all the Earth, and might from thence be convinc'd how reasonable it was, and how highly it concern'd them, to pay all the fame Honour to the Son, which they had hitherto believed to belong to the Father only. And confidering how apt Mankind would be to leffen the Dignity of the Son (whether out of a vein of difputing, or because He had condefcended to become Man like Themselves) and confidering alfo that the many Notices of the Divinity of his Perfon might not be fufficient, with fome, to raise in Them that Efteem, Reverence, and Regard for Him, which They ought to have; for the more effectually fecuring a point of this high Concernment, it pleafed the Father to leave the final Judgment of the great Day in the Hands of his Son: Men therefore might confider that this Perfon, whom they were too apt to dif regard, was not only their Creator, and Lord, and God, but their Judge too, before whose awful Tribunal they must one Day appear: An awakening Confideration, fuch as might not only convince Them of his exceeding Excellency and Super-eminent Perfections, but might remind them alfo, how much it was their Intereft, as well as Duty, to pay Him all that Honour, Adoration, and Service, which the Dignity and Majefty of his Perfon demands.

Let us but fuppofe the prefent Catholick Do&trine of the Co-equality and Co-eternity of the three Perfons to be true, what more proper method can we imagine, to fecure to each Per

fon

fon the Honour due unto Him, than this; that every Perfon fhould be manifefted to us under some peculiar Title or Character, and inforce his claim of Homage by fome remarkable Dispensation, such as might be apt to raife in Us a religious Awe and Veneration? This is the Cafe in fact; and on this Account, chiefly, it feems to be that the Son, rather than the Father (whofe perfonal Dignity is lefs liable to be question'd) is to be Judge of all Men, that fo all Men may honour the Son, καθὼς τιμῶσι τὸν πατέρα. The learned Doctor *pleads that xafas often fignifies a general Similitude only, not an exact Equality: Which is very true; and would be pertinent, if we built our Argument on the critical Meaning of the Particle. But what we infist on, is, that our Bleffed Lord, in that Chapter, draws a parallel between the Father and Himfelf, between the Father's Works and his own, founding thereupon his Title to Honour; which fufficiently intimates what xas means; especially if it be confider'd that this was in answer to the Charge of making Himfelf tequal with God. This is what I intimated in the Query; upon the reading whereof, you are struck with amazement at fo evident an inftance, how prejudice blinds the Minds, &c. But let me perfwade you to forbear that way of talking, which (befides that it is taking for granted the main Thing in Queftion, prefuming that all the Prejudice lies on *Reply, p. 260.

+ Joh. 5. 18.

one fide, and all the Reafon on the other) is really not very becoming, in this Cafe, confidering how many wife, great, and good Men, how many Churches of the Saints, through a long Succeffion of Ages, you must, at the fame time, charge with prejudice and blindness; and that too after much canvaffing and careful confidering what Objections could be made against Them; to which you can add nothing new, nor fo much as represent the old ones with greater Force than They have been often before, 1300 Years ago. It might here be fufficient, for you, modeftly to offer your Reasons: And however convincing they may appear to you (yet confidering that to Men of equal Senfe, Learning, and Integrity, they have appeared much otherwife) to fufpect your own Judgment; or, at least, to believe that there may be Reasons, which you do not fee, for the contrary Opinion. Well, but after your fo great Affurance, let us hear what you have to say. If our Lord had purposely defign'd, in the moft exprefs and emphatical Manner, to declare his real Subordination and Dependence on the Father, He could not have done it more fully and clearly than He hath in this whole Chapter. Yes, fure He might: Being charged with Blafphemy, in making Himself equal with God, He might have express'd his Abhorrence of fuch a Thought; and have told Them that He pretended to be nothing more than a Creature of God's, fent upon God's

Errand;

Errand; and that it was not by his own Power or Holiness, that He made the lame Man to walk, (fee Alt. 3. 12.) Such an Apology as this would have effectually took off all farther Sufpicion, and might perhaps have well become a Creature, when charg'd with Blafphemy, who had a true Refpect for the Honour of his Creator. But, instead of this, He goes on, a fecond Time, to call Himfelf Son of God, v. 25. declaring farther, that there was fo perfect a Union and Intimacy between the Father and Himself, that He was able to do any thing which the Father did; had not only the fame Right and Authority to work on the Sabbath, but the fame Power of giving Life to whom He pleased, of raifing the Dead, and judging the World; and therefore the fame Right and Title to the same Honour and Regard: and that the Execution of thofe Powers was lodged in his Hands particularly, least the World should not be fufficiently apprehenfive of his high Worth, Eminency, and Dignity; or fhould not honour the Son even as they honour the Father.

This is the obvious natural Conftruction of the whole Paffage: You have fome Pretences against it, which have been examin'd and confuted long ago by Hilary, Chryfoftom, Cyril, Auftin, and other venerable Fathers of the Chriftian Church; fo that I have little more to do, than to repeat the Anfwers. The Jews, you fay, falfely and maliciously charged Him with making Himfelf equal with God. So faid

Qu. XIX. the Arians: But what ground had either They, or You, for faying fo? It does not appear that the Evangelift barely repeated what the Jews had faid: But He gives the Reasons why the Jews fought to kill Him; namely, because He had broke the Sabbath, and because He made Himfelf equal with God. So thought * Hilary; and He is followed therein by Others, whom you may find mention'd in † Petavius. And this Socinus himself was fo fenfible of, that He could not but allow that the Apostle, as well as the Jews, understood that our Blessed Lord had declared Himfelf equal to God; only He is forced to explain away the equality to a Senfe foreign to the Context.

But fuppofing that the Apoftle only repeated what the Jews had charged Him with; how does it appear that the charge was falfe? It is not to be denied that He had really wrought on the Sabbath, and had really called God his Father, and in a Senfe peculiar; and why should not the rest of the Charge be as truc as the other? The Context and Reason of the Thing feem very much to favor it: His fay

Non nunc, ut in Cæteris folet, Judæorum Sermo ab his dictus refertur. Expofitio potius hæc Evangeliftæ eft, Caufam demonfrantis cur Dominum interficere vellent. Hil. Trin. 1.7. p. 935. + De Trin. p. 152.

Ex modo loquendi quo ufus eft Evangelifta, fentiam eum omnino una cum Judæis cenfuiffe Chriftum, verbis illis, fe æqualem Deo feciffe neceffe fit intelligere Hoc ipfum Eum quoque fenfiffe, non minus quam fenferit Chriftum appellaffe Deum Patrem fuum, quod ab ipfo, uno & eodem verborum Contextu, proxime dictum fuerat. Socin. Refp. ad Vujek. p. 577.