Vindication of the Doctrine of the Trinity, Discourse · Chapter 8

Vindication of the Doctrine of the Trinity · Discourse · Chapter 8

p. 121CHAP. VIII. The Socinian Sense of Scripture examined.

BUT they must not think to escape so easily for such a groundless and presumptuous saying; that they interpret the Scripture not like Fools, but like Wise Men: because the true sense of Scripture is really the main point between us; and therefore p. 122I shall more carefully examine the Wise Sense they give of the chief places which relate to the matter in hand.

1. Is this to interpret Scripture like Wise Men, to make the Author to the Hebrews in one Chapter, and that but a short one, to bring no less than four places out of the Old Testament, and according to their Sense, not one of them proves that which he aimed at? viz. that Christ was superiour to Angels, Heb. 1.5. as will appear by the Sense they give of them. For unto which of the Angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee?Hist. of the Unit. p. 15. Edit. 2. These words, say they, in their original and primary Sense are spoken of David, but in their mystical Sense are a Prophecy concerning Christ. Was this mystical Sense primarily intended or not? If not, they are only an accommodation and no proof. But they say, even in that mystical Sense, they were intended not of the Lord Christ's supposed eternal Generation from the Essence of the Father, but of his Resurrection from the dead.

But if that be not taken as an Evidence of his being the eternal Son of God, how doth this prove him above Angels?

Heb. 1.6. And again, when he bringeth his first begotten into the World, he saith, p. 123And let all the Angels of God Worship him. This, one would think home to the business. But our wise Interpreters tell us plainly, that the words were used by the Psalmist on another occasion, Hist of the Unit. p. 17.i. e. they are nothing to the purpose. But being told of this, instead of mending the matter, they have made it far worse; for upon second thoughts, (but not wiser) they say, The words are not taken out of the Psalm, Defence of of the Hist. of Unitar. p. 35.but out of Deut. 32.43. where the words are not spoken of God, but of God's People; and if this be said of God's People, they hope it may be said of Christ too, without concluding from thence, that Christ is the supreme God. But we must conclude from hence, that these are far from being wise Interpreters; for what consequence is this, the Angels worship God's People, therefore Christ is superiour to Angels?

Heb. 1.8. Thy Throne O God is for ever and ever, i. e. say they,Hist. of the Unit. p. 16. God is thy Throne for ever. And so they relate not to Christ but to God. And to what purpose then are they brought?

Heb. 1.10. Thou Lord in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the Earth, and the Heavens are the work of thy Hands. These words, say they,Ibid p. 17. are to be understood p. 124not of Christ, but of God. Which is to charge the Apostle with arguing out of the old Testament very impertinently. Is this interpreting the Scriptures like wise Men? Is it not rather exposing and ridiculing them?

Is this to interpret Scripture like wise Men, to give such a forced Sense of the beginning of S. John's Gospel, as was never thought of from the writing of it, till some in the last Age thought it necessary to avoid the proof of Christ's Divinity from it.Answer to Dr. Wallis his Letter, p. 9. Answer to my Sermon, p. 9. For the foreign was never taken, in the Sense they put upon it, for him that was to preach the Word, in S. Iohn's time; but the signification of it was then well understood from the Alexandrian School (as appears by Philo) whence it was brought by Cerinthus into those parts of Asia, where S. Iohn lived when he wrote his Gospel: and one of themselves confesses, that Cerinthus did by the foreign mean something divine, Reflections no Dr. Bull, p. 39, 46.which rested upon, and inhabited the Person of Iesus, and was that power by which God created original Matter and made the World, but as the Christ or the Word descended on Iesus at his Baptism, so it left him at his Crucifixion. That which I observe from hence is, that there was a known and p. 125current Sense of the foreign at the time of S. Iohn's writing his Gospel, very different from that of a Preacher of the Word of God; and therefore I cannot but think it the wisest way of interpreting S. John, to understand him in a Sense then commonly known; and so he affirms the foreign to have been in the beginning, i. e. before the Creation (for he saith afterwards, All things were made by him) and that he was with God, and was God; and this Word did not inhabit Iesus, as Cerinthus held, but was made Flesh and dwelt among us. And so S. Iohn clearly asserted the Divinity and Incarnation of the Son of God. And in all the Disputes afterwards with Paulus Samosatenus, and Photinus, it appears, that they understood the foreign not for any meer Man, but for some Divine Power, which rested upon the Person of Iesus. So that this was a very late, and I think no very Wise Interpretation of S. Iohn. And even Sandius Confesses, That Socinus his Sense was wholly new and unheard of in the ancient Church; Sand. p. 93.not only among the Fathers, but the Hereticks, as I have before observed. For they agreed (except their good Friends the Alogi who went the surest way to work) that by the Word no meer Man was understood. Let p. 126them produce one if they can, saith Sandius (even the learned and judicious Sandius.) Did they all interpret the Scriptures like Fools, and not like Wise Men? But if the Christian Interpreters were such Fools; what think they of the Deists, whom they seem to have a better opinion of, as to their Wisdom? What, if Men without Biass of Interest, or Education think ours the more proper and agreeable Sense?

The late Archbishop to this purpose had mentioned Amelius the Platonist, as an indifferent Iudge. But what say our Wise Interpreters to this?Answ. to the Archbishop, p. 54. Truly they say, That the Credit of the Trinitarian Cause runs very low, when an uncertain Tale of an obscure Platonist of no Reputation for Learning or Wit, is made to be a good part of the Proof, which is alledged for these Doctrines. If a Man happen to stand in their way, he must be content with such a Character, as they will be pleased to give him. If he had despised S. Iohn's Gospel, and manner of expression, he had been as Wise as the Alogi; but notwithstanding the extraordinary Character given of Friend Amelius (as they call him) by Eusebius, Eus…b. Pra…p. Evang. l. 11. c. 18.by Porphyrius, by Proclus, and by Damascenus, this very Saying of his sinks his Reputation for ever with them. What p. 127would Iulian have given for such a Wise Interpretation of S. Iohn? Cyril. c. Julian, l. 10. p. 427.335. Julian ep. 51.when he cannot deny, but that he did set up the Divinity of Christ by these Expressions; and upbraids the Christians of Alexandria, for giving Worship to Iesus as the Word and God? With what satisfaction would he have received such a Sense of his Words; when he Complemented Photinus for denying the Divinity of Christ; Facund. l. 4. p. 163.while other Chrians asserted it?

But they do not by any means deal fairly with the late Archbishop as to the Story of Amelius; for they bring it in, as if he had laid the weight of the Cause upon it; whereas he only mentions it, as a Confirmation, of a probable Conjecture, That Plato had the Notion of the Word of God from the Jews; because that was a Title which the Jews did commonly give to the Messias, as he proves from Philo, and the Chaldee Paraphrast. To which they give no manner of Answer. But they affirm in answer to my Sermon, p. 9. That Socinus his Sense was, That Christ was called the Word, because he was the Bringer or Messenger of Gods Word. But were not the Iews to understand it in the Sense it was known among them? And if the Chaldee Paraphrast had used it in p. 128that Sense, he would never have applied it to a Divine Subsistance, as upon Examination it will appear that he doth. Of which Rittangel gives a very good Account, who had been a Iew, and was very well skilled in their ancient Learning. He tells us, That he had a Discourse with a learned Vnitarian upon this Subject, who was particularly acquainted with the Eastern Languages;Rittangel in Jezirah p. 96. and he endeavoured to prove, That there was nothing in the Chaldee Paraphrasts use of foreign, because it was promiscuously used by him for foreign where it was applied to God. This Rittangel denied; and offer'd to prove, that the Chaldee Paraphrast did never use that Word in a common manner, but as it was appropriated to a Divine Subsistance. He produces several places where foreign is put, and nothing answering to Word in the Hebrew, as Gen. 20.21. The Chaldee hath it, The Word of Iehovah shall be my God. Exod. 2.25. And Iehovah said, He would redeem them by his Word, Exod. 6.8. Your murmurings are not against us, but against the Word of Iehovah, Exod. 19.17. And Moses brought the People out to meet the Word of Iehovah, Levit. 26.46. These are the Statutes and Iudgments, and Laws, which Iehovah gave between his Word and p. 129the Children of Israel by the hand of Moses, Numb. 11.20. Ye have despised the Word of Iehovah whose Divinity dwelt among you, Numb. 23.21. The Word of Iehovah is with him, and the Divinity of their King is among them, Deut 1.30. The Word of Iehovah shall fight for you, Deut. 2.7. These forty years the Word of Iehovah hath been with thee, Deut. 1.32. Ye did not believe in the Word of Iehovah your God, Deut 4.24. Iehovah thy God, his Word is a consuming fire, Deut. 5.5. I stood between the Word of Iehovah and you, to shew you the Word of the Lord, Deut. 32.6.8. Iehovah thy God, his Word shall go with thee, with many other places, which he brings out of Moses his Writings; and there are multitudes to the same purpose in the other Books of Scripture; which shews, saith he, that this Term the Word of God, was so appointed for many Ages; as appears by all the Chaldee Paraphrasts and the ancient Doctors of the Iews. And he shews by several places, that the Chaldee Paraphrast did not once render foreign when there was occasion for it; no, not when the Word of God is spoken of with respect to a Prophet; as he proves by many Testimonies; which are particularly enumerated by him. The result of the p. 130Conference was, that the Vnitarian had so much Ingenuity to confess, That unless those Words had another Sense, their Cause was lost; and our Faith had a sure Foundation.

But it may be objected that Morinus hath since taken a great deal of pains to prove the Chaldee Paraphrasts, Morinus Exerc. Biblic. l. 3. Exerc. 8. c. 6.not to have been of that Antiquity, which they have been supposed by the Iews to be of.

In answer to this, we may say in general, that Morinus his great Proofs are against another Chaldee Paraphrast of very small Reputation, viz. of Ionathan upon the Law; and not that of Onkelos, which Rittangel relied upon in this Matter. And none can deny this to have been very ancient; but the Iews have so little knowledge of their own History, but what is in Scripture, that very little certainty can be had from them. But we must compare the Circumstances of things, if we would come to any resolution in this Matter. Now it is certain, that Philo the Alexandrian Iew, who lived so very near our Saviours time, had the same Notion of the Word of God, which is in the Chaldee Paraphrast: whose Testimonies have been produced by so many already, that I need not to repeat them.

p. 131And Eusebius saith,Eusebius Dem. Evang. l. 4. c. 1. The Jews and Christians had the same Opinion as to Christ, till the former fell off from it in opposition to the Christians; and he particula…ly instances in his Divinity. But if Morinus his Opinion be embraced, as to the lateness of these Chaldee Paraphrases, this inconvenience will necessarily follow, viz. That the Iews when they had changed so much their Opinions, should insert those Passages themselves which assert the Divinity of the Word. And it can hardly enter into any mans head that considers the Humour of the Jewish Nation, to think, that after they knew what S. Iohn had written concerning the Word; and what use the Christians made of it to prove the Divinity of Christ, they should purposely insert such passages in that Paraphrase of the Law which was in such esteem among them, that Elias Levita saith, They were under Obligation to read two Parascha…s out of it every Week, together with the Hebrew Text. Now, who can imagine that the Iews would do this upon any other account, than that it was deliver'd down to them, by so ancient a Tradition, that they durst not discontinue it. And it is observed in the place of Scripture which our Saviour read in the Synagogue, that p. 132he follow'd neither the Hebrew nor the Greek,Bichin. Happerasch p. 21. but in probability the Chaldee Paraphrase; and the Words he used upon the Cross, were in the Chaldee Dialect.

The later Iews have argued against the Trinity, and the Divinity of Christ like any Vnitarians, as appears by the Collection out of Ioseph Albo, Paris, A. D. 1566.David Kimchi, &c. published by Genebrard, with his Answers to them. And is it any ways likely, that those who were so much set against these Doctrines, should themselves put in such Expressions, which justifie what the Evangelist saith about the VVord, being in the Beginning, being with God, and being God?

The Substance of what I have said, as to S. Iohn's Notion of the Word is this; That there is no colour for the Sense which Socinus hath put upon it; either from the use of it among other Authors, or any Interpretation among the Jews. But that there was in his time a current sense of it, which from the Jews of Alexandria, was dispersed by Cerinthus in those parts where he lived. That for such a Notion there was a very ancient Tradition among the Jews, which appears in the most ancient Paraphrase of the Law, which is read in their Synagogues. And therefore according to all reasonable ways of p. 133interpreting Scripture, the Word cannot be understood in S. Iohn, for one whose Office it was to preach the Word, but for that Word which was with God before any thing was made, and by whom all things were made.

3. Is this to interpret Scripture like wise Men, to give a new Sense of several Places of Scripture from a matter of Fact of which there is no proof, the better to avoid the proof of the Divinity of the Son of God?

This relates to the same beginning of S. Iohn's Gospel, the Word was with God; Joh. 1.1.3.13.6.38, 62.8.42. Answer to the Archbishop's Serm. p. 56.John 1:1John 1:3John 1:13John 1:6John 1:38John 1:62John 1:8John 1:42and several other places, making mention of his descent from Heaven. The Sense which these wise Interpreters put upon them is, that Christ was rapt up into Heaven, before he entred upon his Preaching. But where is this said? What Proof,Answer to my Sermon, p. 10. what Evidence, what credible Witnesses of it, as there were of his Transfiguration, Resurrection and Ascension? Nothing like any Proof is offer'd for it; but it is a wise Way they think of avoiding a pressing difficulty.

But they have a farther reach in it, viz. to shew how Christ, being a mere Man, should be qualified for so great an undertaking as the founding the Christian p. 132duplicate page p. 133duplicate page p. 134Church; and therefore they say, That before our Lord entred upon his Office of the Messias ▪ Hist. of the Unit. p. 29.he was taken up to Heaven to be instructed in the Mind and Will of God (as Moses was into the Mount, Exod. 24.1, 2, 12.) and from thence descended to execute his Office, and declare the said Will of God. In another place, That when it is said, the Word was with God; Answer to my Sermon, p. 9.that is, the Lord Christ was taken up into Heaven to be instructed in all points relating to his Ambassage or Ministry. Ans. to the Archbishop, p. 56.In a third, they say, That our Saviour before he entred upon his Ministry, ascended into Heaven, as Moses did into the Mount, to be instructed in all things belonging to the Gospel Doctrine and Polity which he was to establish and administer. Now considering what sort of Person they make Christ to have been, viz. a mere Man; this was not ill thought of by them; to suppose him taken up into Heaven and there instructed in what he was to teach and to do, as Moses was into the Mount before he gave the Law. But here lies a mighty difference; when Moses was called up into the Mount, the People had publick notice given of it; and he took Aaron and his Sons, and Seventy Elders of Israel with him; who saw the Glory of God, v. 10. And all Israel beheld p. 135the Glory of the Lord as a devouring Fire on the Top of the Mount, v. 17. and after the 40 days were over, it is said, That Moses came down from the Mount, and the Children of Israel saw him with his Face shining, Exod. 34.40. Now if Christ were taken up into Heaven, as Moses was into the Mount, why was it not made publick at that time? why no Witnesses? why no Appearance of the Glory to satisfie Mankind of the truth of it? And yet we find, that when he was transfigured on the holy Mount, he took Peter, and James, and John with him; Matth. 17.1. Mar. 9 2. Luk. 9.28.Matt 17:1Mark 9:2Luke 9:28which circumstance is carefully mention'd by the Evangelists. And Peter, who was one of the Witnesses then present, lays great weight upon this being done in the presence of Witnesses. 2 Pet. 1 16.2 Pet 1:16For we have not follow'd cunningly devised Fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Iesus Christ, but were Eye-witnesses of his Majesty. 17.For he received from God the Father, Honour and Glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent Glory—. 18.And this voice which came from Heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy Mount. Now let any one compare this with the account which they give of Christ's Ascension p. 136into Heaven. The Transfiguration was intended only for a particular Testimony of God's Favour, before his suffering; but even in that, he took care there should be very credible Witnesses of it. And is it then possible to believe, there should be such an Ascension of Christ into Heaven, for no less a purpose, than to be instructed in his Ambassage, and to understand the Mind and Will of God as to his Office; and yet not one of the Evangelists give any account of the circumstances of it? They are very particular, as to his Birth, Fasting, Baptism, Preaching, Miracles, Sufferings, Resurrection and Ascension; but not one Word among them all as to the circumstances of this being taken up into Heaven for so great a purpose? If it were necessary to be believed, why is it not more plainly revealed? Why not the time and place mention'd in Scripture, as well as of his Fasting and Temptation? Who can imagine it consistent with that Sincerity and Faithfulness of the Writers of the New Testament, to conceal so material a part of Christ's Instructions and Qualifications; and to wrap it up in such doubtfull Expressions, that none ever found out this meaning till the days of Socinus? Enjedinus mentions p. 137it only as a possible Sense; Enjed. in Joh. 6.62.John 6:62b…t he confesses, That the New Testament saith nothing at all of it; but, saith he, neither doth it mention other things before he entred upon his Office. But this is a very weak Evasion, for this was of greatest importance with respect to his Office, more than his Baptism, Fasting and Temptation; yet these are very fully set down.

And after all, our Vnitarians themselves seem to mistrust their own Interpretations; for in their answer to my Sermon, they say,Answer to my Sermon, p. 10. it is not the Doctrine of all the Unitarians, and refer me to another account given of these Texts in the History of the Unitarians.History of the Unit. p. 26. There indeed I find Grotius his Interpretation (as they call it) prefer…d before that of Socinus. But they say, Grotius was Socinian all over, P. 11and that his Annotations are a compleat System of Socinianism; and his Notes on the first of S. John are written artificially, but the Sense at the bottom is theirs. In short, That the Word, according to Grotius,P. 2…. is not an eternal Son of God, but the Power a…d Wisdom of God; which abiding without measure on the Lord Christ, is therefore spoken of as a Person and as one with Christ, and he with that. And this Notion of the p. 138Word leads a man through all the difficulties of this Chapter, with far more ease than any hitherto offer'd. But these wise Interpreters have as much misinterpreted Grotius, as they have done the Scriptures, as I shall make it appear.

(1.) Grotius on Iohn 6.62. interprets Christ's Ascension into Heaven, of his corporal Ascent thither after his Resurrection, where the foreign or Word was before, of whom it is said, That the Word was with God. But how comes Christ to assume that to himself which belong'd to the Word? He answers, Why not, since we call Body and Soul by the Name of the Man? But if no more were meant by the Word, but a divine Attribute of Wisdom and Power, what colour could there be for the Son of Man taking that to himself, which belonged to an Attribute of God? What strange way of arguing would this have been? What, and if ye shall see the Son of Man ascending where he was before? For according to this Sense, how comes a divine Attribute to be called the Son of Man? How could the Son of Man be said to ascend thither, where a divine Attribute was before? The words foreign, must relate to him spoken of before; and how could the Power and Wisdom p. 139of God be ever said to be the Son of Man? But if we suppose a personal Union of the Word with the human Nature in Christ, then we have a very reasonable Sense of the Words; for then no more is imply'd, but that Christ, as consisting of both Natures, should ascend thither, where the Word was before; when it is said, that the Word was with God; and so Grotius understands it.

(2.) Grotius doth not make the Word in the beginning of S. John's Gospel to be a mere Attribute of Wisdom and Power, but the eternal Son of God. This I shall prove from his own Words.

1. He asserts in his Preface to S. Iohn's Gospel, that the chief cause of his writing was universally agreed to have been to prevent the spreading of that Venom which had been then dispersed in the Church; which he understands of the Heresies about Christ and the Word. Now among these, the Heresie of Cerinthus was this very opinion which they fasten upon Grotius; viz. that the Word was the divine Wisdom and Power inhabiting in the Person of Iesus, as I have shew'd before from themselves. And besides, Grotius saith, That the other Evangelists had only intimated the divine Nature of Christ from his miraculous Conception, Miracles, knowing Mens p. 140Hearts, perpetual Presence, promise of the Spirit, remission of Sins, &c. But S. John, as the time required, attributed the Name and Power of God to him from the beginning. So that by the Name and Power of God, he means the same which he called the divine Nature before.

2. He saith, that when it is said, The Word was with God; it ought to be understood as Ignatius explains it, with the Father; what can this mean, unless he understood the Word to be the eternal Son of God? And he quotes Tertullian, saying, that he is the Son of God, and God ex unitate Substantiae; and that there was a Prolation of the Word without Separation. Now what Prolation can there be of a meer Attribute? How can that be said to be the Son of God begotten of the Father, without Division, before all Worlds, as he quotes it from Iustin Martyr? And that he is the Word, and God of God, from Theophilus Antiochenus? And in the next Verse, when it is said, The same was in the beginning with God; it is repeated on purpose, saith he, That we might consider, that God is so to be understood, that a Distinction is to be made between God, with whom he was, and the Word who was with God; so that the Word doth not comprehend all that is God. But p. 141our Wise Interpreters put a ridiculous Sense upon it; as though all that Grotius meant was, That Gods Attributes are the same with himself (which although true in it self, is very impertinent to Grotius his purpose) and that the Reason why he saith, That the Word is not all that God is, was, because there were other Attributes of God besides. But where doth Grotius say any thing like this? Is this Wise interpreting? or honest and fair dealing? For Grotius immediately takes notice from thence of the Difference of Hypostases; which he saith was taken from the Platonists, but with a change of the Sense.

3. When it is said, v. 3. That all things were made by him; Grotius understands it of the old Creation, and of the Son of God. For, he quotes a passage of Barnabas, where he saith, The Sun is the Work of his hands; and several passages of the Fathers to prove, That the World and all things in it were created by him; and he adds, That nothing but God himself is excepted. What say our Wise Interpreters to all this? Nothing at all to the purpose; but they cite the English Geneva Translation (when they pretend to give Grotius his Sense) and add, That the Word now begins to be spoken of as a p. 142Person by the same Figure of Speech, that Solomon saith, Wisdom hath builded her house, &c. Doth Grotius say any thing like this? And yet they say, Let us hear Grotius interpreting this sublime Proeme of S. John's Gospel. But they leave out what he saith, and put in what he doth not say; is not this interpreting like Wise men?

4. The VVord was made flesh, v. 14. i. e. say the Vnitarians as from Grotius; It did abode on, and inhabit a humane Person, the Person of Iesus Christ; and so was in appearance made flesh or man. But what saith Grotius himself? The Word that he might bring us to God, shew'd himself in the Weakness of humane Nature; and he quotes the words of S. Paul for it, 1 Tim. 3.16. God was manifest in the flesh: and then produces several Passages of the Fathers to the same purpose. Is not this a rare Specimen of Wise interpreting, and Fair dealing with so considerable a Person, and so well known, as Grotius? Who, after all, in a Letter to his intimate Friend Ger. I. Vossius, declares that he owned the Doctrine of the Trinity; both in his Poems and his Catechism; after his reviewing them; which Epistle is Printed before the last Edition of his Book about Christ's Satisfaction; H. Grot. Opusc p. 294 T. 3.as an account to the World of p. 143his Faith as to the Trinity. And in the last Edition of his Poems, but little before his Death, he gives a very different Account of the Son of God from what these Vnitarians fasten upon him.Christe caput rerum vitae melioris Origo, Immensi mensura Patris, quem mente Supremâ Miratus sese Genitor, de Lumine Lumen Fundit, & aequali se spectat imagine totum. H Grot. Syl. p. 8. Ed. 1643▪ And now let the World judge, how wisely they have interpreted both S. Iohn, and his Commentator Grotius?

IV. Is this to interpret Scripture like Wise men, to make our Saviour's meaning to be expressly contrary to his Words? For when he said: Before Abraham was, Joh. 8.58.John 8:58I am; they make the Sense to be that really he was not, but only in Gods Decree, as any other man may be said to be. This place the late Archbishop (who was very far from being a Socinian, however his Memory hath been very unworthily reproached in that, as well as other Respects, since his Death) urged against the Socinians, saying, That the obvious Sense of the Words is, that he had a real Existence, before Abraham was actually in Being, and that their Interpretation about the Decree is so very flat, that he can hardly abstain from saying it is ridiculous And the wise Answer they give is,Answer to the Archbishop. p. 58. That the words cannot be true in any other Sense, being spoken p. 142duplicate page p. 143duplicate page p. 144of one who was a Son, and Descendant of Abraham. Which is as ridiculous as the Interpretation; for it is to take it for granted, he was no more than a Son of Abraham.

V. Is this to interpret Scripture like Wise men, to say, that when our Saviour said in his Conference with the Iews, I am the Son of God, Joh. 10.36.John 10:36his chief meaning was, That he was the Son of God in such a Sense, Answer to Milb. p. 31.as all the faithful are called Gods Children? Is not this doing great Honour to our Saviour? Especially when they say, That he never said of himself any higher thing than this, Ib. p. 30.which is true of every good man, I am the Son of God. And yet the Iews accused him of Blasphemy, for making himself the Son of God; and the High Priest adjured him to tell, Whether he were the Christ the Son of God.Joh. 19.7. Matt. 26.63.John 19:7Matt 26:63

Did they mean no more, but as any Good man is?

But Mr. Selden saith,Selden de Jure Nat. & Gent. l. 2. c. 12. that by the Son of God the Jews meant, the Word of God (as he is called in the Chaldee Para…hrast) which was all one, Pocock Not. Miscel. ad Maim. p. 307. &c.as to profess himself God: And our learned Dr. Pocock saith, that according to the Sense of the ancient Iews, the Son of God spoken of, Psal. 2. was the eternal Son of God, of the same Substance with the Father.

p. 145And by this we may understand S. Peter's Confession, Thou art the Christ, Matt. 16.16 S. Joh. 6.69. 1.49.Matt 16:16John 6:69John 6:1John 6:49the Son of the living God; and Nathanael's, Thou art the Son of God. But it is plain the Iews in the Conference thought he made himself God, by saying, I and my Father are One. Not one God, say our Wise Interpreters, 10.30.33. Hist. of Unitar. p. 29.but as Friends are said to be One. And what must they think of our Saviour the mean time, who knew the Iews understood him quite otherwise, and would not undeceive them?

But they say,Answer to Milb. p. 29. The Jews put a malicious Construction upon his Words. How doth that appear? Do they think the Iews had not heard what passed before in some former Conferences, when they thought he had made himself equal with God; Joh. 5.18.23.John 5:18John 5:23and that he said, That all men should honour the Son, even as they honoured the Father?

These Sayings no doubt stuck with them; and therefore from them, they had Reason to think that he meant something extraordinary, by his saying, I and my Father are One. And if they were so Wise in interpreting Scripture, as they pretend, they would have considered, that if these things did not imply his being really the Son of God, according to the old Jewish Notion, he would have severely checked any such p. 146Mis-constructions of his meaning, and have plainly told them, he was but the Son of Man But S. Paul's Character of him doth plainly shew, that he was far from any thing like Vanity or Ostentation,Phil. 2.6, 7.Phil 2:6Phil 2:7 Although he was in the form of God, and thought it no Robbery to be equal with God; which must imply that he was very far from assuming any thing to himself; which he must do in a very high measure, if he were not really the Son of God, so as to be equal with God. The meaning whereof, say our Wise Interpreters, is, he did not rob God of his Honour by arrogating to himself to be God, Hist. of Unitar. p. 38.or equal with God. But what then do they think of these passages in his Conferences with the Iews? Was he not bound to undeceive them, when he knew they did so grossly mis-understand him, if he knew himself to be a meer Man at the same time? This can never go down with me, for they must either Charge him with affecting Divine Honour, which is the highest Degree of Pride and Vanity, or they must own him to be, as he was, The eternal Son of God.

VI. Is this interpreting Scripture like Wise men, to deny Divine Worship to be given to our Saviour when the Scripture p. 147so plainly requires it? When I had urged them in my Sermon with the Argument from Divine Worship being given to Christ; they do utterly deny it, and say, I may as well charge them with the blackest Crimes. Answer to Serm. p. 13.This I was not a little surprized at, knowing how warmly Socinus had disputed for it. But that I might not misunderstand them, I look'd into other places in their late Books, and from them I gather these things.

1. They make no Question but some Worship is due to the Lord Christ, Answer to Milb. p. 49.but the Question is concerning the kind or sort of Worship.

2. They distinguish three sorts of Worship. 1. Civil Worship from Men to one another. 2. Religious Worship given on the account of a Persons Holiness, or Relation to God; which is more or less, according to their Sanctity or nearer Relation to God 3. Divine Worship which belongs only to God; which consists in a Resignation of our Vnderstandings, Wills and Affections, and some peculiar Acts of Reverence and Love towards him. The two former may be given to Christ, they say, but not the last.

From whence it follows, that they cannot according to their own Principles, resign their Vnderstandings, Wills, and Affections to Christ; because this is proper Divine Worship. Are not these very good p. 148Christians the mean while? How can they believe sincerely, and heartily what he hath revealed, unless they resign their Vnderstandings to him; How can they Love and Esteem him, and place their Happiness in him, if they cannot resign their Wills and Affections to him? I think never any who pretended to be Christians, durst venture to say such things before and all for fear they should be thought to give Divine Worship to Christ.

But they confess, That they are divided among themselves about the Invocation of Christ. Ib. Col. 1.Col 1Those who are for it, say, That he may be the object of Prayer, without making him God, or a Person of God, and without ascribing to him the Properties of the Divine Nature, Omnipresence, Omniscience, or Omnipotence. Those who deny it, they say, do only refuse it, because they suppose he hath forbidden it, which makes it a meer Error. And in the New Testament, they say, The Charge is frequently renewed, that they are to Worship God only. And as great Writers as they have been these last seven years,Answer to Archbish. Serm p. 25. p. 59. they affirm that, They have wrote no Book in that time in which they have not been careful to profess to all the World, that a like Honour or VVorship (much less the same) is not to be given to Christ as to God. p. 149And now I hope we understand their opinion right as to this matter. The question is, Whether this be interpreting those Scriptures which speak of the Honour and Worship due to Christ, like wise Men? And for that I shall consider,

1. That herein they are gone off from the opinion of Socinus and his Followers, as to the Sense of Scripture in those places.

2. That they have done it in such a way, as will justifie the Pagan and Popish Idolatry; and therefore have not interpreted Scripture like wise Men.

1. That they are gone off from the opinion of Socinus and his followers, who did allow divine Worship to Christ. This appears by the disputes he had with Franciscus Davidis and Christianus Francken about it. The former was about the Sense of Scripture. Socinus produced all those places which mention the Invocation of Christ, and all those wherein S. Paul saith, The Grace of our Lord Iesus Christ be with you all; and the Lord Iesus Christ direct our way, &c. and all those wherein a divine Power and Authority is given to Christ as head of the Church, for the support of the Faith and Hope of all those who believe in him in order to Salvation. And this Socinus truly judged to be p. 150proper divine Worship. Georg. Blandrata was unsatisfied, that Socinus did not say enough to prove the necessity of the Invocation of Christ, which he said he could do from his Priesthood and his Power, from the Examples of the Apostles, and the very Nature of Adoration. And Blandrata was a Man of great authority among the Vnitarians; and he thought Socinus ought to assert the necessity of it; or else he would do injury both to Christ and to his Cause.

In the dispute with Francken, Socinus went upon this ground, that divine Authority was a sufficient ground for divine Worship, although there were not those essential Attributes of Omnisciency and Omnipotency. But I observe, that Socinus did not look on this as a matter of Liberty, as our Vnitarians now seem to do; for in the Preface to the former Dispute, he calls the Error of denying the Invocation of Christ, not, as they now do, a simple Error or a mere mistake; but a most filthy and pernicious Error, an Error that leads to Iudaism, and is in effect the denying of Christ; and in the latter Dispute he saith, That it tends to Epicurism and Atheism. De divin. Christi, c. …4.And Smalcius saith, That they are no Christians who refuse giving divine Worship to Christ.

p. 1512. Is it like wise Men, to go upon such grounds as will justifie both Pagan and Popish Idolatry? This they have been charged with, and we shall see what wise Men they are, by the Defences they make for themselves.

1. As to Pagan Idolatry, they say,

1. They had no divine command for such a Worship. This was well thought of,Defence of the Hist. of the Unit. p. 54. when they confess, that some among themselves deny that there is any command for invocating Christ, and therefore they must charge all those who do it with Idolatry. But this is no very wise Notion of Idolatry, which depends upon the Nature of the Worship, and not the meer positive Will of God.

2. They set up the Creatures more than the Creator, as S. Paul saith. S. Paul doth not think them such Fools, that they took the Creatures to be above the Creator, which was impossible, while they owned one to be the Creator and the other the Creatures; but that they g…ve such acts of Worship to them, as belonged only to the Creator, and exceeded in the Worship of them those bounds which ought to be between them.

3. They set up an infinite Number of Gods who had been mere Men. This is, as p. 152if the question were only, whether one, or a great many were to have such Worship given them: as if it were a dispute about a Monarchy or a Common-wealth of Gods. But if it be lawfull to give divine Worship to one Creature, it is to a hundred.

4. Their Worship was terminated on them, and so they made true Gods of Men. Suppose they asserted one supreme God, and made the rest subordinate to him, and appointed by him to be the immediate Directors of humane Affairs. I desire to know, Whether the Adoration of such were Idolatry or not? If it were, they cannot be excused who give Adoration to Christ, while they esteem him a mere Creature; if not, all the wiser Pagans must be excused.

2. As to the Papists, the difference they make, is not like wise Interpreters of Scripture; for they say,

1. They have no Text of Scripture, which commands them to worship S. Peter, S. Paul and S. Francis. So some among them say, there is none for the Invocation of Christ, and with them the case is Parallel. But if Socinus his Principle be true, that communicated Excellency is a sufficient Foundation for Worship, because it p. 153is relative to the Giver, then the Papists must be justified in all their relative Acts of Worship without any Text to command it.

2. They exceed the Bounds of Honour and Respect due to glorified Saints. But who is to set these Bounds but themselves in all Acts of relative Worship, because they depend upon the intention of the Persons? And they hold the very same things concerning communicated Knowledge and Power from God, which our Vnitarians make use of to justifie their Notion of the Invocation of Christ.

VII. Is this interpreting Scripture like wise Men, to turn S. Paul's words,Rom. 9.5. Hist. of the Unit. p 35.Rom 9:5 Of whom as concerning the Flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever, into a Thanksgiving to God for the Exaltation of Christ, i. e. God who is over all be blessed for ever. Answer to Milb p 35.But what reason do they give for such a forced and unusual Sense, besides the avoiding the difficulty of having the Name of God given here to Christ? A very substantial one. If the words had been intended of Christ, it would have been in the Greek foreign and not foreign, which they have taken up from Erasmus and Curcellaeus. But Beza, who understood Greek as well as either, (and Curcellaeus owned p. 154him for his Master in that Tongue) saith, He could not sufficiently wonder at this Criticism of Erasmus, and thinks it a violent and far-fetched Interpretation, and not agreeable to the Greek Idiom, and that foreign is the same there with foreign. And which may signifie more to our Vnitarians, one of the learnedst Men they have had among them,Ante-Nicen. p. 29, 78. utterly disowns this Interpretation, and saith, That the whole Verse belongs to Christ. But if that will not do, they have another fetch in the case,Answer to Milb p 34. viz. That it is very probable that the word God was not originally in the Text. How doth this appear to be very probable? Of that, we have this account: Grotius observes, that the Greek Copies, used by the Author of the Syriac, had not the word God, and that Erasmus had noted, Ans. to the Archbishop, p. 29.that the Copies of S. Cyprian, S. Hilary and S. Chrysostom had only blessed over all, or above all, without the word God; upon which he charges his Adversary with no less than Impiety in concealing this; and calls it, cheating his Reader. But how if all this prove a gross Mistake in him; unless it be only, that Grotius and Erasmus come in for their shares. It's true, that Grotius saith, That the word God was left out in the Syriac Version. Answer to Milb p. 3.But F. Simon, whose authority p. 155they sometimes magnifie as to critical Learning, saith plainly, That Grotius was mistaken, Histoir Critique du Nov. Test. To. III. c. 54. p. 813.and that the word God is in all the old Copies, and in all the old Versions. And upon his bringing Erasmus to prove that it was not in S. Cyprian, S. Hilary, and S. Chrysostome, he cries out, Where is Sincerity? Erasmus had met with one faulty Edition which had it not, but he saith, all the rest of the MSS. have it. And the learned Oxford Annotators, Annot. in Cypr. advers. Judaeos.both on S. Cyprian, and the Greek Testament compar'd with MSS. (which excellent Work we hope will shortly appear more publickly) declare, that they found it in all the MSS. they could meet with; and even Erasmus himself saith, That the Omission in S. Hilary might be only by the negligence of the Transcribers; and so it appears by the late Edition out of the best MSS. where the words are,Hilar. in Psal. 122.Ps 122 Ex quibus Christus qui est super omnia Deus. And for S. Chrysostom, all that is said, is, That it doth not appear that he read it, but he thinks it might be added afterwards. But what a sort of proof is this against the general consent of MSS. for S. Chrysostom doth not say he thought so. Erasmus very plainly saith, that it is clearer than the Sun, that Christ is called God in other p. 156places of Scripture; but Grotius can by no means be excused, nor those that rely upon him as to this place.

VIII. Is this interpreting Scripture like wise Men, to take advantage of all Omissions in Copies, when those which are entire ought to be preferr'd? This I mention for the sake of another noted place, 1 Tim. 3.16. God was manifest in the Flesh. Here our wise Interpreters triumph unreasonably;Hist. of the Unit. p. 40. viz For, they say, it appears by the Syriac, Latin, Aethiopick, Armenian, Arabick, and most ancient Greek Bibles, that the word God was not originally in this Text but added to it. But the Arabick in all the Polyglotts hath God in; the Syriac and Aethiopick, if we believe their Versions, read it in the Masculine Gender, and therefore in the King of Spain's Bible, Guido Fabricius Boderianus puts in Deus. As to the Armenian, I have nothing to say, but what F. Simon tells us from Vscan an Armenian Bishop; that there was great variety in their Copies, Hist. Critique du Nov. To. II. c. 17.and that their first Translation was out of Syriac and not out of Greek. And the main point is, as to the old Greek Copies; and we are assured, that there is but One, viz. the Clermont Copy which leaves out God, but that it is in the Alexandrian, p. 157the Vatican and all others; and Curcellaeus mentions no more than the Clermont Copy.

It is therefore necessary to Examine in this place, the Authority of this Clermont Copy, (as it is called) whose reading is set up against all other ancient Greek Copies. Beza affirms it with great Confidence,Verum repugnant perpetuo consensu omnes Graeci Codices. Bez. That all the Greek Copies have God with one Consent. But how comes he to take no notice of this Difference of the Clermont Copy? For that he had a sight of that part of it, which hath the Epistles of S. Paul, appears by his Notes in which he refers to it. For he mentions it three times in his Notes on Rom. 1. v. 13.29.32. and in one he calls it a very ancient Manuscript written in large Letters. What should make Beza pass it over here? It seems by Morinus that in the Clermont Copy, Motinus Exercit. Bibl. l. 1. Ex. 2. c. 4.Exod 2there was a Correction made by another hand; which is put into the various Lections of the Polyglott in Morinus his Words. But how doth it appear, that Beza's Clermont Copy was the very same which Morinus had? Morinus saith, he had it from the F. F. Puteani; Simon. Dissert. Sur le MS. du Nov, Test p. 14(and is the same I suppose with that in the King of France's Library; of which they were then the Keepers) But Morinus intimates that it was an old p. 158Copy, Rigalt. vit. P. Puteani, p. 62.which fell into their hands; and so might come into the French King's Library, when they gave their own Manuscripts to it. This seems to have been the same which P. Pithaeus speaks of; for the Description exactly agrees with it; but Pithaeus, P. Pithae de Latino Interpret. p. II.who was a Person of great Integrity and Learning, affirms, That this Volume of the Epistles in great Letters came out of the Monastery of Corbey; and so it could not be the Clermont Copy which Beza had. And I shall make it appear from the very places mention'd by Morinus, that Beza's Copy did differ from that which Morinus perused, as Rom. 4.9. Morinus his Copy had foreign; Beza takes notice of it only in the vulgar Latin; which he would never have done, if it had been in the Clermont Copy, Rom 5.6. For foreign Morinus reads in that Copy foreign, and saith it is the true reading: but Beza condemns it, and never intimates that his Copy had it, Rom. 7.25. Morinus saith, the reading of his Copy is the true, foreign: Beza saith, It is against all the Greek Copies but one, and that hath foreign; whether Beza were mistaken as to other Copies is not our business to enquire; but if the reading had been in his Copy as Morinus found it; he could never have said, that but one Copy had that p. 159different reading. Rom. 8.13, Morinus his Copy had it foreign; Beza takes no notice of any difference. Rom. 10.8, Morinus reads foreign. Beza saith, It is not in the Greek Copies; and he had then the Clermont by him: but it is both in that of the French King's Library, and of S. Germain's; which agree with each other, where Beza's Copy differs; and Beza upon Rom. 7.6. and 11.6 observes, that his Clermont Copy differs from the rest; by which we see how careful he was to observe the variuos Readings in it; and so upon Rom. 15.24, 33, 16, 27.

Rom. 14.6. Beza observes, That the vulgar Latine leaves out part of the Verse, but that it is found in all the Greek Copies; here Morinus charges Beza with Negligence, or Dis-ingenuity; because it was left out in the Clermont Copy; but how doth he prove he had the same Copy? He saith indeed, That the ancient Copy, which he had was lent to Beza; but he tells not by whom, nor in whose Possession it was afterwards. But if Beza were a man of any ordinary Care or Honesty, he would never have concealed those things, which Morinus found in it. 1 Cor. 6.20, Beza saith, That those words foreign, are in all the Greek Copies; Morinus saith, That they p. 160were wanting in that which he made use of. It's true, they are wanting in the Alexandrian, and some others; but in none that Beza had the sight of▪ if he may be believed. These are sufficient to shew, that there is no good Proof, that the …opy which Beza had was the same which Morinus borrow'd; and therefore his Authority is not to be slighted in this matter, when he affirms, that all the Greek Copies agreed in reading God manifest in the flesh; and I cannot imagine Beza so intolerably careless as he must have been, if Morinus his Copy and Beza's were the same. But whether it were in Beza's Copy or not, it's certain, they say, That it is not in that ancient Manuscript, which is called the Clermont Copy; which is affirmed by Morinus, and taken for granted by others, therefore we must enquire a little farther into the Authority of this ancient Copy. It appears by those who have view'd and considered them, that there are two very ancient Copies of S. Paul's Epistles, so exactly agreeing, that one is supposed to be the Transcript of the other; one is in the King's Library, the other in the Monastery of S. Germains. Which Mabillon saith is a Thousand years old.Mabil. de Re Deplomat. l. 5. p. 346. These two Copies are in p. 161effect but one, agreeing so much where they differ from others; and having the old Latin Version opposite to the Greek. Monsieur Arnauld had so bad an Opinion of both parts of this Clermont Copy, (as it is called) that he charges it with manifest Forgery, and Imposture; inserting things into the Text without ground. F. Simon who defends them cannot deny several things to be inserted, but he saith, it was through Carelessness and not Design. But he Confesses,Dissert. surless MS. du Nov. Test. p. 17. That those who transcribed both those ancient Copies of S. Paul's Epistles did not understand Greek, and hardly Latin. And now let us consider, of what just Authority this different reading of the Clermont Copy ought to be against the Consent of all other ancient Copies. We find some good Rules laid down by the Roman Criticks, when they had a Design under Vrban 8th. to compare the Greek Text of the New Testament, with their ancient Manuscripts in the Vatican, and elewhere, and to publish an exact Edition of it (which Collation was preserved in the Barberin Library, and from thence published by Pet. Possinus.) And the main Rules as to the various Lections of Manuscripts were these, 1. That the Text was not to be alter'd but a Concurrence p. 162of all, or the greatest part of the Manuscripts. 2. That if one Manuscript agreed with the vulgar Latin, the Text was not to be alter'd, but the Difference to be set down at the end of the Chapter. But it is observable in that Collation of Twenty two Manuscripts, there is no one Copy produced, wherein there is any Variety as to this place. I know they had not Twenty two Manuscripts of S. Paul's Epistles, (they mention but Eight ancient Manuscripts) but they found no difference in those they had. And now I leave any reasonable man to judge, whether this Clermont Copy ought to be relied upon in this matter. But I have something more to say about the Greek Copies.

1. That God is in the Complutensian Polyglott, which was the first of the Kind, and carried on by the wonderful Care and Expence of that truly grea… Man Cardinal Ximenes, Alavarez Gomez de rebus Gestis Fr. Ximenii, l. 2. & 3.who spared for no Cost or Pains in procuring the best ancient Copies both Hebrew and Greek; and the fittest men to judge of both Languages. And in pursuit of this noble Design, he had the best Vatican Manuscripts sent to him (as is expressed in the Epistle before his Greek Testament,) and what others he could get out of other places, among which he had the p. 163Codex Britannicus mention'd by Erasmus. But after all these Copies made use of by the Editors, there is no Intimation of any variety as to this Place; although the vulgar Latin be there as it was.

But Erasmus mentions the great Consent of the old Copies as to the vulgar Latin, and whence should that come, but from a Variety in the old Greek Copies. To that I Answer,

2. That the Greek Copies, where they were best understood had no Variety in them; i. e. among the Greeks themselves. As appears by Gregory Nyssen, S. Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius and Theophylact. But doth not Monsieur Amelote say,Amelote in Loc. That the Marquiss of Velez had Sixteen old Manuscripts, out of which he gathered various Readings, and he reads it O! I cannot but observe, how he commends Fabricius and Walton, for rendring the Syriac Version according to the vulgar Latin; but that will appear to be false, to any one that looks into them; the former is mentioned already; and the latter translates it, Quod manifestatus sit in carne. But as to the Marquiss of Velez his Copies, there is a Secret in it, which ought to be understood, and is discover'd by Mariana. Marian. Edit. vulg. c. 17.He Confesses, He had so may Manuscripts, eight of them out p. 164of the Escurial, but that he never set down whence he had his Readings.

And in another place, he ingenuously confesses, That his Design was to justifie the vulgar Latin;Praef. ad Schol. and therefore collected Readings on purpose, and he suspects some, out of such Greek Copies, as after the Council of Florence were made comfortable to the Latin. Which Readings were published by la Cerda, whose Authority Amelote follows. And now what Reason can there be, that any such late Copies should be prefer'd before those which were used by the Greek Fathers?

3. That the Latin Fathers did not concern themselves about changing their Version, because they understood it still to relate to the Person of Christ. So do S. Ierom, Leo, Hilary, Fulgentius, Hier. in Loc. Leo Epist. 34. ad Fl. Hilar de Trinit. l. 11. Fulg. ad Thra. c. 4.and others. As to the Objections about Liberatus, Macedonius and Hincmarus, I refer them to the Learned Oxford Annotations.

IX. It is not wisely done of these Interpreters, to charge our Church so much for retaining a Verse in S. Iohn's first Epistle, 1 Joh. 5.7.1 John 5:7when they had so good authority to do it? The Verse is, There are three that bear Record in Heaven, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, Consider on the Explic. p. 29.&c. From hence they charge us with corrupted Copies and false p. 165Translations; as an instance of the former, they produce this Text, which they say, was not originally in the Bible, History of Unit. p. 43. Ans. to the Archbishop, p. 29.but is added to it, and is not found in the most ancient Copies of the Greek, nor in the Syriac, Arabick, Ethiopick, or Armenian Bibles, nor in the most ancient Latin Bibles. Notwithstanding all which, I hope to be able to shew, that our Church had reason to retain it. For which end we are to consider these things;

1. That Erasmus first began to raise any scruple about it. For, however it might not be in some MSS. which were not look'd into, this Verse was constantly and solemnly read as a part of Scripture both in the Greek and Latin Churches, as Mr. Selden confesses,Selden de Syned. l. 2. c. 4. and that it was in Wickliff's Bible. So that here was a general consent of the Eastern and Western Churches for the receiving it; and although there might be a variety in the Copies, yet there was none in the publick Service, and no Objections against it that we find. But Erasmus his authority sway'd so much here, that in the Bibles in the time of H. 8. and E. 6. it was retained in a different Letter. As in Tyndell's Bible printed by the King's Printer, A. D. 1540. and in the Church Bible p. 166of King E. 6. in both which they are read, but not in the same Character. Yet Erasmus his authority was not great enough to cast it out, if he had a mind to have done it. Which doth not appear, for he saith himself, that finding it in the codex Britannicus, as he calls it, he restored it in his Translation as well as the Greek Testament, out of which he had expunged it befo…e in two Editions. And the Complutensian Bible coming out with it, added greater authority to the keeping of it in, and so it was preserved in the Greek Testaments of Hervagius, Plautin and R. Stephens and others, after the MSS. had been more diligently searched. Morinus saith,Morin exercit Bibl. l. 1, 2, Ex. 2.Exod 2 it was in seven of Rob. Stephens his MSS. but F. Simon will not allow that it was in any but the Complutensian, Simon dissert. de MSS p. 14.which is a strange piece of boldness in him. For Beza saith,Bez Epist. ad nov. Testam. He had the use of them all from him; and H. Stephens let him have his Father's Copy compared with 25 MSS. and he affirms, That he found it in several of R. Stephens his old MSS. besides the Codex Britannicus and the Complutensian Copy, and therefore he concludes, that it ought to be retained. (And so it was, after these Copies were come abroad in the Bishop's Bible, under Queen Elizabeth, p. 167without any distinction of character, as likewise in our last Translation.) And it is observable, that Amelote affirms, that he found it in the most ancient Greek Copy in the Vatican Library; but the Roman Criticks confess, it was not in their 8 MSS. yet they thought it fit to be retained from the common Greek Copies, and the Testimonies of the Fathers agreeing with the Vulgar Latin.

2. This Verse was in the Copies of the African Churches from S. Cyprian's time, as appears by the Testimonies of S. Cyprian, Fulgentius, Facundus, Victor Vitensis, and Vigilius Tapsensis, which are produced by others.Critique in nov. Test. c. 18. F. Simon hath a bold conjecture, of which he is not sparing, that Victor Vitensis is the first who produced it as S. John's saying; and that it was S. Cyprian's own Assertion and not made use of by him as a Testimony of Scripture. But they who can say such things as these, are not much to be trusted. For S. Cyprian's words are, speaking of S. Iohn before, Et iterum de Patre & Filio scriptum est, & hi tres unum sunt. And it was not Victor Vitensis, but the African Bishops and Eugenius in the head of them, who made that address to Huneric, wherein they say, That it is clearer than Light, p. 168that Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one God, and prove it by the Testimony of S. John. Tres sunt qui Testimonium perhibent in caelo, Pater, Verbum & Spiritus Sanctus, & hi Tres unum sunt.

3. In the former Testimony, the authority of the Vulgar Latin was made use of: and why, is it rejected here? When Morinus confesses there is no variety in the Copies of it.Morin. exercit. Bibl. l 1. Ex. 2. c. 1. n. 9.Exod 2 Vulgata versio hunc versum constanter habet. And he observes, that those of the Fathers, who seem to omit it (as S. Augustin against Maximinus) did not follow the old Latin Version. Lucas Brugensis, saith only, That in 35 old Copies, they found it wanting but in five. As to S. Ierom's Prologue, I am not concerned to defend it; but Erasmus thought it had too much of S. Jerom in it, and others think it hath too little. F. Simon confesses,Critique To. I. c. 9. that P. Pithaeus and Mabillon think it was S. Ierom's, and that it was in the MSS. But I conclude with saying, That whoever was the Author, at the time when it was written, the Greek Copies had this Verse, or else he was a notorious Impostor.

X. The next thing I shall ask these wise Interpreters of Scripture, is, Whether, when the Scripture so often affirms, That p. 169the World was made by the Son, Joh. 1.3. Heb. 1.2, 10. Col. 1.16.John 1:3Heb 1:2Heb 1:10Col 1:16and that all things were created by him in Heaven and in Earth, it be reasonable to understand them of Creating nothing? For after all their Shifts and Evasions it comes to nothing at last. But that we may see, how much they are confounded with these places, we may observe,

1. They sometimes say, that where the Creation of all things is spoken of, it is not meant of Christ but of God. For in the answer they give to the place of the Epistle to the Colossians, they have these words: For by him all things were created, Hist. of the Unit. p. 38.are not spoken of Christ, but of God: the sense of the whole Context is this, The Lord Christ is the most perfect Image of the invisible God, the first born from the dead of every Creature; for, O Colossians, by him, even by the invisible God were all things created; they were not from all eternity, nor rose from the concourse of Atoms, but all of them, whether things in Heaven, or things in Earth; whether Thrones, or Dominions, or Principalities, or Powers, are Creatures, and were by God created, who is before them all, and by him they all consist. This is a very fair Concession, that of whomsoever these words are spoken he must be God.

p. 1702. But in the defence of this very Book they go about to prove,Defence of the History of Unitar. p. 13, 14. That the Creation of the World is not meant by these words. Is not this interpreting like wise Men indeed? And they tell us, They cannot but wonder, that Men should attribute the old or first Creation to Christ. Wise Men do not use to wonder at plain things. For what is the old or first Creation, but the making the World, and creating all things in Heaven and Earth? And these things are attribu…ed to the Word, to the Son to Christ. But say they, The Scripture does never say in express words▪ that Christ hath created the Heaven and the Earth. What would these wise Interpreters have? Doth not by whom all things were created in Heaven and Earth imply, that Heaven and Earth were created by him? But they have a notable observation from the Language of the New Testament, viz That Christ is never said to have created the Heaven, the Earth, and the Sea, and all that therein is; but we are apt to think, that creating all things takes in …he Sea too, and that in the Scripture Language Heaven and Earth are the same with the World, and I hope the World takes in the Sea; and the World is said to be made by him, and do not all things take in all? No, say they, p. 171all things are limited to all Thrones, Principalities and Powers, visible and invisible. Then, however the making of these is attributed to Christ. And if he made all Powers, Visible and invisible, he must be God. Not so neither. What then is the meaning of the words, By him were all things created that are in Heaven and in Earth, visible and invisible; whether they be Thrones, or Dominions, or Principalities, or Powers, all things were created by him and for him? Surely then, these Dominions and Powers were created by him. No, say they,P. 10. that which we render created, ought to be rendred, modelled, disposed, or reformed into a new Order. Were ever wise Men driven to such miserable Shifts? One while these words are very strong and good proof of the Creation of the World against Atheists and Epicureans, and by and by they prove nothing of all this, but only a new modelling of some things called Dominions and Powers. Do they hope ever to convince Men at this rate of wise interpreting? Well, but what is this creating or disposing things into a new order? And who are these Dominions and Powers? they answer, Men and Angels. How are the Angels created by him and for him? Did he die to reform p. 172them, as well as Mankind? No, but they are put under him. And so they were created by him, that is, they were not created by him, but only made subject to him. But who made them subject to him? The Man Christ Iesus? No, God appointed him to be the Lord of every Creature. Then they were not created by Christ, but by God; but the Apostle saith, they were created by Christ. But God made him Head of the Church, and as Head of the Body he rules over all. This we do not at all question; but how this comes to be creating Dominions and Powers, visible and invisible. Did God make the Earth and all the living Creatures in it, when he made Man Lord over them? Or rather was Man said to create them, because he was made their Head? If this be their interpreting Scripture like wise Men, I shall be content with a less measure of Understanding, and thank God for it.

XI. Lastly, Is this to interpret Scripture like Wise men, to leave the form of Baptism doubtful, whether it were not inserted into S. Matthew's Gospel; or to understand it in another Sense than the Christian Church hath done from the Apostles times? I say first, Leave it doubtful, because they say, That Answer to Milb. p. 15.Learned Criticks have given very p. 173strong Reasons why they believe these Words. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, were not spoke by our Saviour, but have been added to the Gospel of S. Matthew, from the common Form and Practise of the Church. Why are these strong Reasons of learned Criticks mentioned, but to raise Doubts in Peoples minds about them? But they declare afterwards against them. Not too much of that. For they say, only,P. 16. That they are not without their weight, but they have observed several things that make them think, that this Text is a genuine part of Scripture. Very Wisely and Discreetly spoken! The Reasons are strong and weighty; but they think otherwise. I wish they had told the World, who these learned Criticks were; lest it should be suspected that they were their own Inventions. But I find a certain Nameless Socinian was the Author of them; and his Words are produced by Sandius (a Person highly commended by them for his Industry and Learning,Sand. Interp. Et Paradox. p. 115. but as much condemned by others, for want of Skill or Ingenuity.) The reason of writing these Reasons Sandius freely Confesses was, because this place clearly proved a Trinity of Persons against the Socinians. But what are these very p. 174strong and weighty Reasons? For it is great Pity, but they should be known.

In the first place he observes, That S. Matthew's Gospel was written in Hebrew, and the Original he saith is lost; and he suspects that either S. Jerom was himself the Translator into Greek and Latin (who was a Corrupter of Scripture, and Origen) or some unknow Person: from whence it follows, that our Gospel of S. Matthew is not of such Authority, that an Article of such moment should depend upon it. Is not this a very strong and weighty Reason? Must not this be a very learned Critick who could mention S. Ierom, as Translator of S. Matthews Gospel into Greek? But then one would think this Interpreter might have been wise enough to have added this of himself. No; he dares not say that, but that it was added by Transcribers. But whence or how? To that he saith, That they seem to be taken out of the Gospel according to the Egyptians. This is great News indeed. But comes it from a good hand? Yes, from Epiphanius. And what saith he to this purpose? He saith, That the Sabellians made use of the counterfeit Egyptian Gospel, and there it was declared that Father, Epiph. haer. 62. n. 2.Son and Holy Ghost were the same. And what then? Doth he say they p. 175borrowed the Form of Baptism from thence? Nothing like it. But on the contrary, Epiphanius urges this very Form in that place against the Sabellians:N. 4. and quotes S. Matthew's Authority for it. But this worthy Author produces other Reasons, which Sandius himself laughs at, and despises? and therefore I pass them over. The most material seems to be if it hold, That the most ancient Writers on S. Matthew take no notice of them, and he mentions Origen, Hilary, and S. Chrysostom, but these Negative Arguments Sandius thinks of no force. Origen and S. Chrysostom, he saith, reach not that Chapter; the Opus Imperfectum, which was none of his, doth not; but his own Commentaries do, and there he not only mentions the Form, but takes notice of the Compendious Doctrine delivered by it, which can be nothing else but that of the Trinity. In the Greek Catena on S. Matthew there is more mentioned, viz. That Christ had not then first his Power given him; for he was with God before, and was himself by Nature God. And there Gregory Nazianzen saith, The Form of Baptism was in the Name of the Holy Trinity; and he there speaks more fully. Remember, saith he, the Faith into which thou wert baptized. Into the p. 176Father? That is well, but that is no farther than the Jews go (for they own one God, and one Person.) Into the Son? That is beyound them, but not yet perfect. Into the Holy Ghost? Yes, saith he, this is perfect Baptism. But what is the common Name of these three, foreign. Plainly, that of God. But this learned Critick observes, that Hilary in some Copies takes no notice of this Form. That is truly observed, for the very Conclusion is not Hilary's, but taken out of S. Ierom; but if he had look'd into Hilary's Works, he would have found the Form of Baptism owned, and asserted by him. For he not only sets it down as the Form of Faith, Hilar. l. 2. de Trinit.as well as our Baptism appointed by Christ; but argues from it, against the Sabellians and Ebionites, as well as others. Thus we see how very strong and weighty the Arguments of this learned Critick were.