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 to 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 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 any 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 whatsever 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 of 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 to 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 what 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 that 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
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 we 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 There 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 their 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 many 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 back-door 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 themselves in this Point any other way than what will in a great measure acquit both the Pagans and the Papists from the charge of Idolatry 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 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 deal 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 or 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 think 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 men 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
any other Living Creatures that were wont to be offered up in Sacrifice yet that both Jews and Heathen did expect and hope for it is so very evident that it cannot without extreme Ignorance or Obstinacy be deny'd But this expectation how unreasonable soever plainly shews it to have been the common Apprehension of Mankind in all Ages that God would not be appeased nor should Sin be pardoned without Suffering But yet so that men generally conceived good hopes that upon the Repentance of Sinners God would accept of a vicarious punishment that is of the Suffering of some other in their stead And very probably as I said before in compliance with this Apprehension of Mankind and in condescension to it as well as for other weighty Reasons best known to the Divine Wisdom God was pleased to find out such a Sacrifice as should really and effectually procure for them that great Blessing of the Forgiveness of Sins which they had so long hoped for from the multitude of their own Sacrifices And the Apostle to the Hebrews doth in a large Discourse shew the great vertue and efficacy of the Sacrifice of Christ to the purpose of Remission of Sins above that of the Sacrifices under the Law And that the Death of Christ is really and effectually to our advantage all that which the Sacrifices under the Law were supposed to be to the Sinner But now once saith the Apostle here in the Text in the end of the World hath he appeared to take away Sin by the Sacrifice of himself This is the great vertue and efficacy of the Sacrifice of Christ that what ever was expected from any other Sacrifices either by Jews or Heathens was really effected by this This was plainly signified by the Jewish Passover wherein the Lamb was slain and the Sinner did escape and was pass'dby In allusion whereto St. Paul makes no scruple to call Christ our Passover or Paschal Lamb who was slain that we might escape Christ our Passover says he is slain or offer'd for us that is He by the gracious appointment of God was substituted to suffer all that in our stead which the Paschal Lamb was supposed to suffer for the Sinner And this was likewise signified by the Sinners laying his hand upon the Sacrifice that was to be slain thereby as it were transferring the punishment which was due to himself upon the Sacrifice that was to be slain and offered up For so God tells Moses that the Sinner who came to offer an Expiatory Sacrifice should do He shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt-offering and it shall be accepted for him to make an Atonement for him And the Apostle tells us that it was an established Principle in the Jewish Religion that without shedding of blood there was no Remission of Sins Which plainly shews that they expected this Benefit of the Remission of Sins from the Blood of their Sacrifices And then he tells us that we are really made partakers of this Benefit by the Blood of Christ and by the vertue of his Sacrifice And again Christ says he was once offered to bear the Sins of many plainly alluding to the Sacrifices under the Law which did as it were bear the faults of the Sinner And that this expression of Christ's being offered to bear our Sins cannot be meant of his taking away our Sins by his holy Doctrine which was confirmed by his Death but of his bearing our Sins by way of imputation and by his suffering for them in our stead as the Sacrifice was supposed to do for the Sinner This I say is evident beyond all denial from the opposition which follows after the Text between his first Appearance and his second Christ says our Apostle was once offered to bear our Sins but unto them that look for him he shall appear a second time without Sin unto Salvation Why Did he not appear the first time without Sin Yes certainly as to any inherent guilt for the Scripture tells us he had no Sin What then is the meaning of the opposition That at his first Coming he bore our Sins but at his second Coming he shall appear without Sin unto Salvation These words can have no other imaginable sense but this that at his first Coming he sustain'd the Person of a Sinner and suffered instead of us but his second Coming shall be upon another account and he shall appear without Sin unto Salvation that is not as a Sacrifice but as a Judge to confer the Reward of Eternal Life upon those who are partakers of the benefit of that Sacrifice which he offered to God for us in the days of his Flesh I proceed to the III d. Thing I proposed and which yet remains to be spoken to namely to vindicate this Method and Dispensation of the Divine Wisdom from the Objections which are brought against it and to shew that there is nothing in it that is unreasonable or any wise unworthy of God I shall mention four Objections which are commonly urged in this matter and I think they are all that are considerable First That this Method of the Expiation of Sin by the Sufferings of Christ seems to argue some defect and want of Goodnes in God as if he needed some external Motive and were not of himself disposed to forgive Sinners To which I think the Answer is not difficult namely that God did not want Goodness to have forgiven Sin freely and without any Satisfaction but his Wisdom did not think it meet to give encouragement to Sin by too easy a forgiveness and without some remarkable testimony of his severe displeasure against it And therefore his greater Goodness and Compassion to Mankind devised this way to save the Sinner without giving the least countenance and encouragement to Sin For God to think of saving us any way was excessive Goodness and Mercy but to think of doing it in this way by substituting his dearly beloved Son to suffer in our stead is a Condescension so very amazing that if God had not been pleased of his own Goodness to stoop to it it had almost been Blasphemy in Man to have thought of it or desired it Secondly How can our Sins be said to have been forgiven freely if the Pardon of them was purchased at so dear a rate and so mighty a Price was paid for it In Answer to this I desire these two things may be considered 1st That it is a wonderful grace and favour of God to admit of this translation of the Punishment which was due to us and to accept of the Sufferings of another in our stead and for our benefit when he might justly have exacted it of us in our own Persons So that even in this respect we are as St. Paul says justified freely by his grace through the Redemption that is in Jesus Christ And freely too in respect of any necessity that lay upon God to forgive us in this or any other way It
now to grapple withal And this I hope I have in some measure done in one of the former Discourses Nor indeed do I see that it is any ways necessary to do more it being sufficient that God hath declared what he thought fit in this matter and that we do firmly believe what he says concerning it to be true though we do not perfectly comprehend the meaning of all that he hath said about it For in this and the like Cases I take an Implicite Faith to be very commendable that is to believe whatever we are sufficiently assured God hath revealed though we do not fully understand his meaning in such a Revelation And thus every man who believes the H. Scriptures to be a truly Divine Revelation does implicitely believe a great part of the Prophetical Books of Scripture and several obscure expressions in those Books though he do not particularly understand the meaning of all the Predictions and expressions contained in them In like manner there are certainly a great many very good Christians who do not believe and comprehend the Mysteries of Faith nicely enough to approve themselves to a Scholastical and Magisterial Judge of Controversies who yet if they do heartily embrace the Doctrines which are clearly revealed in Scripture and live up to the plain Precepts of the Christian Religion will I doubt not be very well approved by the Great and Just and by the infallibly Infallible Judge of the World III. Let it be further considered That though neither the word Trinity nor perhaps Person in the sense in which it is used by Divines when they treat of this Mystery be any where to be met with in Scripture yet it cannot be denied but that Three are there spoken of by the Names of Father Son and H. Ghost in whose Name every Christian is baptized and to each of whom the highest Titles and Properties of God are in Scripture attributed And these Three are spoken of with as much distinction from one another as we use to speak of three several Persons So that though the word Trinity be not found in Scripture yet these Three are there expresly and frequently mentioned and a Trinity is nothing but three of any thing And so likewise though the word Person be not there expresly applied to Father Son and H. Ghost yet it will be very hard to find a more convenient word whereby to express the distinction of these Three For which reason I could never yet see any just cause to quarrel at this term For since the H. Spirit of God in Scripture hath thought fit in speaking of these Three to distinguish them from one another as we use in common speech to distinguish three several Persons I cannot see any reason why in the explication of this Mystery which purely depends upon Divine Revelation we should not speak of it in the same manner as the Scripture doth And though the word Person is now become a â—erm of Art I see no cause why we should decline it so long as we mean by it neither more nor less than what the Scripture says in other Words IV. It deserves further to be considered That there hath been a very ancient Tradition concerning three real Differences or Distinctions in the Divine Nature and these as I said before very nearly resembling the Christian Doctrine of the Trinity Whence this Tradition had its original is not easie upon good and certain grounds to say but certain it is that the Jews anciently had this Notion And that they did distinguish the Word of God and the H. Spirit of God from Him who was absolutely called God and whom they looked upon as the First Principle of all things as is plain from Philo Judaeus and Moses Nachmanides and others cited by the Learned Grotius in his incomparable Book of the Truth of the Christian Religion And among the Heathen Plato who probably enough might have this Notion from the Jews did make three Distinctions in the Deity by the Names of essential Goodness and Mind and Spirit So that whatever Objections this matter may be liable to it is not so peculiar a Doctrine of the Christian Religion as many have imagined though it is revealed by it with much more clearness and certainty And consequently neither the Jews nor Plato have any reason to object is to us Christians especially since they pretend no other ground for it but either their own Reason or an ancient Tradition from their Fathers whereas we Christians do appeal to express Divine Revelation for what we believe in this matter and do believe it singly upon that account V. It is besides very considerable That the Scriptures do deliver this Doctrine of the Trinity without any manner of doubt or question concerning the Unity of the Divine Nature And not only so but do most stedfastly and constantly assert that there is but One God And in those very Texts in which these three Differences are mentioned the Unity of the Divine Nature is expresly asserted as where St. John makes mention of the Father the Word and the Spirit the Unity of these Three is likewise affirmed There are Three that bear record in Heaven the Father the Word and the Spirit and these Three are One. VI. It is yet further considerable That from this Mystery as delivered in Scripture a Plurality of Gods cannot be inferred without making the Scripture grosly to contradict it self which I charitably suppose the Socinians would be as loth to admit as we our selves are And if either Councils or Fathers or Schoolmen have so explained this Mystery as to give any just ground or so much as a plausible colour for such an Inference let the blame fall where it is due and let it not be charged on the H. Scriptures but rather as the Apostle says in another Case Let God be true and every Man a liar VIIthly and Lastly I desire it may be considered That it is not repugnant to Reason to believe some things which are incomprehensible by our Reason provided that we have sufficient ground and reason for the belief of them Especially if they be concerning God who is in his Nature Incomprehensible and we be well assured that he hath revealed them And therefore it ought not to offend us that these Differences in the Deity are incomprehensible by our finite understandings because the Divine Nature it self is so and yet the belief of that is the Foundation of all Religion There are a great many things in Nature which we cannot comprehend how they either are or can be As the Continuity of Matter that is how the parts of it do hang so fast together that they are many times very hard to be parted and yet we are sure that it is so because we see it every day So likewise how the small Seeds of things contain the whole Form and Nature of the things from which they proceed and into which by degrees they grow and yet we
and Glory Dominion and Power now and for ever Amen FINIS BOOKS Printed for B. Aylmer and W. Rogers ARchbishop Tillotson's Sermons and Discourses in Four Volumes Octavo Six Sermons concerning the Divinity of our B. Saviour 8vo Six Sermons I. Of Stedfastness in Religion II. Of Family-Religion III. IV. V. Of the Education of Children VI. Of the Advantages of an Early Piety In 8vo Price 3 s. In 12s 1 s. 6d Persuasive to frequent Communion in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper 8vo stitcht 3d. In 12s bound 6 d. Rule of Faith Or an Answer to Mr. Sergeant's Book Discourse against Transubstantiation Octavo alone Price 3 d. Stitcht Books Printed for B. Aylmer THE Works of the Learned Dr. Isaac Barrow late Master of Trinity-College in Cambridge Published by his Grace John late Lord Archbishop of Canterbury in Four Volumes in Folio A Demonstration of the Messias in which the Truth of the Christian Religion is proved especially against the Jews By Richard Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells Also his Lordships Charge to the Clergy of his Diocess A Sermon preached before the Lord-Mayor on Easter-Tuesday on April the 21 st being a Spittle-Sermon As also Three single Sermons on several occasions Writ by Richard Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells A Discourse of the great Disingenuity and Unreasonableness of Repining at Afflicting Providences and of the Influence which they ought to have upon us On Job 2. 10. Published upon occasion of the Death of our Gracious Sovereign Queen MARY of most Blessed Memory with a Preface containing some Observations touching Her Excellent Endowments and Exemplary Life Certain Propositions by which the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity is so explained according to the Ancient Fathers as to speak it not Contradictory to Natural Reason Together with a Defence of them in Answer to the Objections of a Socinian Writer in his newly printed Considerations on the Explications of the Doctrine of the Trinity Occasioned by these Propositions among other Discourses A Second Defence of the Propositions in Answer to a Socinian Manuscript In a Letter to a Friend Together with a Third Defence of those Propositions in Answer to some newly published Reflections c. By Edward Lord Bishop of Gloucester A Sermon preached before the Lord-Mayor on Easter-Wednesday As also Three single Sermons on several occasions Writ by Edward Lord Bishop of Gloucester The Holy Bible containing the Old Testament and the New with Annotations and Parallel Scriptures to which is Annexed the Harmony of the Gospels As also the Reduction of the Jewish Weights Coins and Measures to our English Standard and a Table of the Promises in Scripture by Samuel Clark printed in Folio of a very Fair Letter the like never before in one Volume A Vindication of the Divine Perfections Illustrating the Glory of God in them by Reason and Revelation Methodically digested into several Meditations By the Right Honourable the Lord President Stares in 8vo Books Printed for W. Rogers BIshop of Worcester's Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome truly Represented c. 4to Doctrine of the Trinity and Transubstantiation compar'ds in Two Parts 4to Bishop of Norwich's Two Sermons of the Wisdom and Goodness of Providence before the Queen at Whitehall 4to Sermon preach'd at St. Andrews-Holborn on Gal. 6. 7. Of Religious Melancholy A Sermon preach'd before the Queen at Whitehall 4to Of the Immortality of the Soul preach'd before the Kind and Queen at Whitehall on Palm Sunday 4to Dr. Sherlock Dean of St. Paul's Answer to a Discourse entituled Papists protesting against Protestant Popery 2d Edit 4to Answer to the Amicable Accommodation of the Differences between the Representer and the Answerer 4to Sermon at the Funeral of the Reverend Dr. Calamy 4to Vindication of some Protestant Principles of Church-Unity and Catholick Communion c. 4to Preservative against Popery in 2 Parts with the Vindication Discourse concerning the Nature Unity and Communion of the Catholick Church First Part 4to Sermon before the Lord Mayor November 4. 1688. 4to Vindication of the Doctrine of the Trinity 3d. Edit 4to Case of Allegiance to Sovereign Powers stated c. 4to Vindication of the Case of Allegiance c. 4to Fast-Sermon before the Queen at Whitehall June 17. 4to Practical Discourse concerning Death In Octavo Eighth Edition Price 3 s. In Twelves Price 2 s. Practical Discourse concerning Judgment Fourth Edit 8vo Sermon before the House of Commons Jan. 30. 1692. 4to Sermon preach'd before the Queen Feb. 12. 1692. The Charity of Lending without Usury in a Sermon before the Lord-Mayor on Easter-Tuesday 1692 4to Sermon preach'd before the Queen June 26. 1692. 4to Sermon preach'd at the Funeral of the Reverend Dr. Meggot late Dean of Winchester Decemb. 10. 1692. 4to A Discourse concerning the Divine Providence 2d Edit 4to Apology for Writing against Socinians 4to A Sermon at the Temple-Church December 30. 1694. upon the sad Occasion of the Death of our Gracious Queen 4to Dr. Claget's Sermons in Two Volumes 8vo Dr. Wake 's Sermons and Discourses on several Occasions 8vo A Defence of the Dean of St. Paul's Apology for writing against the Socinians 4to A Defence of Dr. Sherlock's Notion of a Trinity in Unity 4to A Commentary on the Five Books of Moses With a Dissertation concerning the Author or Writer of the said Books and a General Argument to each of them By Richard Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells In Two Volumes 8vo Mr. Dryden's Translation of â— A. Du Fresnoy's Art of Painting with Remarks Translated into English Together with an Original Preface containing a Parallel betwixt Painting and Poetry As also an Account of the most Eminent Painters 4to A Practical Discourse concerning Holiness Wherein is shewed the Nature the Possibility the Degrees and Necessity of Holiness together with the Means of Acquiring and Perfecting it By Edward Pelling D D. Rector of Peâ—worth in Sussex and Chaplain in Ordinary to His Majesty The Doctrine of the Fathers and Schools Consider'd Concerning the Articles of a Trinity of Divine Persons and the Unity of God In Answer to the Animadversions on the Dean of St. Paul's Vindication of the Doctrine of the Holy and Ever Blessed Trinity In Defence of those Sacred Articles against the Objections of the Socinians and the Misrepresentation of the Animadverter Part the First By J. B. A. M Presbyter of the Church of England Mr. Wilson's Discourse of Religion shewing its Truth and Reality or the Suitableness of Religion to Human Nature 8vo Discourse of the Resurrection shewing the Import and Certainty of it 8vo Reason and Religion in some useful Reflections on the most eminent Hypothesis concerning the First Principles and Nature of things with Advice suitable to the Subject and seasonable for these Times 12s Mr. Elis's Letter to a Friend c. 4to Reflecter's Defence of his Letter to a Friend c. 4to Protestant Resolv'd or a Discourse shewing the Unreasonableness of his turning Roman Catholick for Salvation 4to Religion and Loyalty inseparable a Sermon preach'd at the Assizes held at Nottingham Sept 5. 1690. 4to Necessity of serious Consideration and speedy Repentance 8vo Folly of Atheism demonstrated to the Capacity of the most Unlearned Reader 8vo A short Scripture-Catechism 12 s. A Sermon preach'd at Nottingham Octob. 4. 1694. 4to Psal 65. 2. Isa 40. 5 6. Matt. 24. 22. Gal. 2. 16. 1 Tim. 3. 16. I. 1 John 1. 1. Prov. 8. 22 23 c. John 17. 5. 1 John 1 2. Gen. 1. Psal 33. 6. 2 Pet. 3. 5. Colos 1. 15 16 17. Rev. 3. 14. Col. 1. 18. Acts 10. 36. Rom. 4. 14. Dr. Stillingfleet now Bishop of Worcester John 3. 13. Acts 20. 28. John 6. 62. John 8. 58. John 13. 3. Joh. 16. 27 v. 28. v. 29 30. v. 31. John 17. 5. v. 8. 1 Joh. 1. 1 2. Phil. 2. 5 6 7 8. 1 Tim. 3. 16. Heb. 13. 8. Rev. 1. 8. v. 17. Rev. 22. 13. v. 16. Heb. 1. 2. Coloss 1. 15 16. Heb. 1. 2. v. 2. v. 7. Ps 104. 4. v. 6. Rom. 1. 4. v. 8. Ps 45. 6 7. v. 10 11 12. * 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 seâ—mo est v. 11 12. ch 1. v. 20. 1 John 5. 7. Rom. 1. 25. Gal. 4 8. Hebr. 2. 16. Matth. 14. 31. 1 Cor. 1. 24. Heb. 5. 5. Job 33. 12 13. 1 Cor. 1. 21. Chap. I. v. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20. III. 1 Tim. 3. 16. Heb. 1. 2. 1 Tim. 2. 5. Heb. 7. 25. Heb. 2. 16 17 18. Heb. 4. 14 15 16. Heb. 2. 14 15. Joh. 5. 22 27. Heb. 12. 14. 1 Joh. 3. 3. 1 Joh. 3. 7. 1 Joh. 1. 20. ver 21. Joh. 3. 16. Heb. 4. 15 Joh. 8. 29. 1 Pet. 2. 22. Heb. 7. 26. 27. Heb. 9. 14. 1 Pet. 1. 18 19. 2 Cor. 5. 21. Eph. 5. 10 1 Pet. 1. 18. Joh. 15. 12. V. 13. Rom. 6. 6 7 8. 1 Cor. 5. 7. Lev. 1. 4. Heb. 9. 28. v. 28. Obj. 1st Obj. 2d Obj. 3d. Obj. 4th 1 Cor. 8. 4. Deut. 4. 35. Isai 44. 6. v. 8. Adversus Marcionem I. 1. c. 10. 1 Cor. 8. 6. Serm. II. L. 5. Joh 15 1. Eph. 1. 23. Deut. 6 4. Mark 12. 2â— 30 3â— Isa 46. 5. 1 Kings 8. 39. Rom. 10. 14. Eph. 4. 6. Mal. 2. 10.