expresly told the Jews that he was withal to be God blessed for ever The force and evidence of the Proofs of those Doctrines is so great and the Proofs themselves so numerous that Hereticks could not avoid them but by setting up Opinions directly opposite to the Scriptures On the other side the Hereticks were so gravelled that they broke into Opinions quite contrary one to another which greatly contributed to confirm the Faith of them whom they opposed in those Articles so that it still subsisted whereas the opposite Heresies perish'd in a manner as soon as broacht The meanness of Christ and his shameful Death moved the Ebionites in the very first Age after him to look upon him as a meer Man though exalted by God's Grace to the Dignity of a Prophet But the Cerinthians another sort of Hereticks maintained that the Word did operate in him though at the same time they denied the personal and inseparable Vnion of that Word with this human Nature In the beginning of the Third Century some had much ado to receive the Doctrine of the Trinity by reason that they could not reconcile it with that of the Vnity of God But Praxeas Noetus and Sabellius who opposed that Doctrine were soon obliged to recant And then from one Extremity they shortly fell into another For being satisfied that the Scripture does attribute to the Father to the Son and to the Holy Ghost the divine Nature which is constantly in the Old Testament expressed by the Name Jehovah they undertook contrary to the plain Notions of Scripture to maintain that there was but One Person in God which had appeared the same under three differing Names Whereas some others did so plainly see the distinction which the Scripture makes between the Persons that they chose rather to own Three distinct Essences than to deny that there are Three Persons in God as the Scripture does invincibly prove Two sorts of Hereticks did formerly oppose the Divinity of Christ Some did acknowledge that as to his divine Nature he was before the World and that by it he had made the World though Himself as to that nature was created before the World and these afterwards formed the Arian Sect. Others but very few such as Artemas and Theodotus denied that Christ was before he was born of the Virgin They acknowledged in him no other besides the human Nature which said they God had raised to a very high Dignity by giving to it a Power almost infinite And in this they made his Godhead to consist But these two sorts of Hereticks were happily destroyed one by the other for the Arians on the one side did confound Artemas his Disciples by proving from places of Scripture that Christ was before the Virgin nay before the World And on the other side Absurdity and Idolatry were proved upon the Arians both because they acknowledged more than one divine Nature and because they worshipped a Creature whereas by the Christian Religion God alone ought to be worshipped Artemas his Disciples were so few and so severely condemned even whilst the Church laboured under Persecutions that their Name is hardly remembred at this day which clearly shews how strange their Doctrine appeared to them who examined it by the Books of the Old and the New Testament As for the Arians they made it is true more noise in the World by the help of two or three of Constantine's Successors who by violent Methods endeavoured to spread their Opinion But that very thing made their Sect odious and in a little time quite ruined the credit of it Within a hundred and fifty years or thereabouts after their first Rise there hardly remained any Professors of it which plainly shews that they could not answer those Arguments from Scripture which were urged against them I observe this last thing that Arius's Heresy was destroyed by Proofs from Scripture for the Eternal Divinity of our Saviour though it was a long time countenanced by the Roman Emperours by the Vandal Kings in Africk and by the Kings of the Goths both in Spain and in Italy lest any should fancy it was extinguished only by Imperial Laws and Temporal Punishments Besides that the first Inventors of that Heresy had spread it before such time as Constantine by vanquishing Licinius became Master of the World Whoever shall consider that the Christian Religion had before Arius already suffered ten Persecutions without shrinking under them will easily see that all the Power of Constantine and of his Orthodox Successors who punished the Arian Professors had never been great enough to suppress their Opinion if it had not been a Gospel-doctrine not to say that these Laws and their Authority extended no further than the Roman Empire What had happen'd in those ancient Times soon after the Christian Church was establisht happened likewise again in the last Century at the Reformation of the Western Church As in those early days there arose many Heresies entirely opposite one to the other so in these latter times the very same was seen among us For when God raised up many Great Men to reform the Church in this and our neighbouring Kingdoms there appeared soon after some Men who being weary of the Popish Tyranny both in Doctrine and Worship did fancy that they might make a more perfect Reformation if they could remove out of the Christian Religion those things which human Reason was apt to stumble at And the Roman Church having obtruded upon her Votaries such Mysteries as were directly repugnant to Reason they imagined that the Doctrines of the Trinity and of Christ's Divinity were of that number and thus used all their Endeavours to prove that they were absurd and contradictory Had not these Doctrines been grounded on the Authority of the Books of the Old and the New Testament they might easily enough have confuted them But being forced to own the Authority of those Books which they durst not attack for fear of being detested by all Christians they fell into the same opposite Extremes into which those Hereticks of old had fallen when they opposed these fundamental Doctrines of Christianity and thus were as divided in Opinions about those matters as the ancient Hereticks had been before them For whilst some of them as Laelius Socinus and his Nephew Faustus denied the Divinity of Christ and thus revived the Opinion of Artemas and his Disciples others seeing how absurd the Answers were that Socinus and his Followers gave to those places of Scripture which assert the Trinity and the Divinity of Christ run so far to the contrary of this Socinian Heresy that they acknowledged three Gods And not only the Adversaries of Socinus but even some of his Disciples did oppose his Opinion moved thereto by the Authority of Scripture For he held it a fundamental Article of the Christian Faith that Christ is to be adored in which he was a downright Idolater in adoring Christ as true God when he believed Christ to be a meer
Exposition Page 52. Chap. V. Of the Authority of the Apocryphal Books of the Old Testament Page 66. Chap. VI. That the Works which go under the Name of Philo the Jew are truly his and that he writ them a long while before the time of Christ's Preaching the Gospel and that it does not appear in any of his Works that ever he had heard of Christ or of the Christian Religion Page 75. Chap. VII Of the Authority and Antiquity of the Chaldee Paraphrases Page 84. Chap. VIII That the Authors of the Apocryphal Books did acknowledge a Plurality and a Trinity in the Divine Nature Page 99. Chap. IX That the Jews had Good Grounds to acknowledge some kind of Plurality in the Divine Nature Page 115. Chap. X. That the Jews did acknowledge the Foundations of the Belief of the Trinity in the Divine Nature and that they had the Notion of it Page 138. Chap XI That this Notion of a Trinity in the Divine Nature has continued among the Jews since the time of our Lord Jesus Christ Page 158. Chap. XII That the Jews had a distinct Notion of the Word as a Person and of a Divine Person too Page 181. Chap. XIII That all the Appearances of God or of the Angel of the Lord which are spoken of in the Books of Moses have been referred to the Word by the Jews before Christ's Incarnation Page 201. Chap. XIV That all the Appearances of God or of the Angel of the Lord which are spoken of in Moses have been referred to the Word of God by the ancient Jewish Church Page 214. Chap. XV. That all the Appearances of God or of the Angel of the Lord which are spoken after Moses his time in the Books of the Old Testament have been referred to the Word of God by the Jews before Christ's Incarnation Page 233. Chap. XVI That the ancient Jews did often use the Notion of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Word in speaking of the Messias Page 253. Chap. XVII That the Jews did acknowledge the Messias should be the Son of God Page 265. Chap. XVIII That the Messias was represented in the Old Testament as being Jehovah that should come and that the ancient Synagogue did believe him to be so Page 278. Chap. XIX That the New Testament does exactly follow the Notions which the Old Jews had of the Trinity and of the Divinity of the Messias Page 293 Chap. XX. That both the Apostles and the first Christians speaking of the Messias did exactly follow the Notions of the Old Jews as the Jews themselves did acknowledge Page 313. Chap. XXI That we find in the Jewish Authors after the time of Jesus Christ the same Notions which Jesus Christ and his Apostles Grounded their Discourses on to the Jews Page 327. Chap. XXII An Answer to some Exceptions taken from Expressions used in the Gospel Page 339. Chap. XXIII That neither Philo nor the Chaldee Paraphrases nor the Christians have borrowed from the Platonick Philosophers their Notions about the Trinity But that Plato should have more probably borrowed his Notions from the Books of Moses and the Prophets which he was acquainted with Page 413. Chap. XXIV An Answer to some Objections of the Modern Jews and of the Unitarians Page 365. Chap. XXV An Answer to an Objection against the Notions of the Old Jews compared with those of the new Ones Page 380. Chap. XXVI That the Jews have laid aside the Old Explications of their Forefathers the better to defend themselves in their Disputes with the Christians Page 392. Chap. XXVII That the Unitarians in opposing the Doctrines of the Trinity and our Lord's Divinity do go much further than the Modern Jews and that they are not fit Persons to Convert the Jews Page 413. A Dissertation concerning the Angel who is called the Redeemer Gen. XLVIII Page 433. THE JUDGMENT OF THE Ancient JEWISH Church Against the VNITARIANS c. CHAP. I. The Design of this Book and what Matters it treats of IF the Doctrines of the Ever-Blessed Trinity and of the Promised Messias being very God had been altogether unknown to the Jews before Jesus Christ began to preach the Gospel it would be a great prejudice against the Christian Religion But the contrary being once satisfactorily made out will go a great way towards proving those Doctrines among Christians The Socinians are so sensible of this that they give their Cause for lost if this be admitted And therefore they have used their utmost Endeavours to weaken or at least to bring under suspicion the Arguments by which this may be proved It is now about sixty years ago since one of that Sect writ a Latin Tract about the meaning of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Chaldee Paraphrases in Answer to Wechner who had proved that St. John used this word in the first Chapter of his Gospel in the same sense that the Chaldee Paraphrases had used it before Christ's time and consequently that it is to be understood of a Person properly so called in the Blessed Trinity which way of interpreting that word because it directly overthrew the Socinian Doctrine which was then that St. John by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 understood no other than Christ as Man it is no wonder that this Author used all his Wit and Learning to evade it The Construction which Socinus put upon the first Chapter of the Gospel of St. John was then followed generally by his Disciples But some years since they have set it aside here as being absurd and impertinent And they now freely own what that Socinian Author strongly opposed That the Word mentioned by St. John is the eternal and essential Vertue of God by which he made the World and operated in the Person of Christ Only they deny that Word to be a Person distinct from the Father as we do affirm And whereas Socinus taught That Christ was made God and therefore is a proper Object of religious Worship now the Unitarians who believe him to be no other than a meer human Creature following the Principles of Christianity better than Socinus condemn the Religious Worship which is paid to him As they do believe that the Jews had the same Notions of the Godhead and Person of the Messias which they have themselves so they think they have done the Christian Religion an extraordinary service in thus ridding it of this double Difficulty which hinders the Conversion of the Jews Mr. N. one of their ablest Men having read Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho in which Trypho says that he did not believe that the Messias was to be other than Man makes use of this Passage of Trypho for proof that the Doctrines of the Divinity of the Messias and by consequence of the Trinity were never acknowledged by the Jews This he does in a Book the Title whereof is The Judgment of the Fathers against Dr. Bull. His design being to prove that Justin Martyr about 140 years after Christ was
worship'd in it and since the Jews understand this place of the Messias it must follow that the Messias is Jehovah It is evident that the Lord and the Messenger or the Angel of the Covenant are the same Person whose coming is promised to the Jews as a thing very near But it is no less evident that this Angel of the Covenant is the same which is spoken by Jacob Genes xlviii 15 16. as the Redeemer and is named by Isaiah ch lxiii the Angel of the face Now all the Ancient Jews agree that that Angel or Messenger is the Shekinah or Jehovah himself as we see in R. Menachem de Rekanati fol. 54. col 2. fol. 66. col 2. fol. 72. col 4. fol. 73. col And they agree all that the Shekinah and Jehovah is the same It is a Point agreed by the Talmudist and by the Cabalist as it is explained by R. Menach fol. 73. col 3. fol. 77. col 4. fol. 79. col 3. This being so who can deny that the Text of Malachi is an undeniable proof that the Messias was to be Jehovah himself according to the Ideas of the most Ancient Jews If we had not such Confessions of the Jews 't will be easy to supply the want of them by the help of the general Tradition that reigns among them and proves clearly that the Messias was to be Jehovah himself They hold that the Messias shall be greater than all the Patriarchs and even the Angels themselves Neve shalom l. 9. c. 5. How can this be unless he be truly Jehovah And whence could they take this Notion except from Psalm xcvii 7. where the Angels are commanded to worship him It is very easy to reconcile that Idea with the Notions of the old Jews touching the Messias supposing him to be the Shekinah and Jehovah and that this Shekinah or Jehovah was to be the same Person with the Messiah as they confess R. Menach fol. 73. col 3. and fol. 77. col 4. and fol. 79. col 3. They teach constantly that Angels receive their virtue from the Shekinah R. Menach fol. 8. col 1. and fol. 12. col 1. They teach that the Shekinah is the God of Jacob R. Men. fol. 38. col 3. that he appeared to him at Bethel and promised him to govern him without the Ministry of Angels R. Menach fol. 41 42. They said the Shekinah is the Jehovah who appeared to the Patriarchs R. Menach fol. 56. col 1. They maintain that the Temple was built to worship the Shekinah R. Menach fol. 63. col 1. fol. 70. col 2. fol. 73. col 4. fol. 74. col 2. They maintain on the other side that 't is not lawful to pay any religious worship to Angels although sent by God as Messengers of him or as Mediators R. Menach fol. 68. col 2. They deny that the Ancient Patriarchs have paid other worship than a civil one to an Angel when he appeared to them R. Menach Ibidem col 3. But it is impossible to reconcile those Ideas with the Opinion of the Messias being only a meer Man Indeed he that will reflect on all these Prophecies will very hardly think that then when the High-Priest demanded of Jesus whether he was the Son of God and Jesus answered that he was so the Jews did understand only that he made himself a great Prophet Both the Jews and Socinians own that in this Answer he made himself the Messias which according to both of them is more than a great Prophet and the High-Priest was so sensible of it that he called it Blasphemy In short the Angels who are God's Ministers could not serve nor obey one that was only as well as themselves a Creature He must be God to have the Angels Subjects to him He must be God to govern the World and to discern the thoughts of the heart without which he could not be a competent Judge And they that imagine a Creature could be made capable to know hearts and to exercise those other Acts which are the Characters of the Divinity do form to themselves the greatest Chimera in the World It is therefore necessary that the Ancient Jews having these Notions of the Messias should have conceived an intimate and close habitation of the Word in his Person by which all these Prophecies should receive their accomplishment and all the Promises of God concerning the Messias should be perfectly fulfilled The Unitarians conceive they have done a great service to the Christian Religion when to court the Jews favour they deny the Divinity of the Messias and condemn as Idolatry the Worship which Christians pay to Jesus Christ In this they argue more consistently than Socinus himself as I have said in my Preface to this Book But after all I can say that besides they cannot answer Socinus his Argument for the Worship of Jesus Christ they shall not get from the Jews what they pretend by their opinion Indeed the Jews would be in the right to condemn us as Idolaters if we did worship Jesus Christ as a meer Creature But they cannot do that justly if they reflect seriously upon the Grounds which we lay for the Adoration of the Messias As it is a thing which I hope shall be of some use to undeceive the Unitarians I am willing to add to the foregoing observations upon the Trinity and Divinity of the World the sense of the Synagogue to this Article And indeed it would be unconceivable that the Jews should have believed the Messias to be true God and should not be ready to worship him It is a thing which Christians and Jews are agreed upon that there is but one God who is to be Worshipped The Jews and the ancient Christians did agree that Angels must not be Worshipped From which it follows that if the Jews acknowledged that the Messias is to be Worshipped they must have acknowledged him to be God and vice versa Now there are positive Orders of God to Worship the Messias as Psal ii 12. Kiss the Son Who is that Son spoken in this place it is the Messias as it is granted by the ancient Synagogue as we see in Ecclesiasticus I called upon the Lord the Father of my Lord. And Tehillim Rabba with many others use this place of Psal ii to the Messias So the Breshit Rabba in Gen. xlix so the Talmud in Succa c. 5. Saadias in Dan. vii 13. with the ancient witness R. Salom Jarchi in his Comment I know well that the Greek Interpreters have Translated those words of the second Psalm 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But that Version is rejected by the Jews who read now in their Spanish Translation Printed at Ferrara Besad hiio pro que non se insanne which is the sense of Lombroso in his short Notes upon that place So it is understood by R. Abensueb in h. l. We read in Psal viii 3. From the mouth of babes c. It was so well known
meorum Abraham Isaac c. You see there is little or no difference between these Versions and the Hebrew with which also agrees the Spanish Version of Athias and Usquez which was Printed in the last Age at Ferrara and which is of great Authority with the Jews and serves instead of the Text for them that know not Hebâ—â—â— It renders indeed The God which fed me by El Dio governan a mi and the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that hath redeemed me by El redimien a mi or my Redeemer but the sense is not altered thereby Drusius notes in his Fragments of the ancient Interpreters of the Old Testament that the Participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here attributed to the Angel is rendred 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Greek Translators in Ruth iv 8. which imports the next of kin to whom the right of inheritance belongs and with it the Relict of his deceased Relation From this Translation of the word St. Hierom and after him many other Divines taking this Angel to be the Messias have collected a relation peculiar of this Angel to the Family of Jacob of which the Messias was to be born Christ saith he * Hier. on Isa 59. shall come and redeem us with his Blood who as the Hebrew has it is of kin to Sion and is descended from the stock of Israel for so the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies But there is another sense of the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to which the Greek Interpreters do more commonly render them I mean that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which confirms the use of the like word in the Spanish Version If you would see the places you may consult Kircher's Concordance The whole difficulty therefore of the place may be reduced to three Heads which I shall propose by way of Question I. Whether the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 spoken of v. 15. is the very 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whom the Jews acknowledge for their God II. Whether the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mentioned in v. 16. is the same with that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 15. or differs from him as a Creature doth from its Creator III. Whether the Prayer contain'd in Jacob's Blessing be made to God alone or to the Redeeming Angel together with him SECT II. In Answer to the first Question we need not be much to seek For Onkelos in his Chaldee Paraphrase Expounds the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The like Jonathan has done in his Version Nor do I know any Christian that ever blamed them for it How should they since it is evident to them that consider this Text carefully as the Christians generally do the Holy Scriptures that these Targumists have herein faithfully exprest the mind of Jacob. Jacob had been newly remembring that Appearance in which God had blessed him at Luz in these words * Genesis xlviii 3 4. God Almighty appeared to me at Luz in the land of Canaan and blessed me and said Behold I will make thee fruitful and multiply thee and I will make of thee a multitude of people and will give this land to thy seed after thee for an everlasting possession Now what can be more absurd than to imagin that Jacob when he blesses Joseph's Sons and prays for the encrease of his Posterity by them should direct his Prayers to any other than him whose kindnesses he had so abundantly experimented and whose Promises for the multiplication of his seed were even now fresh in his Memory This I thought fit to observe against those of the Jews that doubt it following as they think the Author of the Book Rabboth who notes that a lesser Title is given to the Angel than to him that is call'd Elohim as if he had a mind thereby to * Matthenot Kehun f. 23. col 4. f. 108. col 3. tell us that by the Angels here mention'd Jacob intended an Angel and not God If the Author of the Rabboth had understood this of a created Angel he had certainly been in a very great mistake For besides the absurdity of this it is a wicked thing to suppose that Abraham and Isaac did walk before the Angel as Jacob asserts they did before God God saith he v. 15. before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk For the word walk in this place comprehends all the acts of their Religion throughout their whole lives and so Moses uses the word to describe the intire obedience of Enoch Gen. v. 22. This a Modern Jew R. Salomon Aben Melek acknowledges in his Michlol Jophi on this place where he says the word walk denotes the worship of the heart which a Creature owes to God But that the Author of the Rabboth understood it of an uncreated Angel who often is called in the Old Testament Elohim and Jehovah and Jehovah Elohim I little doubt because he quotes the same authority in this place which we meet with in the Bab. Talm. Pesachim c. x. f. 118. col 1. and which makes this Angel to be God But if he was of another mind we should have other Jews to confront him of no less Authority that understand it our way particularly we have the Prayers of the Jewish Church many of which alluding to this and the like places in Genesis do refer to God only exclusively to a created Angel the Title of Redeemer who delivers from all evil See Talm. Hier. tr Berac c. 4. f. 8. c. 1. and their Liturgies I know Cyril of Alexandria * Lib. vi in Gen. p. 210. would have Jacob to understand God the Father by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 15. and the Eternal Son of God by the Redeeming Angel which Explication he would confirm by Ephes i. 2. Grace be to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ Because Grace is nothing but the Blessing of God communicated to the Church by the Father and the Son Chrys Hom. 66. in Gen. p. 7. But St. Chrysostom's Opinion is much more probable to me who asserts Elohim to be the Eternal Son of God that is described in both the 14 and 15 verses by different Titles And herein he followed all the ancient Christians who used to ascribe to the Son all the Appearances of God or of the Angel of Jehovah that are mentioned by Moses and in particular they teach that the Blessing of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was prayed for by Jacob in this place I scruple not to assert that the ancient Christians ascribed all the Appearances of God in Moses Writings to the Eternal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 having the following Authorities for my assertion Just Mart. cont Tryph. Clem. Alex. Paed. i. 7. Tertul. cont Jud. cap. 9. Orig. in Isa 6. Cyprian cont Jud. ii 5. Constit Apost v. 21. Euseb H. E. i. 3. Cyr. Hieros
1 for Author read Authors 23 31 for upon r. concerning 25 28 for cap. viii r. cap. vii ibid 32 for of great r. of the great 64 28 for with r. to 69 22 for sure r. secure ibid 35 for would r. must 71 13 for not r. no. ibid 15 for who have quoted r. have quoted 117 25 for 6ly r. 2ly 161 3 after Scriptures add with relation 163 29 30 for which is the same r. which Names are the same 173 13 for Caema r. Cochma 205 20 for can r. may ibid 22 for cut many r. cut away many 213 29 for such r. so 233 15 for this r. the former 244 16 for this r. the former 262 32 for Micah vi 14. r. Micah vii 14. 288 16 17 for besides they r. besides that they 291 30 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid 34 35 for to the two to the Father to his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. of the two of the Father of his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 315 11 for chap. xii 18 r. vii 8. 320 32 for Psal xv r. xlv 327 20 for Context r. Text. 331 4 after righteous add Word 339 13 for which r. what 340 23 for marks his r. marks of his 364 17 for To r. On. 376 3 for they were very few of r. there were very few 392 1 for Chap. XXIII r. XXVI 400 21 for Ancient r. Ancients 433 16 for understand r. understands 434 15 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 451 9 for Deut. r. Numb BOOKS Printed for Ric. Chiswell THE Fathers Vindicated or Animadversions on a late Socinian Book Intituled The Judgment of the Fathers touching the Trinity against Dr. Bull 's Defence of the Nicene Faith By a Presbyter of the Church of England Reflections upon a Libel lately Printed Intituled The Charge of Socinianism against Dr. Tillotson Considered 4to Dr. Williams now Lord Bishop of Chichester his Vindication of Archbishop Tillotson's Sermons against the Socinians and of the Bishop of Worcester's Sermon of the Mysteries of the Christian Religion To which is annexed a Letter from the Bishop of Salisbury to the Author in Vindication of his Discourse of the Divinity of our Saviour 4to SCRIPTORUM ECCLESIASTICORUM Historia Literaria facili perspicua methodo digesta Pars Altera Qua plusquam DC Scriptores novi tam Editi quam Manuscripti recensentur Prioribus plurima adduntur breviter aut obscure dicta illustratur recte asserta vindicantur Accedit ad finem cujusvis Saeculi CONCILIORUM omnium tum Generalium tum Particularium Historica Notitia Ad Calcem vero Operis Dissertationes tres 1 De Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis incertae aetatis 2 De Libris Officiis Ecclesiasticis Graecorum 3 De Eusebii Caesariensis Arianismo adversus Joannem Clericum Adjecti sunt Indices utilissimi Scriptorum Alphabetico-Chronologici Studio labore Gulielmi Cave S. T. P. Canon Windesortensis Fol. Bishop Wilkins of the Principles and Duties of Natural Religion In two Books The 4th Edition Primitive Christianity Or the Religion of the Ancient Christians in the first Ages of the Gospel In Three Parts By William Cave D. D. The fifth Edition Octavo Several Discourses viz. Proving Jesus to be the Messias The Prejudices against Jesus and His Religion considered Jesus the Son of God proved by his Resurrection The Danger of Apostacy from Christianity Christ the Author Obedience the Condition of Salvation The Possibility and Necessity of Gospel-obedience and its Consistence with Free Grace The Authority of Christ with the Commission and Promise which he gave to his Apostles The Difficulties of a Christian Life considered The Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus Children of this World wiser than the Children of Light By the most Reverend Dr. John Tillotson late Lord Archbishop of Canterbury Being the Fifth Volume Published from the Originals by Dr. Barker Chaplain to His Grace 8vo Several Discourses upon the Attributes of God viz. Concerning the perfection of God Concerning our Imitation of the Divine Perfection The Happiness of God The Unchangeableness of God The Knowledge of God The Wisdom and Soveraignty of God The Wisdom of God in his Providence The Wisdom of God in the Redemption of Mankind The Justice of God in the Distribution of Rewards and Punishments The Truth of God The Holiness of God c. Being the Sixth Volume Published from the Originals by Dr. Barker Octavo Sermons Preached on several Occasions By John Conant D. D. The first and second Volumes The Second Edition Corrected Published by Dr. John Williams now Lord Bishop of Chichester 8vo A Commentary on Genesis Exodus Leviticus and Numbers In Four Volumes In 4to By Dr. Sim Patrick Lord Bishop of Ely His Commentary on Deuteronomy is now in the Press A Discourse of the Government of the Thoughts By Geo. Tully Late Sub Dean of York The 3d Edition 1699. A New Account of India and Persia being Nine Years Travel begun 1672 and finished 1681. By John Fryer M. D. Fellow of the Royal Society Fol. 1698. Illustrated with Cuts The Life of Henry Chichele Archbishop of Canterbury In which there is a Particular Relation of many Remarkable Passages in the Reigns of Henry the Fifth and Sixth Kings of England Written in Latin by Arthur Duck. LLD. Chancellor of the Diocess of London and Advocate of the Court of Honour Now made English and a Table of Contents Annexed 8vo FINIS