Sermon Concerning the Divinity and Incarnation of our Blessed Savior, Sermon 2

Sermon Concerning the Divinity and Incarnation of our Blessed Savior · Sermon 2

p. 45SERMON II. Concerning the Divinity of CHRIST.

Preached in the Church of St. Lawrence Jewry, January 6. 1679.

JOHN I. 14.

The Word was made fleſh.

I Proceed now to proſecute the third Corollary or Concluſion which does neceſſarily follow from the deſcription which St. John in the beginning of his Goſpel gives of the Word, and which I have ſo largely explain'd in the foregoing Diſcourſe: And it was this,

That the Word, here deſcribed by the Evangeliſt, had an exiſtence before his Incarnation and his being born of the B. Virgin,

p. 46This Aſſertion, I told you, is levelled directly againſt the Socinians, who affirm our B. Saviour to be a mere man, and deny that he had any exiſtence before he was born of the Virgin Mary his Mother: Which Poſition of theirs does perfectly contradict all the former Concluſions which have been ſo evidently drawn from the Deſcription here given of the Word: And not only ſo, but hath forc'd them to interpret this whole paſſage in the beginning of St. John's Goſpel in a very different ſenſe from that which was conſtantly received, not only by the ancient Fathers, but by the general conſent of all Chriſtians for 1500 years together: For to eſtabliſh this their Opinion of our Saviour's being a mere man and having no exiſtence before his Birth, they have found it neceſſary to expound this whole paſſage 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 Socinus.

p. 47For this reaſon I ſhall very particularly conſider the interpretation which Socinus gives of this Paſſage of St. John; and beſides the novelty of it, which they themſelves acknowledge, I make no doubt very plainly to manifeſt the great violence and unreaſonableneſs, and likewiſe the inconſiſtency of it with other plain Texts of the New Teſtament.

It is very evident what it was that forc'd Socinus to ſo ſtrain'd and violent an interpretation of this Paſſage of the Evangeliſt, namely, that he plainly ſaw how much the obvious, and natural, and generally received interpretation of this Paſſage, in all Ages of the Chriſtian Church down to his time, ſtood in the way of his Opinion, of Chriſt's being a mere man, which he was ſo fond of, and muſt of neceſſity have quitted, unleſs he would either have denied the Divine Authority of St. John's Goſpel, or elſe could ſupplant the common interpretation of this Paſſage by putting p. 48a quite different ſenſe upon it: Which ſenſe he could find no way to ſupport without ſuch pitiful and wretched ſhifts, ſuch precarious and arbitrary Suppoſitions, as a man of ſo ſharp a Reaſon and judgment as Socinus, could not, I thought, have ever been driven to. But neceſſity hath no Laws either of Reaſon or Modeſty, and he who is reſolved to maintain an Opinion which he hath once taken up muſt ſtick at nothing, but muſt break through all difficulties that ſtand in his way: And ſo the Socinians have here done, as will, I hope, manifeſtly appear in the following Diſcourſe.

They grant that by the Word is here meant Chriſt, by whom God ſpake and declared his mind and will to the World; which they make to be the whole reaſon of that Name or Title of the Word which is here given him, and not becauſe by Him God made the World: For the Word by which God made the World, they p. 49tell us, was nothing but the powerful Command of God, and not a Perſon who was deſign'd to be the Meſſias. And becauſe, as I have ſhewed before, the ancient Jews do make frequent mention of this Title of the Word of God by whom they ſay God made the World, and do likewiſe apply this Title to the Meſſias; therefore to avoid this, Schlictingius ſays that the Chaldee Paraphraſts, Jonathan and Onkelos, do ſometimes put the Word of God for God, by a Metonymy of the Effect for the Cauſe; but then he confidently denies that they do any where diſtinguiſh the Word of God from the Perſon of God, as they acknowledge that St. John here does; nor do they, ſays he, underſtand by the Word of God the Meſſias, but on the contrary do oppoſe the Word of God to the Meſſias: All which is moſt evidently confuted by that paſſage which I cited before out of the Targum of Jonathan, who renders thoſe words concerning the Meſſias, The p. 50Lord ſaid unto my Lord, &c. thus, The Lord ſaid unto his Word, ſit thou on my right hand, &c. where you ſee both that the Word of God is plainly diſtinguiſhed from God, and that it is the Title given to the Meſſias: Which are the two things which Schlictingius doth ſo confidently deny.

This then being agreed on all hands, that by the Word St. John means the Meſſias, I ſhall in the next place, ſhew by what ſtrained and forced arts of interpretation the Socinians endeavour to avoid the plain and neceſſary conſequence from this Paſſage of St. John, namely that the Word had an exiſtence before he was made fleſh and born of the B. Virgin his Mother.

This then in ſhort is the interpretation which they give of this Paſſage, than which I think nothing can be more unnatural and violent.

In the beginning, This they will by no means have to refer to the Creation of the World, but to the beginning p. 51of the Goſpel, that is, when the Goſpel firſt began to be publiſh'd then was Chriſt, and not before: And he was with God, that is ſays Socinus, Chriſt as he was the Word of God, that is, the Goſpel of Chriſt which was afterwards by him revealed to the World was firſt only known to God: But all this being ſomewhat hard, firſt to underſtand by the beginning not the beginning of the World but of the Goſpel; and then by the Word which was with God to underſtand the Goſpel which before it was revealed was only known to God; they have upon ſecond thoughts found out another meaning of thoſe words, And the Word was with God, that is faith Schlictingius, Chriſt was taken up by God into Heaven, and there inſtructed in the mind and will of God, and from thence ſent down into the World again to declare it to Mankind.

And the Word was God, that is ſay they, Chriſt had the Honour and Title p. 52of God conferr'd upon him, as Magiſtrates alſo have, who in the Scripture are called Gods: He was God, not by Nature but by Office and by Divine conſtitution and appointment.

All things were made by him: This they will needs have to be meant of the Renovation and Reformation of the World by Jeſus Chriſt, which is ſeveral times in Scripture call'd a new Creation.

This in ſhort is the Sum of their interpretation of this Paſſage, which I ſhall now examine, and to which I ſhall oppoſe three things as ſo many invincible prejudices againſt it.

Firſt, That 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, namely, of the Creation of the material, and not of the Renovation p. 53of the moral World: And I add further, that the generality of Chriſtians did ſo underſtand this Paſſage, as to collect from it as an undoubted Point of Chriſtianity, that the Word had a real exiſtence before he was born of the B. Virgin.

And thus not only the Orthodox Chriſtians, but even the Arians, and Amelius the Platoniſt, who was a more indifferent judge then either of them, did underſtand this Paſſage of St. John, without any thought of this invention that he ſpake not of the old, but of the new Creation of the World by Jeſus Chriſt, and the Reformation of Mankind by the preaching of the Goſpel: Which I dare ſay no indifferent Reader of St. John, that had not been prepoſſeſs'd and byaſs'd by ſome violent prejudice would ever have thought of.

And ſurely it ought to be very conſiderable in this Caſe, that the moſt ancient Chriſtian Writers, Ignatius, Juſtin Martyr, Athenagoras, Irenaeus, p. 54Tertullian, and even Origen himſelf who is called the Father of Interpreters, are moſt expreſs and poſitive in this matter. For Ignatius was the Scholar of Polycarp, who was a Diſciple of St. John; and Juſtin Martyr lived in the next Age to that of the Apoſtles; and Origen was a man of infinite learning and reading, and in his Comments upon Scripture ſeems to have conſidered all the Interpretations of thoſe that were before him: So that if this, which Socinus is ſo confident is the true ſenſe of St. John, had been any where extant, he would not probably have omitted it; nay rather would certainly have mentioned it, if for no other reaſon, yet for the ſurpriſing novelty and ſtrangeneſs of it, with which he was apt to be over-much delighted.

So that if this interpretation of Socinus be true, here are two things very wonderful, and almoſt incredible: Firſt, that thoſe who lived ſo very near St. John's Time, and were p. 55moſt likely to know his meaning, as Ignatius, Juſtin Martyr, &c. ſhould ſo widely miſtake it: And then, that the whole Chriſtian World ſhould for ſo many Ages together be deceived in the ground and foundation of ſo important an Article of Faith, if it were true; or if it were not, ſhould be led into ſo groſs and dangerous an Error as this muſt needs be, if Chriſt had no real exiſtence before he was born into the World: And which would be neceſſarily conſequent upon this, 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 Interpretation.

And as to the Novelty of it, Socinus himſelf makes no difficulty to own it; nay he ſeems rather to rejoice and to applaud himſelf in it. Unhappy man! that was ſo wedded to his own Opinion that no Objection, no difficulty could divorce him from it.

p. 56And for this I refer my ſelf to his Preface to his Explication of this firſt Chapter of St. John's Goſpel; where you ſhall find theſe words concerning the Paſſage now in controverſy, quorum verus ſenſus omnium prorſus, qui quidem extarent, explanatores latuiſſe videtur, the true ſenſe of which words, ſays he, ſeems to have been hid from all the Expoſitors that ever were extant: And upon thoſe words, v. 10. He was in the World, and the World was made by him, he hath this expreſſion, quid autem hoc loco ſibi velit Johannes, à nemine quod ſciam adhuc rectè expoſitum fuit, but what St. John means in this place was never yet, that I know of, by any man rightly explain'd: And Schlictingius after him, with more confidence but much leſs decency, tells us, that concerning the meaning of thoſe expreſſions, in the beginning, and of thoſe which follow concerning the Word, the ancient Interpreters did ab Apoſtoli mente delirare, went ſo far from the Apoſtle's meaning as if they had rav'd and p. 57been out of their wits: Which is ſo extravagantly ſaid, and with ſo much contempt of thoſe great and venerable Names, who were the chief Propagaters of Chriſtianity in the World, and to whom all Ages do ſo juſtly pay a reverence, that nothing can be ſaid in excuſe of him but only that it is not uſual with him to fall into ſuch raſh and rude expreſſions. But the man was really pinch'd by ſo plain and preſſing a Text, and where Reaſon is weak and blunt Paſſion muſt be whetted, the only weapon that is left when Reaſon fails: And I always take it for graned, that no man is ever Angry with his Adverſary but for want of a better Argument to ſupport his Cauſe.

And yet to do right to the Writers on that ſide, I muſt own that generally they are a Pattern of the fair way of diſputing, and of debating matters of Religion without heat and unſeemly reflections upon their Adverſaries, in the number of whom p. 58I did not expect that the Primitive Fathers of the Chriſtian Church would have been reckoned by them. They generally argue matters with that temper and gravity, and with that freedom from paſſion and tranſport which becomes a ſerious and weighty Argument: And for the moſt part they reaſon cloſely and clearly, with extraordinary guard and caution, with great dexterity and decency, and yet with ſmartneſs and ſubtilty enough; with a very gentle heat, and few hard words: Vertues to be praiſed whereever they are found, yea even in an Enemy, and very worthy our imitation: In a word, they are the ſtrongeſt managers of a weak Cauſe and which is ill founded at the bottom, that perhaps ever yet medled with Controverſy: Inſomuch that ſome of the Proteſtants and the generality of the Popiſh Writers, and even of the Jeſuits themſelves who pretend to all the Reaſon and ſubtilty in the World, are in compariſon p. 59of them but mere Scolds and Bunglers: Upon the whole matter, they have but this one great defect that they want a good Cauſe and Truth on their Side; which if they had, they have Reaſon, and Wit, and temper enough to defend it.

But to return to the buſineſs. That which I urge them withall, and that from their own confeſſion, is this, that this interpretation of theirs is perfectly new, and unknown to the whole Chriſtian World before Socinus; and for that reaſon, in my opinion, not to be bragg'd of: Becauſe it is in effect to ſay that the Chriſtian Religion, in a Point pretended on both Sides to be of the greateſt moment, was never rightly underſtood by any ſince the Apoſtles days, for fifteen hundred years together: And which makes the matter yet worſe, that the Religion which was particularly deſign'd to overthrow Polytheiſm and the belief of more God, hath, according to them, been ſo ill taught p. 60and underſtood by Chriſtians for ſo many Ages together, and almoſt from the very beginning of Chiſtianity, 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 and to ſuſtain the weight of it.

For this the Socinians object to us at every turn, as the unavoidable conſequence of our interpretation of this Paſſage of St. John, and of all other Texts of Scripture produced by us to the ſame purpoſe, notwithſtanding that this interpretation hath obtain'd in the Chriſtian Church for ſo many Ages: Now whoſoever can believe that the Chriſtian Religion hath done the Work for which it was principally deſign'd ſo ineffectually, muſt have very little reverence for it, nay it muſt be a marvellous civility in him if he believe it at all. All that can be ſaid in this Caſe is, that it pleaſes God many times to permit p. 61men to hold very inconſiſtent things, and which do in truth, though they themſelves diſcern it not, moſt effectually overthrow one another.

Secondly, Another mighty prejudice againſt this Interpretation is this, that according to this rate of liberty in interpreting Scripture, it will ſignify very little or nothing, when any Perſon or Party is concern'd 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 render'd 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 p. 62to be the Inſtitution of the Jewiſh Politie and Religion, as by the new Heavens and the new Earth they pretend is to be underſtood the new State of things under the Goſpel? And why may not the Chaos ſignify that ſtate of darkneſs and ignorance in which the World was before the giving of the Law by Moſes? And ſo on;Dr. Stillingfleet, now Biſhop of Worceſter. as a very learned Divine of our own hath ingeniouſly ſhewn more at large.

There is no end of Wit and Fancy, which can turn any thing any way, and can make whatever they pleaſe to be the meaning of any Book, though never ſo contrary to the plain deſign of it, and to that ſenſe which at the firſt hearing and reading of it is obvious to every man of common ſenſe.

And this, in my opinion, Socinus hath done in the Caſe now before us, by impoſing a new and odd and violent ſenſe upon this Paſſage of St. John, directly contrary to what p. 63any man would imagine to be the plain and obvious meaning of it, and contrary likewiſe to the ſenſe of the Chriſtian Church in all Ages down to his Time; who yet had as great or greater advantage of underſtanding St. John aright, and as much integrity as any man can now modeſtly pretend to: And all this only to ſerve and ſupport an Opinion which he had entertain'd before, and therefore was reſolv'd 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 feared that he would at laſt have called in queſtion the Divine Authority of St. John's Goſpel rather than have quitted his Opinion.

And to ſpeak freely, I muſt needs ſay that it ſeems to me a much fairer way to reject the Divine Authority of a Book, than to uſe it ſo diſingenuouſly and to wreſt the plain expreſſions of it with ſo much ſtraining and violence from their moſt natural and obvious ſenſe: For no Doctrine p. 64whatſever can have any certain foundation in any Book, if this liberty be once admitted, without regard to the plain Scope and Occaſion of it to play upon the words and phraſes with all the arts of Criticiſm and with all the variety of Allegory which a brisk and lively Imagination can deviſe: which I am ſo far from admiring in the expounding of the Holy Scriptures, that I am always jealous of an over-labour'd and far-fetch'd interpretation of any Author whatſoever.

I do readily grant that the Socinian Writers have managed the Cauſe of the Reformation againſt the Innovations and Corruptions of the Church of Rome both in Doctrine and Practice, with great acuteneſs and advantage in many reſpects: But I am ſorry to have cauſe to ſay that they have likewiſe put into their hands better and ſharper weapons than ever they had before for the weakning and undermining of the Authority p. 65of the H. Scriptures, which Socinus indeed hath in the general ſtrongly aſſerted, had he not by a dangerous liberty of impoſing a foreign and fore'd ſenſe upon particular Texts brought the whole into uncertainty.

Thirdly, Which is as conſiderable a prejudice againſt this new interpretation of this Paſſage of St. John as either of the former, I ſhall endeavour to ſhew that this Point, of the exiſtence of the Word before his Incarnation, does not rely only upon this ſingle Paſſage of St. John, but is likewiſe confirmed by many other Texts of the New Teſtament conſpiring in the ſame ſenſe and utterly incapable of the interpretation which Socinus gives of it.

I find he would be glad to have it taken for granted that this is the only Text in the New Teſtament to this purpoſe: And therefore he ſays very cunningly, that this Doctrine of the exiſtence of the Son of God before his Incarnation is too great a Doctrine p. 66to be eſtabliſh'd upon one ſingle Text: And this is is ſomething, if it were true that there is no other Text in the New Teſtament that does plainly deliver the ſame ſenſe: And yet this were not ſufficient to bring in queſtion the Doctrine delivered in this Paſſage of St. John.

That God is a Spirit will I hope be acknowledged to be a very weighty and fundamental Point of Religion, and yet I am very much miſtaken if there be any more than one Text in the whole Bible that ſays ſo, and that Text is only in St. John's Goſpel. I know it may be ſaid, that from the light of natural Reaſon it may be ſufficiently prov'd that God is a Spirit: But ſurely Socinus of all men, cannot ſay this with a good grace; becauſe he denies that the exiſtence of a God can be known by natural light without Divine Revelation: And if it cannot be known by natural light that there is a God, much leſs can it be known by natural light p. 67what God is, whether a Spirit or a Body.

And yet after all it is very far from being true that there is but one Text to this purpoſe; which yet he thought fit to inſinuate by way of excuſe for the novelty and boldneſs of his interpretation; of which any one that reads him may ſee that he was ſufficiently conſcious to himſelf, and therefore was ſo wiſe as to endeavour by this ſly inſinuation to provide and lay in againſt it. I have likewiſe another reaſon which very much inclines me to believe that Socinus was the firſt Author of this interpretation, becauſe it ſeems to me next to impoſſible that a man, of ſo good an underſtanding as he was, could ever have been ſo fond of ſo ill-favour'd a Child if it had not been his own. And yet I do not at all wonder that his Followers came in to it ſo readily, ſince they had him in ſo great a veneration, it being natural to all Sects to admire their Maſter; beſides p. 68that I doubt not but they were very glad to have ſo great an Authority as they thought him to be, to vouch for an interpretation which was ſo ſeaſonably devis'd for the relief of their Cauſe in ſo much danger to be overthrown by a Text that was ſo plain and full againſt them.

And how little ground there is for this Inſinuation, that this is the only Text in the New Teſtament to this purpoſe, I ſhall now ſhew from a multitude of other Texts to the ſame ſenſe and purpoſe with this Paſſage of St. John. And I ſhall rank them under two Heads.

Firſt, 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.

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

p. 69I. Thoſe Texts 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.

No man hath aſcended into Heaven, John 3. 13.John 3:13but he that came down from Heaven, the Son of man who is in Heaven: Where the Son is ſaid to have come down from Heaven, in reſpect of the Union of his Divinity with human Nature and his ſpecial reſidence in it here below: And yet he is ſaid to have come down from Heaven as ſtill to be in Heaven: He that came down from Heaven, the Son of man who is in Heaven, that is, in reſpect of his Divinity by which he is every-where preſent: And he that came down from Heaven is here called the Son of man, by the ſame Figure that his Blood is elſewhere called the Blood of God, Acts 20. 28.Acts 20:28the Apoſtle aſcribing that to one Nature which is proper to the other: This we take to be the moſt natural and eaſie ſenſe of this p. 70Text, and moſt agreeable to the tenour of the New Teſtament.

Again;John 6. 62.John 6:62 What and if ye ſhall ſee the Son of man aſcend up where he was before? So that if he really aſcended up into Heaven after his Reſurrection, he was really there before his Incarnation.

Before Abraham was, John 8. 58.John 8:58ſays our B. Saviour, I am; the obvious ſenſe of which words is, that he had a real exiſtence before Abraham was actually in Being.

Again it is ſaid,John 13. 3.John 13:3 that Jeſus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he was come from God, and went to God, &c.

And again;Joh. 16. 27,John 16:27 For the Father himſelf loveth you, becauſe ye loved me, and have believed that I came out from God. v. 28.I came forth from the Father, and am come into the World; again, I leave the World, and go to the Father: This was ſo very plain, that his Diſciples who were ſlow enough of apprehenſion in other things, did underſtand this ſo well that upon this declaration of p. 71his they were convinced of his Omniſcience, which is an incommunicable Property of the Divinity: For ſo it immediately follows,v. 29, 30. His Diſciples ſaid unto him, Lord, now ſpeakeſt thou plainly and ſpeakeſt no Parable: Now are we ſure that thou knoweſt all things, and needeſt not that any man ſhould ask thee: By this we believe that thou cameſt forth from God. So that either this which I have all along declared muſt be the meaning of our Saviour's words, or elſe his Diſciples were groſly miſtaken and did not underſtand him at all: And if ſo, then ſurely our Saviour before he had proceeded any further would have corrected their miſtake and have ſet them right in this matter: But ſo far is he from doing that, that he allows them to have underſtood him aright: For thus it follows,v. 31. Jeſus anſwered them, Do ye now believe? as if he had ſaid, I am glad that you are at laſt convinc'd and do believe that I came from God, and muſt return to him; and that I know p. 72all things, which none but God can do. Is it now poſſible for any man to read this Paſſage and yet not to be convinced that the Diſciples underſtood our Saviour to ſpeak literally? But if his meaning was as the Socinians would make us believe, then the Diſciples did perfectly miſtake his words; the contrary whereof is I think very plain and evident beyond all contradiction.

Again,John 17. 5.John 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify me with thine own ſelf, with the glory which I had with thee, before the World was: This ſurely is not ſpoken of his being with God after his Incarnation, and before his entrance upon his publick Miniſtry: They have not I think the face to underſtand this expreſſion, before the World was, of the new Creation, but do endeavour to avoid it another way, which I ſhall conſider by and by.

And a little after,v. 8. I have given them the words which thou gaveſt me, and they have received them, and known aſſuredly p. 73that I came from thee, and that thou didſt ſend me.

Again,1 Joh. 1. 1, 2.1 John 1:11 John 1:2 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have ſeen with our eyes, which we have looked upon and our hands have handled of the Word of life: For the life was manifeſted, and we have ſeen it, and bear witneſs and ſhew unto you that eternal Life, for ſo he calls the Son of God, which was with the Father, and was manifeſted unto us.

And that he was not only with God before he aſſumed human Nature, but alſo was really God, St. Paul tells us:Phil. 2. 5, 6, 7, 8.Phil 2:5Phil 2:6Phil 2:7Phil 2:8 Let this mind be in you, which was alſo in Chriſt Jeſus, who being in the form of God foreign, did not arrogate to himſelf to be equal with God, that is, he made no oſtentation of his Divinity: For this I take to be the true meaning of that Phraſe, both becauſe it is ſo uſed by Plutarch, and becauſe it makes the ſenſe much more eaſie and current, thus, who being in the form of God, did not aſſume p. 74an equality with God, that is, he did not appear in the Glory of his Divinity, which was hid under a Veil of human fleſh and infirmity; But he emptied himſelf, and took upon him the form of a ſervant, and was made in the likeneſs of men, and being found in faſhion as a man, or in the habit of a man, he became obedient to the death, &c. So that if his being made in the likeneſs and faſhion of a man does ſignify that he was really Man by his Incarnation, then ſurely his being in the form of God when he took upon him the faſhion and likeneſs of man and the form of a Servant or Slave, muſt in all reaſon ſignify that he was really God before he became Man: For which reaſon the ſame Apoſtle did not doubt to ſay, that God was manifeſted in the fleſh.1 Tim. 3. 16.1 Tim 3:16

And now I hope that I have made it fully appear that the beginning of St. John's Goſpel is not the ſingle and only Text upon which we ground this great Doctrine as Socinus calls it, and as we really eſteem it to be: p. 75For you ſee that I have produced a great many more; to avoid the dint and force whereof the Socinians do chiefly make uſe of theſe two Anſwers.

Firſt, To thoſe Texts which ſay that he was in Heaven and came down from Heaven, they give this anſwer; That our Saviour ſome time before his entrance upon his publick Miniſtry, they cannot agree preciſely when, was taken up into Heaven, and then and there had the Will of God revealed to him, and was ſent down from Heaven again to make it known to the World.

This is ſo very arbitrary and precarious a Suppoſition that I muſt confeſs my ſelf not a little out of countenance for them, that men of ſo much Wit and Reaſon ſhould ever be put to ſo ſorry and pitiful a ſhift. For can any man imagine that in ſo exact a Hiſtory of our Saviour's Life, written by ſeveral Perſons, the Relation p. 76of ſo important a matter as this, and of the circumſtances of it, ſhould be wholly omitted? That we ſhould have a particular account of his being carried into Egypt in his infancy, and of the time when he was brought back from thence: Of his diſputing in the Temple with the Jewiſh Doctors, and putting them to ſilence, when he was but twelve years of Age: A punctual Relation of his being baptized by John; and how after that he was led by the Spirit into the Wilderneſs to be tempted of the Devil, and was carried by that evil Spirit from one place to another: But not one word of his being taken up by God into Heaven, and of his coming down again from thence; not the leaſt intimation given either of the Time or any other circumſtance of ſo memorable a thing, upon which, according to the Socinians, the Authority of his Miſſion and the Divinity of his Doctrine did ſo much depend: When ſo many things of ſo much p. 77leſs moment are ſo minutely and exactly reported, what can be the reaſon of this deep ſilence in all the Evangeliſts concerning this matter? But above all, it is to be wondred that St. John, who wrote his Goſpel laſt, and as Euſebius tells us on purpoſe to ſupply the omiſſions of the other Evangeliſts, ſhould give no account of this thing, and yet, as the Socinians ſuppoſe, ſhould ſo often take it for granted and refer to it; as when it is ſaid that he came forth from God, and was ſent from God, and came down from Heaven, beſides ſeveral other Expreſſions to this purpoſe.

Who can believe this? And can it then be reaſonable to ſuppoſe ſuch a thing? And this without any ground from the Hiſtory of the Goſpel, only to ſerve an Hypotheſis which they had taken up, and which they cannot maintain, unleſs they may have leave to make a Suppoſition for which they have nothing in truth to p. 78ſay, but only that it is neceſſary to defend an Opinion which they are reſolved not to part with upon any terms.

This is ſo inartificial, not to ſay abſurd a way of avoiding a difficulty, to take for granted whatever is neceſſary to that purpoſe, that no man of common ingenuity would make uſe of it: And there is no ſurer ſign that a Cauſe is greatly diſtreſs'd than to be driven to ſuch a ſhift. For do but give a man leave to ſuppoſe what he pleaſes and he may prove what he will, and avoid any difficulty whatever that can be objected to him.

Beſides, that according to this device the Son of God did not firſt come from Heaven into the World, as the Scripture ſeems every where to ſay, but firſt was in the World, and then went to Heaven, and from thence came back into the World again: And he was not in the beginning with God, but was firſt in the World p. 79and afterwards with God; whereas St. John ſays that the Word was in the beginning, and then was made fleſh and dwelt among us: But they ſay, that he firſt was made fleſh, and then a great while after was in the beginning with God: A ſuppoſition which is quite contrary to all the Texts which I have mention'd.

Nor do the ſeveral parts of this interpretation of theirs agree very well together. In the beginning, that is, ſay they, when the Goſpel firſt began to be publiſh'd, was the Word; and then, that is, in the beginning, he was with God, that is in Heaven to receive from God that Doctrine which he was to deliver to the World: But if by the beginning be meant the firſt publication of the Goſpel, he was not then with God, but had been with him and was come back from him before he entred upon his publick Miniſtry, which they make to be the meaning of the beginning: And in the beginning he was God, that is ſay they, p. 80not God by Nature but by Office and Divine conſtitution: And yet in this again they fall foul upon themſelves, for they ſay he was not declared to be God till after his Reſurrection and his being advanced to the right hand of God: So that he was not God in their ſenſe of the beginning, that is when he entred upon his publick Miniſtry and began to preach the Goſpel.

Secondly, As to ſome other Texts which ſpeak of his exiſtence before his Incarnation, as that he was glorified with his Father before the World was, and before Abraham was, I am: Theſe they interpret thus, that he was glorified with his Father before the World was, and that he was before Abraham was, viz. in the Divine foreknowledg and Decree: But then ſurely they do not conſider that this is nothing but what might have been ſaid of any other man and even of Abraham himſelf, that before he was, that is, before he had a real and actual exiſtence he p. 81was in the purpoſe and Decree of God, that is, before he was, God did intend he ſhould be: Which is a ſenſe ſo very flat, that I can hardly abſtain from ſaying it is ridiculous. For certainly our Saviour did intend by ſaying this of himſelf to give himſelf ſome preference and advantage above Abraham, which this ſenſe and interpretation does not in the leaſt do: Becauſe of any other man, as well as of our B. Saviour, it may as truly be ſaid that he was in the foreknowledg and Decree of God before Abraham was born.

And I cannot but obſerve further, that our Saviour does not ſay before Abraham was, I was; but before Abraham was, I AM: Which is the proper Name of God, whereby is ſignified the eternal duration and permanency of his Being: In which ſenſe he is ſaid by the Apoſtle to the Hebrews to be the ſame yeſterday, Heb. 13. 8.Heb 13:8to day, and for ever; And ſo likewiſe he deſcribes himſelf in St. John's Viſion,Rev. 1. 8.Rev 1:8 I am foreign p. 82and foreign, the beginning and the ending, ſaith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty: And that this is ſpoken of the Son you may ſee in the ſame Chapter, where he ſays of himſelf,v. 17. I am the firſt and the laſt: And ſo likewiſe he deſcribes himſelf again,Rev. 22. 13.Rev 22:13 I am foreign and foreign, the beginning and the end, the firſt and the laſt: And that we may not doubt who it is that thus deſcribes his own Eternity, he continuing ſtill to ſpeak in the ſame Perſon ſays,v. 16. I Jeſus have ſent mine Angel, &c. After this I ſhall only obſerve that all 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: Beſides that the Attribute of Almighty is alſo a part of this Deſcription, which is ſo peculiar a Property of God, I mean of Him who is God by Nature, that the Scripture never gives it to any other.

p. 83II. I ſhall in the next place produce thoſe Texts which do expreſly affirm that the World and all Creatures whatſoever were made by him: And this will not only infer his exiſtence before his Incarnation, but from all Eternity.

And for this, beſides this Paſſage of St. John, we have the Apoſtle to the Hebrews moſt expreſs, who ſays that by him God made the Worlds: Heb. 1. 2.Heb 1:2And St. Paul likewiſe ſays the ſame more fully and particularly,Coloſſ. 1. 15, 16.Col 1:15Col 1:16 calling Jeſus Chriſt, who was the Son of God, the firſt born of every Creature, that is, as I have ſhewn in my former Diſcourſe, the Heir and Lord of the whole Creation: For by him, ſays he, were all things created, that are in Heaven and that are in Earth, viſible and inviſible; Whether they be Thrones or Dominions, Principalities or Powers, for ſo he calls the ſeveral Orders of Angels: all things were created by him and for him, and he is before all things: Or, as he is deſcribed p. 84in St. John's Viſion, he is the beginning of the Creation of God, that is, the Principle and Efficient Cauſe of the Creation; or elſe, he was when all things began to be made, and therefore muſt be before any thing was created, and for that reaſon could not be a Creature himſelf; and conſequently, muſt of neceſſity have been from all Eternity.

Now theſe Texts muſt neceſſarily be underſtood of the old Creation and 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: For that was only the World here below which was reform'd by him, and not things in Heaven; not the inviſible World, not the ſeveral Orders of good Angels, which kept their firſt ſtation and have no need to be reform'd and made anew: Nor the Devil and his evil Angels; for though ſince the preaching of the Goſpel they have been under greater reſtraint and kept p. 85more within bounds, yet we have no reaſon to think that they are at all reform'd, but are Devils ſtill, and have the ſame malice and mind to do all the miſchief to Mankind that God will ſuffer them to do.

So that theſe Texts ſeem at firſt view to be very plain and preſſing of themſelves, but they appear to be much more convincing when we conſider the groundleſs interpretations whereby they endeavour to evade the dint and force of them. For can any man that ſeriouſly attends to the perpetual ſtyle and Phraſe of the New Teſtament, and to the plain ſcope and drift of the Apoſtle's reaſoning in theſe Texts, be induc'd to believe that when St. Paul tells us that all things were created by him, that are in Heaven and that are in Earth, viſible and inviſible; whether they be Thrones, or Dominions, or Principalities, or Powers: I ſay, can any man of good ſenſe p. 86perſuade himſelf that by all this the Apoſtle means no more than the moral Renovation of the World here below, and the Reformation of Mankind by Jeſus Chriſt, and his Goſpel which was preach'd unto them?

But there is yet one Text more to this purpoſe, which I have reſerv'd to the laſt place; becauſe I find Schlictingius and Crellius, in their joint Comment upon it, to be put to their laſt ſhifts to avoid the force of it. It is in the Epiſtle to the Hebrews, at the beginning of it: Where the Apoſtle thus deſcribes the Son of God; Heb. 1. 2.Heb 1:2God, ſays he, hath in theſe laſt days ſpoken to us by his Son, whom he hath conſtituted heir of all things, by whom alſo he made the Worlds: From whence he argues the excellency of the Goſpel above the Law: For the Law was given by Angels, but the Goſpel by the Son of God; whoſe preheminence above the Angels he ſhews p. 87at large in the two firſt Chapters of this Epiſtle.

And to this end he proves the two parts of the Deſcription which had been given of him, namely, that God had conſtituted him heir of all things, v. 2.and that by Him he made the Worlds.

Firſt, That God had conſtituted him heir of all things, which is nowhere ſaid of the Angels: But of him it is ſaid that was made ſo much better than the Angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent Name than they: v. 7.The Angels are only called God's Miniſters, for which the Apoſtle cites the words of the Pſalmiſt; Pſ. 104. 4.Ps 104:4but to Chriſt he gives the Title of his Son, and his firſt begotten, by virtue whereof he is heir of all things: v. 6.For to which of the Angels ſaid he at any time, thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And this I will agree with them to be ſpoken of Chriſt with reſpect to his p. 88Reſurrection, by which, as St. Paul tells us,Rom. 1. 4.Rom 1:4 he was powerfully declared to be the Son of God. This is the firſt Prerogative of Chriſt above the Angels: But there is a far greater yet behind; for he proves,

Secondly, That he had not only the Title of God given him; but that he was truly and really God, becauſe he made the World. v. 8.That the Title of God was given him he proves by a citation out of the Pſalmiſt, Pſ. 45. 6, 7.Ps 45:6Ps 45:7But unto the Son he ſaith, Thy Throne, O God, is for ever and ever, &c. And that he was truly and really God becauſe he made the World, he proves by a citation out of another Pſalm, where it is ſaid of him,v. 10, 11, 12. Thou, Lord, in the beginning haſt laid the foundations of the Earth, and the Heavens are the works of they hands: They ſhall periſh, &c.

Let us now ſee how Schlictingius and Crellius interpret this Text cited out of the Pſalmiſt by the Apoſtle as ſpoken of Chriſt. They p. 89ſay,**Ne referre quidem haec priora verba, de coeli terraeque creatione loquentia, ad Chriſtum potuiſſet Autor, niſi pro conceſſo ſumſiſſet Chriſtum eſſe ſummum illum Deum, coeli & terrae Creatorem; praeſertim ſi ea, ut neceſſe ſoret, primò & directè ad Chriſtum dicta eſſe cenſeas. Nam cum omnia Pſalmi verba manifeſtè de Deo loquuntur, Chriſtum autem Deum illum eſſe ne unico quidem verbo in toto hoc Pſalmo indicetur; neceſſe eſt ut ſi verba illa ad Chriſtum directa eſſe velis, pro conceſſo ſumas, Chriſtum eſſe Deum illum ſummum de quo in Pſalmo ſe…mo eſt. that the Author of this Epiſtle could not have referr'd to Chriſt the former words of this Citation, which ſpeak of the Creation of Heaven and Earth, unleſs he had taken it for granted that Chriſt is the moſt high God; eſpecially if they be underſtood, as they muſt neceſſarily be by thoſe who take this for granted, to be ſpoken in the firſt place and directly to, or concerning, Chriſt. For ſince all the words of the Pſalm are manifeſtly ſpoken of the moſt High God, but that Chriſt is that God is not ſignified no not ſo much as by one word in that Pſalm, it is neceſſary that if you will have theſe words to be directed to Chriſt, you muſt take it for granted that Chriſt is that moſt High God of whom the Pſalmiſt there ſpeaks.

p. 90Now we will join iſſue with theſe Interpreters upon this Conceſſion, viz. that the Author of this Epiſtle could not have referr'd theſe words, which ſpeak of the Creation of Heaven and Earth, to Chriſt, without taking it for granted that Chriſt is truly that God who made the World. And if the Author of this Epiſtle does affirm theſe words of the Pſalmiſt to be ſpoken of Chriſt, then they muſt acknowledge Chriſt to be the true God who made Heaven and Earth: But the Author of this Epiſtle does as evidently affirm theſe words to be ſpoken to or of Chriſt, as he does the words of any other Text cited in this Chapter: And for this I appeal to the common ſenſe of every man that reads them.

Theſe Interpreters indeed are contented that the latter part of this Citation ſhould be ſpoken of Chriſt, but not the former: But why not the former as well as the latter? when they have ſo expreſly told us that all the words of this Pſalm are manifeſtly ſpoken p. 91of God. What is the myſtery of this? Could they not as eaſily have interpreted the former part which ſpeaks of the Creation of Heaven and Earth, concerning the moral World, and the new Creation or Reformation of Mankind by Jeſus Chriſt and his Goſpel, as well as ſo many other plain Texts to the ſame purpoſe? No doubt they could as well have done it, and have ſet as good a face upon it when they had done it. But why then did they not do it? It was for a reaſon which they had no mind to tell, but yet is not hard to be gueſſed at, namely, that if they had admitted the former words to have been ſpoken of Chriſt they knew not what to do with the latter part of this Citation, v. 11, 12.They ſhall periſh, but thou remaineſt; they ſhall wax old as agarment, and as a veſture ſhalt thou fold them up, and they ſhall be changed. What ſhall periſh, and wax old, and be changed? Why, the Earth and the Heavens which the Son had made, that is, the moral World, the Reformation p. 92of Mankind, and the new Creation of things by the Goſpel: All theſe muſt have undergone the ſame fate with the natural World, and muſt not only have been defaced, but utterly deſtroy'd and brought to nothing. This they would not ſay, but they did ſee it, tho they would not ſeem to ſee it: And we may plainly ſee by this, that they can interpret a Text right when neceſſity forceth them to it, and they cannot without great inconvenience to their Cauſe avoid it: But when men have once reſolv'd to hold faſt an Opinion they have taken up, it then becomes not only convenient but neceſſary to underſtand nothing that makes againſt it: And this is truly the preſent caſe. But in the mean time where is ingenuity and love of Truth?

And thus I have, with all the clearneſs and brevity I could, ſearch'd to the very foundations of this new Interpretation of this p. 93Paſſage of the Evangeliſt, upon which the Divinity of the Son of God is ſo firmly eſtabliſhed; and likewiſe of the groſs miſinterpretations of ſeveral other Texts to the ſame purpoſe in this Evangeliſt, and in other Books of the New Teſtament: All which Interpretations I have endeavoured to ſhew to be not only contrary to the ſenſe of all Antiquity, of which as Socinus had but little knowledge, ſo he ſeems to have made but little account; but to be alſo evidently contrary to the perpetual tenour and ſtyle of the H. Scripture.

Before I go off from this Argument, I cannot but take notice of one thing wherein our Adverſaries in this Cauſe do perpetually glory as a mighty advantage which they think they have over us in this Point of the Divinity of the Son of God, and conſequently in that other Point of the B. Trinity: namely, that they have Reaſon clearly on their Side in this Controverſy, and that the Difficulties and Abſurdities p. 94are much greater and plainer on our part than on theirs.

Here they are pleas'd to triumph without modeſty, and without meaſure: And yet notwithſtanding this, I am not afraid here likewiſe to join iſſue with them, and am contented to have this matter brought to a fair Trial at the Bar of Reaſon, as well as of Scripture expounded by the general Tradition of the Chriſtian Church: I ſay by general Tradition, which next to Scripture is the beſt and ſureſt confirmation of this great Point now in queſtion between us, and that which gives us the greateſt and trueſt light for the right underſtanding of the true ſenſe and meaning of Scripture not only in this, but in moſt other important Doctrines of the Chriſtian Religion.

I am not without ſome good hopes, I will not ſay confidence, for I never thought that to be ſo great an advantage to any Cauſe as ſome men would be glad to make others believe p. 95it is, hoping to help and ſupport a weak Argument by a ſtrong and mighty confidence: But ſurely modeſty never hurt any Cauſe, and the confidence of man ſeems to me to be much like the wrath of man, which St.ch. 1. v. 20. James tells us worketh not the righteouſneſs of God, that is, it never does any good, it never ſerves any wiſe and real purpoſe of Religion:

I ſay, I am not without ſome good hopes, that I have in the foregoing Diſcourſes clearly ſhewn that the tenour of Scripture and general Tradition are on our Side in this Argument, and therefore I ſhall not need to give my ſelf the trouble to examine this matter over again.

Now as to the Point of Reaſon, the great Difficulty and Abſurdity, which they object to our Doctrine concerning this Myſtery, amounts to thus much, that it is not only above Reaſon, but plainly contrary to it.

As to its being above Reaſon, which they are loth to admit any p. 96thing to be; this I think will bear no great Diſpute: Becauſe if they would be pleaſed to ſpeak out, they can mean no more by this, but that our Reaſon is not able fully to comprehend it: But what then? Are there no Myſteries in Religion? That I am ſure they will not ſay, becauſe God whoſe infinite Nature and Perfections are the very Foundation of all Religion is certainly the greateſt Myſtery of all other, and the moſt incomprehenſible: But we muſt not, nay they will not for this reaſon deny, that there is ſuch a Being as God. And therefore if there be Myſteries in Religion, it is no reaſonable Objection againſt them that we cannot fully comprehend them: Becauſe all Myſteries in what kind ſoever, whether in Religion or in Nature, ſo long, and ſo far as they are Myſteries, are for that very reaſon incomprehenſible.

But they urge the matter much further, that this particular Myſtery p. 97now under debate is plainly contrary to Reaſon: And if they can make this good, I will confeſs that they have gained a great Point upon us. But then they are to be put in mind, that to make this good againſt us they muſt clearly ſhew ſome plain Contradiction in this Doctrine, which I could never yet ſee done by any. Great Difficulty I acknowledge there is in the explication of it, in which the further we go, beyond what God hath thought fit to reveal to us in Scripture concerning it, the more we are entangled, and that which men are pleaſed to call an explaining of it, does in my apprehenſion often make it more obſcure, that is, leſs plain than it was before; which does not ſo very well agree with a pretence of Explication.

Here then I fix my foot: That there are three Differences in the Deity, which the Scripture ſpeaks of by the Names of Father, Son, and H. Ghoſt, and every where ſpeaks of them as p. 98we uſe to do of three diſtinct Perſons: And therefore I ſee no reaſon why in this Argument we ſhould nicely abſtain from uſing the word Perſon; though I remember that St. Jerome does ſomewhere deſire to be excuſed from it.

Now concerning theſe Three I might in the firſt place urge that plain and expreſs Text, 1 John 5. 7.1 John 5:7There are three that bear record in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the H. Ghoſt; and theſe three are one: But upon this I will not now inſiſt, becauſe it is pretended that in ſome Copies of greateſt antiquity this Verſe is omitted; the contrary whereof is I think capable of being made out very clearly: But this matter would be too long to be debated at preſent.

However that be, thus much is certain and cannot be deni'd, that our Saviour commanded his Apoſtles to baptize all Nations in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoſt: And that the Apoſtles in their Epiſtles do in p. 99their moſt uſual form of Benediction join theſe Three together: And it is yet further certain, that not only the Name and Title of God, but the moſt incommunicable Properties and Perfections of the Deity, are in Scripture frequently aſcribed to the Son and the H. Ghoſt; one Property only excepted, which is peculiar to the Father as he is the Principle and Fountain of the Deity, that he is of himſelf and of no other; which is not, nor can be ſaid of the Son and H. Ghoſt.

Now let any man ſhew any plain and downright Contradiction in all this; or any other Difficulty beſides this, that the particular manner of the exiſtence of theſe three Differences or Perſons in the Divine Nature, expreſs'd in Scripture by the Names of Father, Son, aud H. Ghoſt, is incomprehenſible by our finite Underſtandings, and inexplicable by us: In which I do not ſee what Abſurdity there is, ſince our Adverſaries cannot deny that p. 100many things certainly are, the particular manner of whoſe exiſtence we can neither comprehend, nor explain.

Let us now ſee, whether the Opinion of our Adverſaries hath not greater Difficulties in it, and more palpable Abſurdities following from it. They ſay, that the Son of God is a mere 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.

And can they diſcern no Difficulty, no Abſurdity in this? What? no abſurdity in bringing Idolatry by a backdoor into the Chriſtian Religion, one main Deſign whereof was to baniſh Idolatry out of the World? And will they in good earneſt conteſt this matter with us, that the giving Divine Worſhip to a mere Creature is not Idolatry? And can they vindicate p. 101themſelves 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?

What? no Abſurdity in a God as it were but of yeſterday? in a Creature God, in a God merely by poſitive Inſtitution; and this in oppoſition to a plain moral Precept of eternal obligation, and to the fix'd and immutable Nature and Reaſon of things?

So that to avoid the ſhadow and appearance of a Plurality of Deities they run really into it, and for any thing I can ſee into downright Idolatry,Rom. 1. 25.Rom 1:25 by worſhipping a Creature beſides the Creator, who is bleſſed for ever.

They can by no means allow two Gods by Nature; no more can we: But they can willingly admit of two Gods; the one by Nature, and the other by Office, to whom they are content to pay the ſame Honour which is due to Him who is God by Nature. Provided Chriſt will be contented to be but a Creature, they will p. 102deal more liberally with him in another way than in reaſon is fit▪

And do they ſee no abſurdity in all this? nothing that is contrary to Reaſon and good ſenſe? nothing that feels like inconſiſtency and Contradiction? Do they conſider how often God hath declar'd that he will not give his glory to another? And that the Apoſtle deſcribes Idolatry to be, the giving ſervice, Gal. 4 8.Gal 4:8or worſhip, to things which by Nature are no Gods?

Surely if Reaſon guided by Divine Revelation were to chuſe a God, it would make choice of one who is declared in Scripture to be the only begotten of the Father, the firſt and the laſt, the beginning and the end, the ſame yeſterday, to day, and for ever: much rather than a mere Creature, who did not begin to be till about ſeventeen hundred years ago.

I only propoſe theſe things, without any artificial aggravation, to their moſt ſerious and impartial conſideration; after which I cannot p. 103think that theſe great Maſters of Reaſon can think it ſo eaſy a matter to extricate themſelves out of theſe Difficulties. The God of Truth lead us into all Truth, and enlighten the minds of thoſe who are in Error, and give them Repentance to the acknowledgment of the Truth: For his ſake who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

And thus much may ſuffice to have ſaid upon this Argument, which I am ſenſible is mere Controverſy: A thing which I ſeldom meddle with, and do not delight to dwell upon. But my Text which is ſo very proper for this Seaſon hath almoſt neceſſarily engaged me in it: Beſides, that I think it a Point of that concernment, that all Chriſtians ought to be well inſtructed in it. And I have choſen rather once for all to handle it fully and to go to the bottom of it, than in every Sermon to be flurting at it, without ſaying any thing to the purpoſe againſt it: A way which in my opinion is neither proper to eſtabliſh p. 104men in the truth nor to convince them of their Error.

I ſhall only at preſent make this ſhort reflection upon the whole: That we ought to treat the Holy Scriptures as the Oracles of God, with all reverence and ſubmiſſion of mind to the Doctrine therein revealed: And to interpret them with that candour and ſimplicity which is due to the ſincere Declarations of God intended for the inſtruction and not for the deception and deluſion of men: I ſay, we ſhould treat them as the Oracles of God, and not like the doubtful Oracles of the Heathen Deities, that is, in truth of the Devil; which were contrived and calculated on purpoſe to deceive, containing and for the moſt part intending a ſenſe directly contrary to the appearing and moſt obvious meaning of the Words: For the Devil was the firſt Author of Equivocation; though the Jeſuits have ſince made it a lawful way of lying, which their Father of p. 105whom they learn'd it had not credit and authority enough to do.

And it deſerves likewiſe to be very well conſidered by us, that nothing hath given a greater force to the Exceptions of the Church of Rome againſt the H. Scripture's being a ſufficient and certain Rule of Faith, than the uncertainty into which they have brought the plaineſt Texts imaginable for the eſtabliſhing of Doctrines of greateſt moment in the Chriſtian Religion, by their remote and wreſted interpretation of them: Which way of dealing with them ſeems to be really more contumelious to thoſe H. Oracles, than the downright rejecting of their Authority: Becauſe this is a fair and open way of attacquing them, whereas the other is an inſiduous, and therefore more dangerous way of undermining them.

But as for us who do in good earneſt believe the Divine Authority of the H. Scriptures, let us take all p. 107our Doctrines and Opinions from thoſe clear Fountains of Truth, not diſturb'd and darkned by ſearching anxiouſly into all the poſſible Senſes that the ſeveral words and expreſſions of Scripture can bear, and by forcing that ſenſe upon them which is moſt remote and unnatural, and in the mean time wilfully overlooking and paſſing by that ſenſe which is moſt obvious and eaſie to the common apprehenſion of any unbyaſs'd and impartial Reader. This is to uſe the H. Scriptures as the Church of Rome have done many Holy and good men whom they are pleaſed to brand with the odious Name of Hereticks, to torture them till they ſpeak the mind of their Tormentors though never ſo contrary to their own.

I will now conclude this whole Diſcourſe with a Saying which I heard from a great and judicious Man, Non amo nimis argutam Theologiam, I love no Doctrines in Divinity which ſtand p. 106ſo very much upon quirk and ſubtilty. And I cannot upon this occaſion forbear to ſay, that thoſe Doctrines of Religion and thoſe Interpretations of Scripture have ever been to me the moſt ſuſpected, which need abundance of Wit and a great many Criticiſms to make them out: And conſidering the Wiſdom and Goodneſs of Almighty God, I cannot poſſibly believe but that all things neceſſary to be believ'd and practis'd by Chriſtians in order to their eternal Salvation are plainly contain'd in the H. Scriptures: God ſurely hath not dealt ſo hardly with Mankind as to make any thing neceſſary to be believ'd or practis'd by us which he hath not made ſufficiently plain to the capacity of the unlearned as well as of the learned. God forbid that it ſhould be impoſſible for any man to be ſaved and to get to Heaven without a great deal of learning to direct and carry him p. 108thither, when the far greateſt part of Mankind have no learning at all. It was well ſaid by Eraſmus, That it was never well with the Chriſtian World ſince it began to be a matter of ſo much Subtilty and Wit for a man to be a true Chriſtian.