam than of Augustus. For by so late a Nativity as the Age of Augustus, God could propound only to reclaim Men from their Idolatries, &c. but by being born in the very time of Adam, he had prevented the Idolatries of 4000 Years.— If these be good Arguments for Christ's Nativity, 'tis Morally impossible, either that there was in the Age of Augustus, or that there ever shall be a Saviour born into the World.

The same Argument will also affect the Gospel, and make it necessary, that it should have been as completely published in the Age of Adam as of Augustus.

This is a home Charge indeed, a charge of a great Overfight and neglect in Almighty God, for want, it seems, of attending to a Maxim of common Prudence, viz. Of doing what was more expedient to be done at first than afterwards. For according to our Author, the whole design of Salvation by Christ was mistimed, and the fulness of time for it was in the Age of Adam, and not of Augustus. This he accounts acurate and just Reasoning; and I suppose the next News we hear, will be Amendments upon the Gospel; and a Set of Chronological Tables to rectifie us in these Matters. And to that work I leave him. For I suppose he will not expect from his Adversaries, that they should prove to him, that the time of Augustus was better than that of Adam, for our Lord's appearance in the World; or to give him the Reasons, why Almighty God chose the time of Augustus for the Nativity of our Saviour, and the publishing the Gospel by him, rather than the time of Adam.

A Vindication of the Lord Bishop of Worcester's Sermon concerning The Mysteries of the Christian Faith, from the Exceptions made against it, by the Author of the Considerations on the Explications of the Doctrine of the Trinity.

IF the Author of the Considerations had a mind to have writ upon a Noble Argument, this Learned Adversary gave him a fair occasion to try his Skill, by proposing the two different Hypotheses concerning the Salvation of mankind by Jesus Christ, and shewing the agreeableness of the one, By his assuming our Nature, and suffering in our stead, to the revealed Will of God. Which he confirms, as it's most plain and easie, and agreeable to the most received Sense of the Words; as it suits with the Scope and Design of the whole New Testament; hath been generally received in the Christian Church; and best agrees with the Characters of those Persons from whom we receive the Christian Faith, viz. Christ Jesus and his Apostles. Upon the last of these his Lordship more particularly Discourses.

But instead of taking his Adversary to Task about this weighty Subject, our Author chuses rather to fall upon some other Points, where he may have a greater Scope for the gratifying his roving Fancy; not caring to be tyed up by the Rules and Measures of strict Argumentation; and therefore for the fitting to his purpose what he had to say, he passes over the other, under the Character of a great many Heads, too troublesome for a Reader's view, whereas the Chief of all (as he will have it) lies in these Three.

1. God may justly require of us to believe what we cannot not comprehend.

2. Those who reject the Mysteries of Faith, do themselves advance greater Mysteries than those they declaim against.

3. The manner and way of Salvation the Church teaches, tends more to the benefit of mankind, than the way of Salvation by Christ taught by the Socinians.

Of these Three Propositions our Author thus passes his Judgment. The first is true; but not to the purpose. The Second is home to the purpose, but not true. The Third is neither true nor to the purpose.

When he elsewhere read this Character of a certain Book, without doubt he thought the Cadence of it very pretty, and might be divertive for his Reader, whether it were right or wrong, and fit for his purpose or not. But because I am apt to suspect the Exactness of such Turns of Fancy, I shall make bold to examine them, and see how his Character and the Heads of Discourse he applies it to, will agree.

The first, saith he, is true, but not to the Purpose.

The contrary of this used to be accounted true by his Predecessors in the same way; Socinus himself, as his Lordship shewed [Serm. p. 21.] denied the Divine Prescience, because he could not comprehend it; and the incomprehensibleness of a Doctrine used to be a mighty Argument amongst the Socinians, against the truth of it, as might be shewn. But our Author is of another mind, as he tells us, for the present: And if his Lordship could by Prescience have foretold his mind, and foreseen he would have replied upon him, he might have spar'd to himself (as he gravely observes) the Pains of these ten Pages in his Sermon, in which he seeks to prove, that there are many things we do not comprehend. But his Lordship is not to be blamed for want of that Prescience, which the acute Socinus would not allow to God himself. And to say the truth of it, he thought he had wrote against a Socinian Point, but our Author can tell him, He utterly mistakes; perhaps his Lordship had not read the Notes on the Creed of Aibanasius, nor the Trinitatian Scheme of Religion, nor the Answer to Mr. Milbourn, (Books our Author recommends) nor the History of the last Seven years; for it's likely he might there have found the Index Expurgatorius to Socinus, and his Successors; and the Alterations made in this Refining Age in their grosser Doctrine, without which they will tell him he writes against imaginary Socinianism. But our Author within the compass of Three pages changes his mind. In page 4. All the works of God are Incomprehensible, and we cannot comprehend the least Spire of Grass. But pag. 7. He cannot understand why his Lordship and many others are so positive, that we cannot comprehend an infinite Attribute, as Eternity. Now I should have thought that the works of God, and a Spire of Grass are as comprehensible as an infinite Attribute. He tells us, Contradictions are by all confessed to be Impossibilities; and so I take Comprehensible and Incomprehensible to be; it remains therefore upon him to shew that they are possible; and-that while it is not possible for a Spire of Grass to be comprehended, that yet Eternity may. He bears a little too hard upon his Readers, to suppose their Memory or Attention will not hold out Three pages together; and that he may have the liberty to affirm and deny, and contradict himself (as shall best serve his end) without offence to their understanding. But perhaps, The heat of Writing and Controversie was the occasion of this Inadvertency.

The first of these, The Incomprehensiblenss of God's works, is left in it's place to try its fortune, and to subsist upon its own Credit. But when he maintains the Comprehensibleness of an infinite Attribute (he might have said Infinity, for that is a Divine Attribute) because it sounds not so well, and these Men that have taught the World, that to do Contradictions would not be a Perfection, but an Imperfection in the Divine Nature, may have also taught them, that Infinity cannot be comprehended by a Finite understanding, nor God be comprehended by a Creature; because of this he takes himself concerned to make good his Paradox, by setting up such a Notion of Comprehension as he conceives may support it: And that is, that to comprehend a thing, is to have a clear, distinct and adequate Conception of it. And he adds, May we not have such a Notion of an infinite Attribute? I think we may. Let us suppose for the present, his Definition of Comprehension to be good and right; may we not then have as clear, distinct, and adequate Conception of a Spire of Grass, or any of God's Works, as of Infinity and Eternity? And then how comes he before to acknowledge the Truth of that saying of his Lordship's, that we cannot comprehend the least Spire of Grass?

But how true soever his Notion of Comprehending may be, he mistakes in the Application, when he saith, VVe may have a clear, distinct, and adequate Conception of an infinite Attribute. Now we used to say (till the days of discarding Mysteries came on) that only God can comprehend his own Essence, and nothing less than Infinite could have a clear, distinct, and adequate Conception of Infinite. For 'tis evident we have not a clear, distinct, and adequate Conception of that which we can give no adequate Definition of. But we can give no adequate Definition of Infinite; and therefore-are forced to speak of it by way of Negation, and rather say what it is not, than what it is. Thus he himself describes God's Eternity, viz. 'Tis that Duration by which he is without all Beginning and End. which is by no means, a clear, distinct, and adequate Definition of it. For first Duration applied to Eternity, is what is usually call'd a Contradiction in Adjecto: For saith our Author, It is of the Nature of a Duration to consist in a Succession; But in Eternity is no Succession. For what Succession was there before the Creation of the World? And yet there was the same Eternity then as now. So that to describe Eternity by Duration, and to cut that Indivisible into parts by Succession, is to make a temporary Eternity, which methinks sounds as ill as an Eternal moment. Secondly, Its by no means an adequate Definition of Eternity, because it consists of Negatives, without all Beginning and End. A greater Proof cannot be given of the Inadequateness of our Conception, than thus to go through the World of Beings, and Assertions, and to say it is not this, and it is not that, and yet we are never the nearer to tell what the thing really is. As if I would ask, What is an infinite Attribute? And he should answer, A Perfection without bounds. What is a Spirit? A Being that hath no Flesh and Bones. What Eternity? A Duration without Beginning or End. Do we understand Infinity, a Spirit, or Eternity, the better for all this? As suppose when the word Spirit is applied to God, Angels, and Souls departed; will the abovesaid Definition give me any clear, distinct, and adequate Conception of it, and assign the difference between what it is in God, and what in a Creature, or what at all? A mistake then it is in the thing, as well as a Contradiction in him; and the reason of this Blunder (next to a Carping-Disposition of mind, watchful to take all advantages) is, that he was not aware of the difference between apprehend and comprehend, and confounded Existence with Essence, That the thing is, with what the thing is. And of both of these he himself has given us a remarkable Instance.

For the Bishop having said, If nothing is to be believed but what may be comprehended, the very Being of God must be rejected too. P. 22. Our Author upon it makes this Observation, 'That the Attributes of God are Incomprehensible, I have often heard; but never till now what his Lordship adds 'in the next place, purely from himself, If nothing, saith he, is to be believed, &c. But why is this purely from himself? For this admirable Reason, subjoyned by our Author, To comprehend the Being or Existence of God, is only this, to comprehend that God is: and if we cannot comprehend that, all Religion ceases. But how came that word Existence in? To comprehend the Being or Existence of God is only this, &c. For his Lordship has no other word than Being, which plainly there refers to the Nature, and not the Existence of the Almighty. So in the Paragraph just before, It is Madness to pretend to comprehend what is Infinite: And in the close of the same Paragraph, As long as they believe an Infinite and Incomprehensible Being, it is Nonsense to reject any other Doctrine which relates to an Infinite Being, because it is Incomprehensible. So that it's God, as an Infinite and Incomprehensible Being, that his Lordship is Discoursing of; not of his Existence, but his Essence and Nature. And yet we are not at an end of these Difficulties, were we to consider his Existence.

To return to the Bishop's first Proposition (as recited by our Author) viz. God may justly require of us to believe what we cannot comprehend. To what purpose is this? For our Author saith, He [the Bishop] utterly mistakes, in thinking that we deny the Articles of the New Christianity, or Athanasian Religion [concerning the Trinity, the Deity, and Incarnation of our Saviour, &c.] because they are Mysteries, or because we do not comprehend them; we deny them, because they are Contradictons, Impossibilities, and pure Nonsense, p. 4. b.

Surely this New Christianity, this Athanasian Religion, is no other than Babylon in the Revelation, that had Mystery wrote on her Forehead, that was the Mother of Harlots, and Abominations of the whole Earth; and deserves to be treated in like manner, if she vends Imposture and Contradictions under the name of Mysteries, as he represents it. But in defect of a Royal Authority to consummate the Sentence, there is a terrible Scourge, a Book wrote by a Learned Friend of theirs, that hath wrought wonders, and with the like Success as the Whips were shew'd to the Sicilian Slaves, to their utter Discomfiture. So that the Merchants of these Wares have their Markets spoiled, or much hindred, if he is to be believed. And yet after all, if we may guess at the Book by his Sample out of it, it's as gentle as one could wish; and falls in with his Adversaries. For what doth he say, but what they have said before him? As,

1. There are in Religion some Mysteries, and Incomprehensible Secrets.

2. We are not to give the venerable Name of Mystery to Doctrines contrary to Nature's and Reason's Light.

3. The ordinary meaning of Mystery in Scripture, is not something in it's own nature dark and obscure, but something intelligible, and kept secret in past Ages, and was revealed in Gospel-times. But for all this, may not the word Mystery be applied to such things as are in some measure known, but in much greater unknown to us (as his Lordship saith)? And when our Author's Friend doth say, the ordinary meaning of Mystery in Scripture, is for what was a Secret, but now made known; it supposes that he was sensible it was also sometimes there us'd for what was in its own nature dark and obscure. I thought to have pursued this Argument, but I the rather pass it, because it's under the Consideration of a Learned Pen.

Amongst the Instances that are Incomprehensible, his Lordship begins with Eternity; and saith, That he is apt to think, there is no greater Difficulty in the conception of the Trinity, and Incarnation, than there is of Eternity. A bold Saying! And he deserves to be expos'd for it. Difficulties the Bishop calls them, but our Author will have it Contradictions, and many Contradictions in the Trinity and Incarnation; and insinuates that his Lordship would himself have call'd his Difficulties in Eternity, Contradictions, if he durst; For thus his Adversary goes on, He dares not call them Contradictions (though as he states them they are undeniable Contradictions) because if they were confess'd to be Contradictions, he would be forced to deny an Eternity. And it is not long before we are told the Bishop denies that also.

There are two Difficuties his Lordship observes in the Eterternity of God.

The first is, 'That if God was for ever, he must be from himself; and what Notion can we have in our minds concerning it?

Our Author represents this, as if it was the Bishop's design to argue against God's Eternity, after this manner, I am sorry an Eternal God must be a Contradiction. Had he no way to defend his New Mysteries, but by espousing the Cause of the Atheists? &c.

A Calumny as black as Hell! For, is there any word leaning this way? What! to prove that there are Contradictions in the Notion of Eternity, or that an Eternal God is a Contradiction! Doth not his Lordship both affirm there is great reason to believe the Eternity of God, and in the same breath effectually prove it, and confute those Atheists whose Cause this Slanderer would have him to espouse? But this is his usual way of prefacing an Argument; the reason for it lies open enough.

But where is the Contradiction? At last it proves one of his own making. For, saith he, What makes him [the Bishop] say, God must be from himself, or self-originated? For then he must be before he was.

For God to be before he was, is a Contradiction. But I do not see how it follows, that if he is from himself, he must be before he was? For he may be from himself, and yet be necessarily and eternally Existent. This 'tis likely our Author saw, and therefore to clinch his Argument, he joyns an alias to the Phrase, From himself, and then it is From himself, or Self-originated. And now he has put a pretty varnish upon it; for Self-originated, if strictly taken, implies an Origine or Beginning from himself: And (as he saith) All Origination of what kind soever is inconsistent with an Eternal Being. If his Lordship had said, God had his Beginning or Origination from himself, or in his Adversarie's phrase were Self-originated, there had been some colour for him to have inferred, Then he was in Being before he was. But to be from himself, is no more liable to such an inference, than when we say he is Self-existent, or in the word used by the Fathers, ' 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , God of and from himself, that is, so as to have no Cause nor Beginning.

The second Difficulty his Lordship proposed about God's Eternity, is, How God should co-exist with all the differences of times, and yet there be no Succession in his own Being?—And Succession being not consistent with the Absolute Perfection of the Divine Nature, therefore God must be all at once what he is.

This our Author saith, is a great many Contradictions, and proposes no less than Five Queries upon it, which he gives his Lordship time till Dooms-day to answer. For thus he closes them, The Notion of the Trinity, and this Notion of Eternity, will be vindicated both in a Day.

However we will try if the Day for it be not already come; and for trial's sake, I will venture to offer them again to the Reader, as they stand in his Treatise.

Q. 1. What is the difference between an Eternal Moment, (which every one discerns is a Contradiction in the very terms) and between possessing Eternal Life all at once, which is his Lordship's Definition of Eternity?

A. The difference is as great, as between Contradiction and Truth. An Eternal Moment is a Contradiction; for a Moment is a moveable point, and passes as soon into not being, as it came into being. It was not, it is, and immediately is not; and so nothing more opposite in the nature of it to Eternity. But Eternity admits no Succession, no Divisibility, no Moments, no Past, no Future, no Motion, no Change, and consequently must be all existent together, and all at once: For there is no mean between Succession, and all at once; and since Succession is imcompatible with Eternity, Eternity must be all at once. And if God did not possess himself all at once, he could not be Eternal.

Q. 2. Seeing it is of the Nature of all Duration to consist in a Succession, else it were not Duration but a Moment, I ask whether it be not unavoidable, that if Almighty God possesses Eternal Life all at once, he must have passed into some Durations before they are? The Duration, for example, in which the Day of Judgment shall be, is not actually come. But if God possesses Eternity all at once, he is already entred upon that Duration, that is, he is entred upon it before it is.

A. If it be of the Nature of all Duration to consist in a Succession, then there can be no more Duration than there is Succession in an Eternal Being: And consequently, 'tis a gross Absurdity to conceive of God, as entring upon a certain Duration, and passing into some Duration, which is to conceive of him as a Temporary Being, and that began to be, (for so it is in all Succession) and not as one that is Eternal.

Q. 3. Seeing it is a Contradiction, and therefore impossible, that any Being should possess a Duration before such Duration is; I desire to know of his Lordship, how it can be an Imperfection (as he affirms) in the Divine Nature, not to do that which implies a Contradiction, &c.

A. 'Tis true, that it is a Contradiction, and therefore impossible for a Creature, to whom Duration and Succession belong, to possess a Duration before such Duration is. But it is a Contradiction, and therefore impossible for God to possess any Duration (which consists in Succession) because he is Eternal. For him to possess a certain Duration and Succession, would be to suppose him in Duration A, before he removed to Duration B, and when he is in Duration B, to have left Duration A. Eternity in God, is with respect to Time, what Immensity is to Place; and so he is all at once, as he is at once in all places; and as notwithstanding the innumerable Divisions in place, God is no more divided, than he was before Place was created. So, notwithstanding the manifold distributions of time, God is no more in one Duration than in another, but is now the same Eternal undivided Being, when there is a Before, a Present, and an After in Time, as he was before there was any Time, Duration or Succession.

Q. 4. How is it more an Imperfection to pass from not being, into such a Duration, to such a Being in it, than 'tis an Imperfection to pass from not operating in such a Duration, to operating in it? This last all men must confess to be true of God; for none will dare to say, God made all his Works at once.

A. To pass from Duration to Duration, and from not being in such a particular Duration to a Being in it, is no other than Succession which (as has been shew'd) is utterly inconsistent with the Nature of God, who is Eternal.

To pass from not operating in such a Duration, to operating in it, is to suppose there was a Duration before God did operate in it, which is manifestly absurd. For Duration is a continuance of Time; but what Duration was there in Eternity, before there was any Time, or God began to operate and make the World?

Again, To argue from the Works of God to his Nature, is to circumscribe him to Time and Place, as they are. And he may as well argue, That God began to be, when he began to Operate, as to argue from Succession in the Creatures, or a Succession of God's Operation in the Creatures, to a Succession in Himself; and that he cannot be all at once, because he did not make all his Works at once.

Q. 5. What shadow of Imperfection is it to pass from one Duration to another, when the Person so passing, carries with him all perfections into every Duration?

A. If this were so, the Almighty would want one perfection of his Nature, which is Eternity. For he can no more carry his Eternity with him into the various Successions of Duration, than he can pass from place to place, and carry his Immensity with him.

'Tis the Upshot (I will not say the Design) of these his Queries to overthrow the Eternity of God, under colour of disproving the Notion of the Platonists and Boethius, the School-men and the Doctors, and Professors of Mysteries in our Times, (as he derives its Pedigree, and is pleased to give their Character) viz. That Eternity is a possession of all at once: And so turns all the bitter Invectives upon himself, with which he so virulently, and without any pretext endeavours to wound his Adversary. For what else is the effect of his Doctrine of Succession in God, and passing from one Duration to another? For where there is Succession, there was a beginning, unless he will make the first Moment in his Succession to be Eternal, which he knows is a Contradiction in Terms.

The Two remaining Difficulties which his Lordship offers to our Consideration, and to shew how incomprehensible things are, are the Spirituality of God's Nature, and his Prescience.

To the former he makes no other Reply, than to disavow (if it is so) what was charged upon some of their Way about God's Corporeity.

As to the latter, nothing will serve his turn, but that the Bishop opposes the Vnity of God (that envied Doctrine) by finding Contradictions in his Eternity and Foreknowledge.

But what if the Bloody Charge fall upon Socinus, who found the Difficulties, and as he thought, the Contradictions in the Doctrine of God's Prescience to be so great, intrenching upon the Freedom of Humane Actions, and making God the Author of Sin; that he thought it the better way wholly to deny it. But this our Author is very careful to suppress.

2. Proposition. The difficulties, saith his Lordship, are in point of reason more insuperable in the Socinian way than ours; of which he gives several Instances that may be called Mysteries.

1. The Mystery on the part of the Orthodox, is the Eternal Son of God's being with the Father before the World was made by him.

The Mystery on the other side is, 'That although Jesus were born Six months after John Baptist, yet he was in dignity before him. Now this, saith the Bishop, is a Mystery; forasmuch as it cannot be conceived that the Evangelist should, in lofty expressions, and profound language, prove a thing which was never disputed.

It is St. John that is referr'd to, and if he may be esteemed the Author of that Gospel, yet our Author cannot find that profound language and lofty expressions in him. The sense indeed, saith he, is sometimes profound, but the expression is always mean.

So little judgment had Friend Amelius, when at the first reading he thought the Barbarian (as he call'd that Divine Evangelist) to Platonize; and in his profound language to imitate his great Master. Indeed our Author rather thinks of a Character befitting a Rhetorician, Orator, or Poet, than a Philosopher or Divine Writer. As if because the Evangelist had not an elevation of conceit or expression, like or above the Greek or Roman Orators, or Poets, his language could not be profound, nor his expressions lofty.

2. Saith he, If the language were profound, it would not follow, the Sense intended must be a Mystery. But it would follow, that St. John that wrote of such sublime things, after that manner, would not take pains to prove what was never disputed, viz. that although Christ were born six months after John Baptist, yet he was in dignity before him.

At last, by head and shoulders, he brings in a Paraphrase of the Socinians on the beginning of St. John, which has already been consider'd; but because I am not willing to be behind-hand with him, I shall repay it with another, borrowing some help towards it from his own Exposition, viz.

In the beginning of the Gospel, the Word Jesus Christ being about 30 years old, was then in being and alive: And about that time was rapt up into Heaven, as St. Paul was, which we are piously to believe, being the Scripture is silent in it. And after a very short stay there, but so long as it may be said, he was with God, this Word came down again from Heaven, which we are upon the same consideration to believe, as his former Ascension. And then or some time after, perhaps at his Resurrection, he was constituted a God, not an Eternal God, but a Man God, a Creature-God, a finite temporary God, that dates the beginning of his Deity from the term aforesaid. And being thus a God, he made a New World, as the Eternal God made the Old. And though he had nothing in him of the Divine Nature, (for that God could not give him) nor any of the Incommunicable Attributes of the Deity, Omnipotence, Omnipresence, Omniscience, and such like. (Wherefore 'tis better to use the words Christ, Lord and Saviour, than God, because there may be no small inconvenience with respect to the Vulgar) yet he was to have the same honour given him by Angels and men, which they gave to the Father, the Eternal, Omnipotent, Omnipresent, and Omniscient God. And to encourage them in this, they are to know, that Faustus Socinus had cause to think, that his Unkle Laelius had, by many prayers obtained from Christ himself a very dextrous and admirable Interpretation of a difficult place in St. John.

Now this I take to be an unintelligible Mystery, and fit to be put to that, That although Christ Jesus were born six months after John, yet he was in dignity before him.

But here he saith they have on their side the principal Criticks of the Trinitarians, particularly Erasmus and Beza, who understand the Phrase, For he was before me, John 1.15. of a priority of dignity and excellence, not of a priority of time.

Admit this for the present, then the sense of that place will amount to this, He that cometh after me, is preferr'd before me; for he was preferr'd before me: Or, He that cometh after me, is more excellent than me; for he was more excellent than me. Thus St. Chrysostom expounds 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , is preferr'd before me, by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , more excellent, more honourable.

2. The Mystery on the Orthodox side is, That a Divine Person should assume Humane Nature, and so the Word be made Flesh. The Mystery on the other side is, 'That an Attribute of God, his Wisdom or Power, is made Flesh; that is, for an Accident to be made a Substance.

In Answer to this our Author saith,

1. By the Word we do not understand God the Son; the rather, because no such person is once mentioned in all Holy Scripture.

Answ. If that were a Reason sufficient why the Word in that Proposition, The Word was made Flesh, should not be understood of God the Son; then 'tis as much a Reason why the Word in the first Verse should not be understood of God the Son: But if notwithstanding that no such person is once mentioned in Scripture as God the Son, yet the Word in Verse 1. is to be understood of a person; then notwithstanding that, Verse 10. may as well be understood in like manner of the Personal Word. But is no such person ever mentioned in Scripture, as God the Son? What is the Word but the Son of God, and when the Word and the Son are the same, what is the difference between God the Word, and God the Son? And when the Son is called God in Scripture, what is the difference between God the Son, and the Son that is God?

2. But what do they understand by the Word, when the Word is said to be made Flesh?

He answers, The Power and Wisdom of God.

Now if so; where then is the Fault, when the Bishop charges it upon them as a Mystery beyond all Comprehension, that they say that an Attribute of God, his Wisdom or Power, is made Flesh?

Here he comes in again with his, We do not mean hereby, as his Lordship would insinuate, that the Wisdom or Power of God was turned into Flesh, or Man.

Now this is more than his Adversary charges them with: But what do they mean?

Why, We mean, saith he, as the Trinitarians thereby also mean, that the Word was Incarnate, tabernacled in Flesh, abode on the Man Christ Jesus in more ample manner, and much larger measure, then on former Prophets.

Answ. If they mean, By made Flesh, as the Trinitarians themselves also mean; then they must mean, that the Wisdom and Power of God is Incarnate, and took upon it the Flesh and Nature of Man; or else they do not mean by that Phrase as the Trinitarians do. But suppose we give him back again what he has granted, and allow that they do not mean as the Trinitarians mean, when they say, the Word was Incarnate; but that they mean, the Word abode on the Man Christ Jesus; that is, the Word, Power, or Wisdom, abode on the Word Christ; yet how comes he from the Word's tabernacling in flesh, or was made flesh, to interpret it, abode in Christ. Methinks there is much of Mystery in this.

But I have not yet done; for tho he saith, The Language and Expression of St. John is always mean, yet I apprehend St. John to be consistent with himself, and to write intelligibly.

But our Author brings all this into question, by a forced Interpretation, and setting up his own meaning against that of St. John; as will appear to any indifferent man, from the Connection and Order of this Chapter; whether it be the part before verse 14. or that which follows.

Before; for thus the Evangelist proceeds, In the Beginning was the Word, — And that Word was the true Light. — And the Word was made Flesh. So that the Word that was made Flesh, was the same that was the true light, and that was in the beginning. And therefore if by the Word that was made Flesh, is to be understood the Power and Wisdom of God, then so it is to be understood when the Word is said to be in the beginning, after this manner; In the Beginning was the Power of God, and the Power of God was with God, and the Power of God was God.

Let us consult the Words following the Clause, [the Word was made flesh] and it will be yet more evident; The word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory of the only begotten of the father, &c. John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake; &c.

So that the same Word that was made flesh, dwelt among them; the same Word that was made flesh, and dwelt among them, and whose Glory they saw, was the only begotten of the Father. The same Word that was made flesh, and dwelt among them, was he of whom John bare witness. Now if the whole Tenor of that Discourse, before and after, belong to the Personal Word, then so doth the Clause between; or else he will make St. John write so as no Intelligent Writer can be supposed to write.

3. The Mystery on the side of the Orthodox, is, That the Son of God 'came down from Heaven, and took our Nature upon him. The Mystery on the other side is, 'That Christ should be rapp'd up into Heaven.

This Mystery of theirs our Author will have to be no more difficult than St. Paul's being caught up into the third heaven. And so far he is in the right; for that was no more impossible than this, and Christ might have ascended before his Ministry, as well as after his Resurrection. But this is not the Mystery that his Lordship lays his hand upon; but it is this, That in a matter of so great Consequence, and so remarkable a Part of History (if it had been true) the Scripture should be wholly silent; that when it is so punctual in the relation of Moses's Converse with God at the giving of the Law, and of our Saviour's Forty Days Temptation in the Wilderness, and his Transfiguration, &c. that there should be no more said of this Ascension of our Saviour, than of the Virgin Mary's Assumption, tho (as they would have it) it was to receive Instructions in the Will of God concerning the Gospel-Dispensation; and when he was constituted and made a God, (as some of them say.) This is a Mystery. But I acknowledge that the invention of this is a new Mystery; it being apparent, that it was by them thought necessary to make some tolerable sense of these words, He came down from Heaven, as his Lordship observes of this before.

As for the Mystery on the other side, we acknowledge it to be so, but not for the Reason he gives, because to descend or ascend belongs only to Limited and Finite Beings. Since notwithstanding that, God in Scripture is said to go down, that that is not to be understood of a local Descent, but of a manifestation of the Deity. And the Son of God is said to come down from Heaven when he became Man, because he took the Humane Nature into Union with the Divine; and where the Humane was, there was also the Divine.

4. The Mystery on the Orthodox side is, That God should become Man by taking our Nature upon him.

The Mystery on the other side is, 'That Man should become God, &c. In the-former, an Infinite is united to a Finite; in the latter, a Finite becomes Infinite.

Our Author saith, the Bishop found it necessary to misinterpret their Doctrines, before he could find Mysteries in it.

A. But surely he doth not misreport their Doctrine, when he saith, That they make a Man to be God. Our Author is very tender in the Point, and saith he may be called a God; and saith, That it cannot be satisfactorily proved, that any Authentick Copies of the Bible do give to him the Title, God. But Socinus, and his Followers, are not sparing to call him a True God, and to give him Divine Worship as such (as has been shewed); and I question whether our Author can say more about the Authentick Copies than Sandius, which has been sufficiently confuted before he published his Brief History,

2. As for what our Author saith concerning the case of Moses, Magistrates and Angels being called God: I ask, whether any of them may be called a True God. For if Moses was, for example, as much a God as Christ, he might have, and challenge the same Divine Worship as is given, and is due to Christ.

5. The Mystery on the side of the Orthodox is, 'That Christ suffered for our sakes; as a voluntary Sacrifice of Expiation of the Sins of Mankind, and not for his own sake.

The Mystery on the other side is, To make him suffer as one wholly innocent; which is, to make the most innocent persons as apprehensive of suffering as the most guilty.

Here our Author interposes, and saith, His Lordship seems not to understand the state of the Question, because he had said, 'Tis more reasonable to believe that Jesus Christ suffered for our sakes, than for his own. Whereas he suffer'd for both; for his own sake, to obtain a glorious reward, &c.

Answ. It is plain, that when his Lordship saith, Christ suffer'd for our sake, and not for his own; he means thereby, not for his own sake, as he did for ours; for our Sins, and not for any of his own: so it immediately follows, We are all agreed, that the Sufferings of Christ were far beyond any thing he deserv'd at God's hands.

2. He saith, The Unitarians never denied, as his Lordship here fancies, that Jesus Christ made himself a voluntary Sacrifice for Expiation of the Sins of Mankind.

Answ. Let us suppose this, what is it then they deny? They deny, he saith, that this Sacrifice was by way of true and proper Satisfaction, or full and adequate payment to the Justice of God.

A. That there might be a Sacrifice of Expiation where there was no full and adequate payment to the Justice of God, is true, because it is not possible, saith the Apostle, that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins. But the case is not the same in this Sacrifice, (for that which is denied to the former, is yet granted and given to the Sacrifice of Christ, Heb. 10.4, 10.) which may not improperly be called a Satisfaction and Payment; and if so, in regard of the Dignity of the Person, may be said to be full and adequate; since as Sins are called Debts, so Sinners are Debtors to the Justice of God's Law, in respect of which we are said to be redeemed by the Blood of Christ, as Captives or condemned persons were redeemed by Silver and Gold, 1 Pet. 1.18, 19.

But yet we are not come to the bottom of their Doctrine; for when we might reasonably have thought the controversy to be at an end (since they grant that Christ was an Expiatory Sacrifice for our Sins) they take all away again by an Explication that makes the Sacrifice no Sacrifice, and the Expiation no Expiation.

For he thus determines the Point.

3. We say this Sacrifice (as all other Sacrifices) was only an Oblation or Application to the Mercy of God. Or as it follows, He suffered for our sakes, that he might recommend us to the Mercy and Forgiveness of God.

A. I have said before, by this account of an Expiatory Sacrifice, the Expiation is no Expiation; for the Definition here given of an Expiatory Sacrifice, is this, that 'tis only an Oblation, Application, or Recommendation of a Person to the Mercy and Forgiveness of God.

Now that can be no Definition of a thing, which is as well applicable to a thing of another Nature, as to the thing defined: And that is the Case here, for according to this Definition of an Expiatory Sacrifice, Intercession would be such a Sacrifice.

For it may be thus described, Intercession is only an Oblation, Application, or Recommendation of another to the Mercy and Forgiveness of God. So that in effect, an Expiatory Sacrifice is no other than an Intercession. And then indeed we, and I think Mankind (except our Author, and those of his way) have been under a great mistake, that have been taught, that Sacrifices of Expiation were instead of the Offender, in whose Sufferings he was reputed to suffer, and upon whose Sufferings and Penal Death, he was supposed to be in a respect discharged.

6. The Mystery on the part of the Orthodox is, That the Son of God took upon him the Form of a Servant for our advantage. The Mystery on the other side is, That a meer Man should be exalted to the Honour and Worship which belongs only to God.

As to the former our Author replies,

Tis more reasonable to suppose with the Unitarians, that God hath admitted us to Conditions of Pardon and Favour, for his own mercy's sake, and in contemplation of the unblemish'd Life, and voluntary Sufferings and Sacrifice of Christ Jesus; than to suppose with his Lordship, and his Party, that God himself took on him the Form of a Servant, and suffer'd in our steads, to reconcile us to himself.

Answ. 1. He might as well suppose, that 'tis more reasonable that God should admit us to Conditions of Pardon and Favour, for his own mercy's sake, than for the Sufferings and Sacrifice of Christ. For what needed such a Sacrifice, and the Son of God to be exposed to such Extremities, when God could have pardoned men for his own mercy's sake, as well without these Sufferings of Christ, as without a Satisfaction.

2. What he supposes is very absurd that God should admit us to Conditions of Pardon, upon the contemplation of the voluntary Sacrifice of Christ; and yet that he did not suffer in our stead, nor to reconcile us to God. For Substitution, or to die in the stead of another, is of the nature of an Expiatory Sacrifice: And he might as well say, Christ is our Intercessor without mediating for us; as that he was our Sacrifice, and not be sacrificed for us; or be a Sacrifice for us, and yet not suffer in our stead.

3. 'Tis not more reasonable to suppose God admitted us to Conditions of Pardon for his own mercy's sake, than it is to suppose that he suffer'd in our steads, and to reconcile us to God: For that is not unreasonable which hath God for its Author.

But will he say, the difficulty is not yet solved; for 'tis God's Reconciling us to himself, and Suffering for himself, and Paying to himself the Debt of the Debtor, and Satisfying the wrong done to himself? Which saith he is a Mock-satisfaction, such a ridiculous so • ne, that begets Laughter or Contempt in considering men. Surely he means such as himself, that writes Considerations.

Our Author is so used to forget himself, to leave out, put in, or alter, that he can no more flip an occasion, (how small soever) than those that are used to another way, can let go an opportunity, though it be but a a Petty-larceny. Thus he saith, His Lordship and his Party suppose that God himself suffer'd in our steads, as well as took on him the form of a Servant.

Now to say the truth, his Lordship had not this Scene in his eye under Mystery the 6th; for in that he is speaking of the Incarnation of our Saviour, when he took on him the Form of a Servant; but it was in Mystery the 5th that he spoke of Christ's Sufferings and Sacrifice. His Lordships words are, The Son of God took upon him the Form of a Servant; so that he was so far from saying, God suffer'd in our stead, &c. that he did not so much as say, the Son of God suffer'd in our stead, (though it be true.)

But will he say, Is not this all one, when he that suffer'd and died, is, in our opinion, God as well as Man?

I answer No, with respect to his Observations.

For restore Son of God to its place (as it is in his Lordship) instead of God, and then we shall see the difference.

As 1: 'Tis more reasonable to suppose with the Unitarians, that God hath admitted us to Terms of Pardon for his own mercy's sake, &c. than that his Son should suffer in our stead, to reconcile us to God.

2. It's an Incomprehensible Mystery, that God should rather chuse to send his Son to suffer for us, than to forgive us.

3. 'Tis a Paradox, for the Son of God to pay the Debt of the Debtor to God, and to satisfy for the wrong done to Him.

How is the Scene changed upon this? And where doth the Absurdity lie? While indeed he put God in the place of the Son of God, it look'd somewhat speciously; but restore the term Son of God to its place instead of God, and the pretended Absurdity lies apparently at his own door.

But may he urge, Don't you acknowledge the Son of God to be God? And then it may be as well said, God himself suffer'd in our stead, &c. as the Son of God suffer'd, &c.

I answer, God (as that signifies the Divine Nature in Christ) could not suffer: All that we say is, That the person that took upon himself the Form of a Servant was God, and not Man, before such an Assumption of Humane Nature: that when he assumed that Nature, he was God as well as Man; and that person who was God suffer'd in Humane Nature, but the Godhead or God no more suffer'd and died when Christ died, than the Manhood could be Omnipresent and Immortal, because the Godhead was so; or the Soul die, when the Man is said to die.

2. I answer further, That the Son of God is not the Father; and that there being such an incommunicable personality, if I may so speak, those things belong to the Son that could not belong to the Father. And as the Father was not Incarnate but the Son, so the Son became responsible, and paid the price of our Redemption to the Father; and therefore it was the Act of the Son that was God, and not of the Godhead, as common to three persons to reconcile us to God.

As to the Mystery on their own side, the Worship of a meer Man, it has been already consider'd, only he should have had some moderation in his Charge, when he saith his Lordship might as well have accus'd them of Sodomy or Witchcraft, as of giving proper Divine Worship to a Creature, to the Man Christ Jesus; when his Party owns it, and he himself makes a feeble Excuse for it. For, saith he, if it is a mistake, 'tis simple Error, not Mystery, much less Idolatry. Now, methinks, 'tis an unintelligible Mystery, that there should be a proper Divine Worship, peculiar to God; and yet there be no Idolatry in giving the same to a Creature. 'Tis an Incomprehensible Mystery again to say, the giving proper Divine Worship to a Creature, is not Idolatry.

'Tis a Mystery again, That the Church of Rome should be charged with Idolatry, for giving Divine Worship to Creature-Mediators, and yet in these persons 'tis simple Error.

'Tis a Mystery again, That Christ should be esteemed by them a God, and so constituted by God, and yet there be no small Inconvenience with respect to the Vulgar to have him so called.

'Tis a Mystery again, That St. Paul blames them who do service to such as are not Gods: And yet if God himself had set them up, and given them the Name above every Name, and they had not mistook in the kind, nor exceeded in the degree of that service they did to them, they should not have been blamed. And so the Saints and Angels might have been made Objects of Worship as well as Christ, and the Virgin Mary might have been established Queen of Heaven, and a Hyperdulia accordingly given to her.

So that he has made as pretty a Defence in this Part for the Creature-Worship of the Church of Rome, as their heart can wish, and as he has made for Transubstantiation in the next Part.

d Proposition is, The way or manner of saving Sinners by Christ, taught by the Church, is more for the Benefit of Mankind, than the Socinian Hypothesis.

This I shall be as short upon as he; and till I see an Answer to what his Lordship has said, and was also said by the Archbishop upon that Argument, I shall rest contented, and not think the Proposition evertheless true or pertinent, for his saying 'Tis neither true, nor to the purpose.