This book made available by the Internet Archive.

CHAP. IX.

Page

The pre-eternity of Christ farther evinced. Sundry texts of Scripture vindi- 320 cated »

CHAP. X.

Of the names of God given unto Christ 336

CHAP. XI.

Of the work of Creation assigned to Jesus Christ, &c. The confirmation of his eternal Deity from thence 356

CHAP. XII.

All-ruling and disposing Providence assigned unto Christ, and his eternal Godhead thence farther confirmed, with other testimonies thereof 373

CHAP. XIII. Of the incarnation of Christ, and his pre-existence thereunto 379

CHAP. XIV. Sundry other testuDonieB, given to the Deity of Christ, vindicated 406

CHAP. XV. Of the Holy Ghost, his Deity, graces, and operations 442

CHAP. XVI. Of salvation by Christ 457

CHAP. XVII. Of the mediation of Christ 459

CHAP. XVIII. Of Christ's prophetical office •. • • • " 461

CHAP. XIX.

Of the kingly office of Jesus Christ, and of the worship that is ascribed and due to him ^ 490

VINDICIiE EVANGELICiE.

OR, THE

MYSTERY OF THE GOSPEL VINDICATED,

AND

SOCINIANISM EXAMINED,

CONSIDERATION AND CONFUTATION OF A CATECHISM, CALLED A SCRIPTURE CATECHISM, WRITTEN BY J. BIDDLE. M. A.

AND THE

CATECHISM OF VALENTIUS SMALCIUS, COMMONLY CALLED THE RACOVIAN CATECHISM:

THE VINDICATION OF THE TESTIMONIES OF SCRIPTURE, CONCERNING

THE DEITY AND SATISFACTION OF JESUS CHRIST, FROM THE

PERVERSE EXPOSITIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS

OF THEM, BY HUGO GROTIUS, IN HIS

ANNOTATIONS ON THE BIBLE:

ALSO

AN APPENDIX, IN VINDICATION OF SOME THINGS FORMERLY

WRITTEN ABOUT THE DEATH OF CHRIST, AND THE

FRUITS THEREOF, FROM THE ANIMADVERSIONS

OF MR. R. E.

MdSe EjUoi TW Tcivra. XlyovTi a-rtyZq TTia-TEua'tjf, lav tav asro^d^iv tZv KarayylXKofiivw am SBioovixh Xa|3_ij ypa<()i».—Cjril. Hieros. Catech. 4.

VOL. VIIl.

TO THE

RIGHT HONOURABLE

THE

COUNCIL OF STATE;

TO

HIS HIGHNESS,

THE ENSUING

VINDICATION

OF THE

GLORY AND DOCTRINE OF THE GREAT GOD,

AND OUR SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST,

WRITTEN UPON THEIR COMMAND,

IS HUMBLY DEDICATED,

BT

y

ITS UNWORTHY AUTHOR,

J. o.

TO TfiE niciiT wonsiiirruL HIS REVEREND, LEARNED, AND WORTHY FRIENDS AND BRETHREN,

THE HEADS AND GOVERNORS OF THE COLLEGES AND HALLS,

ALL OTHER STUDENTS IN DIVINITY, OR OF THE TRUTH WHICH IS AFTER GODLINESS,

IN THE

FAMOUS UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD.

Of this second address unto you in this kind, where-unto I am encouraged by your fair and candid reception of my former, I desire you would be pleased to take the ensuing account. It is now, as I remember, about a year ago, since one Mr. Biddle (formerly a master of arts of this university, by which title he still owns himself) published two little catechisms, as he calls them; wherein, under sundry specious pleas and pretences (which you will find discussed in the ensuing treatise), he endeavours to insinuate subtilelyinto the minds of unstable and unlearned men, the whole substance of the Socinian religion. The man is a person, whom, to my knowledge, I never saw; nor have been at all curious to inquire after the place of his habitation, or course of his life. His opposition some years since to the Deity of the Holy Ghost, and now to that of the Father and Son also, is all that he is known to me by. It is not with his person that I have any contest; he stands or falls to his own master. His arguments against the Deity of the Holy Ghost, were some-while since answered by Cloppenburgh, then professor of divinity at Franeker, in Friesland, since at rest in the Lord ; and, as I have heard, by one in English. His catechisms also are gone over the seas,

whereof farther mention must afterward be made. At their first publishing, complaint being given in by some worthy persons to the honourable counsel against them, as abusive to the majesty and authority of the word of God, and destructive to many important truths of the gospel (which was done without any knowledge of mine), they were pleased to send forme, and to require of me the performance of that work, which is here presented unto you. Being surprised with their request, I laboured to excuse myself to the utmost, on the account of my many employments in the university and elsewhere, with other reasons of the like nature, which to my thoughts did then occur. Not prevailing with them, they persisting in their command, I looked on it as a call from God to plead for his violated truth, which by his assistance, and according as I had opportunity, I was in general alway resolved to do. Having, indeed, but newly taken off my hand from the plough of a peculiar controversy, about the perseverance of the saints, in the following whereof I was somewhat tired, the entrance into the work was irksome and burdensome unto me; after some progress made, finding, the searching into, and discussing of the important truths opposed, of very good use to myself, I have been carried through the whole (according as I could break off my daily pressing occasions to attend unto it) with much cheerfulness and alacrity of mind. And this was the reason, why, finding Mr. B. came short of giving a fair occasion to the full vindication of many heads of religion by him oppugned, I have called in to his assistance and society one of his great masters, namely, Valentinus Smalcius, and his catechism (commonly called the Racovian), with the expositions of the places of Scripture contended about by the learned Grotius,

as also on several occasions, the arguments and answers of most of the chief propiigners of Mr. B/s religion. Now, besides your interest in the truths pleaded for, there are other considerations also, inducing me to a persuasion, that this endeavour of mine will not be unacceptable unto you. Mr. B.'s catechism, I said, being carried over and dispersed in sundry places of the united provinces, the professors of their academies (who have all generally learned the Enolish tono-ue, to enable them for the understand-ino- of the treatises of divinity in all kinds written therein, which they begin to make use of to the purpose) cry out against them, and professedly undertake the refutation thereof. Now certainly it cannot be for our advantage in point of repute amongst them, that they (who are yet glad of the occasion) should be enforced to undertake the confutation of a book, written by one who stiles himself a master of arts of this university (which they also take notice of), wherein they are so little concerned ; the poison of it being shut up from their people, under the safe custody of an unknown tongue. "Nicolaus Arnoldus, the professor of di\inity

a Prodiit hoc anno in Anglia, Authore Jolianne Bidello, Artiuni Magistro, pneu-matoniacho, duplex Catechesis Scriptiiraiia, Anglico idioiuate typis evulgata, qua sub nomine rcligionis Cliristianai piiiuni putiun Socinianisinuni, orbi Christiano ob-trudere satagit. Quanquani anteju non videatur vclle Sociiiianus haberi; attanien cuius sit ingenii, sub fiiiem libelii prodit, cum conunendat libi'um cui titulus, Tlie life of that incomparable man, Faustus Suciiuis Sencnsis, phrasin Scriptura; ad dogmata mere Sociniana iiadetorsit, ut nemo ante euni ha-resiii islam tani fraudulenter inslillarit; larvam illi dctraherc post dies caniculares, cura Deo est animus. Nicol. Arnold. Frx(. ad Lector.

Necessarium est hoc tristi tempore, quo Sociniana pestis, quani baud iraraerito dixeris omnis impiclatis axpoTroXiv, videtur nunc in vicina Anglia sedem sibi metro-politanam fixisse, nisi quod isthic facile admittat et bella cruenta, et judicia capi-talia severissima, sub quorum umbone crcvit. Nam inter varias Invreses, quibus fffilix ilia quondam insula et orthodoxia: tenacissiina liodie conspurcatur, tantum cniinet Socinianisnuis, quautum ' lenta solent inter vibuina Cuprcssi ;' nee euim ani-plius ibi horrcndasua mjsteria niussitat in ang\ilis, sed sub dio explicat onmia "ex-ilia suK iniquitatis : non locjuor incomperta, bencvole lector. Modo enim ex Anglia allatus est Anglica lingua conscriptus catecliismus duplex, major et minor, Londini publice excusus, hoc Anno 16.^4 apud Jac. CoterelI.et Ricli. Moone, &c. Aulliorc.Iohanne Bidello Magistro Artium Oxonicnsi, iScc. Sam. Mares. Il}d. Sotin. Refut. Tom. 2. Prajfat. ad Led.

THE EPISTLE DEDICATORY. Vn

at Franeker, gives an account of this book, as the most subtle insinuation of the Socinian religion, that ever was attempted, and promises a confutation of it.

Maresius, professor atGroning, a man well known by his works published, goes farther; and on the account of these catechisms, charges the whole nation, and the governors of it, with Socinianism; and, according to the manner of the man, raises a fearful outcry, affirming, that that heresy hath fixed its metropoliticalseat here in England, and is here openly professed, is the head sect in the nation, displaying openly the banners of its iniquity; all which he confirms by instancing in this book of a master of arts of the university of Oxford. Of his rashness in censuring, his extreme ignorance of the state of affairs here amongst us, which yet he undertakes to relate, judge, and condemn, I have given him an account in a private letter to himself.

Certainly, though we deserved to have these reproaches cast upon us, yet of all men in the world, those who live under the protection, and upon the allowance of the United Provinces, are most unmeet to manage them ; their incompetency in sundry respects for this service is known to all. However, it cannot be denied, but that even on this account (that it may appear, that we are as free from the guilt of the calumnious insinuations of Maresius, so in no need of the assistance of Arnoldus, for the confutation of any one arising among ourselves, speaking perverse things to draw disciples after him), an answer from some in this place unto those catechisms, was sufficiently necessary. That it is by providence fallen upon the hand of one, more unmeet than many others in this place, for the performance of this work and duty, I doubt not but you will be contented withal; and am bold to hope that neither

Vlll THE EPISTLE DEDICATORY.

the truth, nor your own esteem, will too much suffer, by my engagement herein. Yea, give me leave to speak it, I have assumed the confidence, to aim at the handling of the whole body of the Socinian religion, in such a way and manner,' as that those who are most knowing and exercised in these controversies, may find that which they will not altogether despise, and younger students that whereby they may profit. To this end I have added the Ra-covian catechism, as I said before, to Mr. B.'s; which, as I was urged to do by many worthy persons in this university, so I was no way discouraged in the publishing of my answer thereunto, by the view I took of Arnoldus's discourse to the same purpose, and that for such reasons as I shall not express, but leave the whole to the judgment of the reader.

From thence, whence in the thoughts of some I am most likely to suffer, as to my own resolves, I am most secure. It is in meddling with Grotius's annotations, and calling into question ^^'hat hath been delivered by such a giant in all kinds of literature. Since my engagement in this business, and when I had well nigh finished the vindication of the texts of Scripture commonly pleaded for the demonstration of the Deity of Christ, from the exceptions put into their testimonies, by the Racovian catechism, I had the sight of Dr. H.'s apology for him, in his vindication of his dissertations about episcopacy, from my occasional animadversions, published in the preface of my book of the perseverance of the saints. Of that whole treatise I shall elsewhere give an account. My defensative as to my dealing with Grotius's annotations, is suited to what the doctor pleads in his behalf, which occasions this mention thereof.

'This very pious, learned, judicious man (he tells ub) hath fallen under some harsh censures of late

especially upon the account of Socinianism and Popery.' That is, not as though he would reconcile those extremes, but being in doctrinals a Socinian, he yet closed in many things with the Roman interest : as I no way doubt, but thousands of the same persuasion with the Socinians, as to the person and offices of Christ, do live in the outward communion of that church (as they call it) to this day; of which supposal I am not without considerable grounds, and eminent instances for its confirmation. This, I say, is their charge upon him. For his being a Socinian, he tells us, ' Three things are made use of, to beget a jealousy in the minds of men of his inclinations that way. 1. Some parcels of a letter of his to Crellius. 2. Some relations of what passed from him at his death. 3. Some passages in his annotations.' It is this last alone wherein I am concerned. And what I have to speak to them, I desire may be measured and weighed by what I do premise. It is not that I do entertain in myself any hard thoughts, or that I would beget in others any evil surmises of the eternal condition of that man, that I speak what I do. What am I, that I should judge another man's servant ? He is fallen to his own master. I am very slow to judge of men's acceptation with God, by the apprehension of their understandings. This only I know, that be men of what religion soever that is professed in the world, if they are drunkards, proud, boasters, &c. hypocrites, haters of good men, persecutors and revilers of them, yea, if they be not regenerate and born of God, united to the head Christ Jesus, by the same spirit that is in him, they shall never see God.

But for the passages in his annotations, the substance of the doctor's plea is, that the ' passages intimated are in his posthuma, that he intended not to

X THE EPISTLE DEDICATORY.

publish them, that they might be of things he observed, but thought farther to consider :' and an instance is given in that of Col. i. 16. which he interprets, contrary to what he urged it for, John i. 1—3. But granting what is affirmed as to matter of fact, about his collections (though the preface*" to the last part of his annotations will not allow it to be true); I must needs abide in my dissatisfaction as to these annotations, and of my resolves in these thoughts give the doctor this account. Of the Socinian religion there are two main parts ; the first is Photini-anism, the latter Pelagianism: the first concerning the person, the other the grace of Christ. Let us take an eminent instance out of either of these heads: out of the first, their denying Christ to be God by nature; out of the latter, their denial "of his satisfaction.

For the first, I must needs tell the apologist, that of all the texts of the New Testament and Old, whereby the Deity of Christ is usually confirmed, and where it is evidently testified unto, he hath not left any more than one, that I have observed, if one, speaking any thing clearly to that purpose. I say, if one, for that he speaks not home to the business in hand on John i. I shall elsewhere give an account; perhaps some one or two more may be interpreted according to the analogy of that. 1 speak not of his annotations on the Epistles, but on the whole Bible throughout, wherein his expositions given, do for the most part fall in with those of the Socinians, and oftentimes consist in the very words of Socinus and Smalcius, and alway do the same things with them, as to any notice of the Deity of Christ in them. So

i* Jan) vero sciendum est, niiilto (luidcm citius, quaiii nunc cieinuni teniporis cam resunii, obsolvique potuisse, et quo minus id JHiupridem factum sit, per euui non stetisse virum, cujiis lideli curm opus integrum ab authorc ipso primum creditum tuit ct sedulo comnieudatuni, Pra:nion ad Lect.

that I marvel the learned doctor should fix upon one particular instance, as though that one place alone were corrupted by him, when there is not one (or but one) that is not wrested, perverted, and corrupted, to the same purpose. For the full conviction of the truth hereof, I refer the reader to the ensuing considerations of his interpretations of the places themselves. The condition of these famous annotations, as to the satisfaction of Christ is the same : not one text of the whole Scripture, wherein testimony is given to that sacred truth, which is not wrested to another sense, or at least the doctrine in it concealed, and obscured by them. I do not speak this with the least intention to cast upon him the reproach of a Socinian ; I judge not his person ; his books are published to be considered and judged. Erasmus, I know, made way for him, in most of his expositions about the Deity of Christ; but what repute he hath thereby obtained among all that honour the eternal Godhead of the Son of God, let Beliarmine on the one hand, and Beza on the other evince. And, as I will by no means maintain or urge against Grotius any of the miscarriages in religion, which the answerer of my animadversions undertakes to vindicate him from; nor do I desire to fight with the dust and ashes of men; yet what I have said, is, if not necessary to return to the apologist, yet of tendency, 1 hope, to the satisfaction of others, who may inquire after the reason of my calling the annotations of the learned man to an account in this discourse. Shall any one take liberty to pluck down the pillars of our faith, and weaken the grounds of our assurance, concerning the person and grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and shall not we have the boldness to call him to an account for so sacrilegious an attempt ? With those then who love the Lord Christ in sincerity, I expect

Xll THE EPISTLE DEDICATORY.

no blame or reproach for what I have endeavoured in this kind; yea, that my good will shall find acceptance with them, especially if it shall occasion any of greater leisure and abilities farther and professedly to remark more of the corruptions of those annotations, I have good ground of expectation. The truth is, notwithstanding their pompous shew and appearance (few of his quotations, which was the "^manner of the man, being at all to his purpose), it will be found no difficult matter to discuss his assertions, and dissipate his conjectures.

For his being a Papist, 1 have not much to say; let '^his epistles (published by his friends), written to Dyonysius Petavius the Jesuit, be perused, and you will see the character which of himself he gives ; as also what in sundry writings he ascribes to the pope.

What I have performed through the good hand of God in the whole, is humbly submitted to your judgment. You know, all of you, with what weight of business and employment I am pressed ; what is the constant work that in this place is incumbent on me, how many and how urgent my avocations are; the consideration whereof cannot but prevail for a pardon of that want of exactness, which perhaps in sundry particulars will appear unto you. With those who are neither willing nor able to do any thing in this kind themselves, and yet make it their business to despise what is done by others, I shall very

c Grotius, in lib. 5. de veritat. Reiig : Christian, in notis R. Sel. Abeii Ezra et Onkclos adducil: sed alienis oculis hie vidit, aut alienafide rotulit (forte authoribus illis aut non intcllectis, aut propter oecupationes noii iiispcctis) aui animositati et authoritati in citandis autlioribus, et referendis dictis aut factis, ut ipsi hoc usui venie-bat, niiiiium in scriptis theologicis indulserit. Voet. disput. de advent. Messi.

"i ReverendeDoniine.sa^pe tibi niolestus esse cogor....sunipsi banc ultirnan)opc-ram, mea anteliac dicta et famam quoquc a ministris ailatratani tiicndi, in co scripto si quid est, autCatholicis sententiis discongruens, aut csetcroqui a veritate alicnuin, de eo abs te viro eruditissimo, &c. cujus judicium pluriiui facio nioncri pcrcupio. Ei^ist, Grot, ad Dionys. Peiat. Epist. 204.

THE EPISTLE DEDICATORY. Xlll

little trouble myself. That which seems in relation hereunto, to call for an apology, is my engagement into this work, wherein I was not particularly concerned, suffering in the meantime some treatises against me to lie unanswered. Dr. Hammond's answer to my animadversions on his dissertations about episcopacy; Mr. Baxter's objections against somewhat written about the death of Christ; and a book of one Mr. Horn against my treatise about universal redemption, are all the instances that I know of, which in this kind may be given. To all that candidly take notice of these things, my defence is at hand. I do not know that I am more obliged to answer a treatise written against myself, than any other written against the truth, though I am not particularly named, or opposed therein. Nor do I intend to put any such law of disquietness upon my spirit, as to think myself bound to reply to every thing that is written against me, whether the matter and subject of it be worth the public ventilation, or no. It is neither name nor repute, that I eye in these contests ; so the truth be safe, I can be well content to suffer. Besides, this present task was not voluntarily undertaken by me, it was, as I have already given account, imposed on me by such an authority as I could not wave. For Mr. Horn's book, I suppose you are not acquainted with it, that alone was extant before my last engagement. Could I have met with any one uninterested person, that would have said it deserved a reply, it had not have laid so long-unanswered. In the meantime I cannot but rejoice, that some like minded with him, cannot impute my silence to the weakness of the cause 1 managed, but to my incompetency for the work of maintaining it. To Mr. Baxter, as far as I am concerned, I have made a return in the close of this treatise ; wherein

I suppose I have put an end to that controversy. Dr Hammond's defensative came forth much about the time that half this treatise was finished; and being about a matter of so mean concernment, in comparison of those weighty truths of the gospel, which I was engaged in the defence of, I durst not desert my station, to turn aside thereto. On the cursory view I have taken of it, I look upon what is of real difference between that learned person and myself, to be a matter of easy despatch. His leaves are much more soft and gentle than those of Socinus, Smalcius, Crellius, and Schlictingius. If the Lord in his goodness be pleased to give me a little respite and leisure, I shall give a farther account of the whole difference between the learned doctor and me, in such a way of process, as may be expected from so slow and dull a person as I am ; in the meantime, I wish him a better cause to manage than that wherein against me he is engaged, and better principles to manage a good cause on than some of those in his treatise of schism, and some others; fail he not in these, his abilities and diligence will stand him in very good stead. I shall not trouble you with things which I have advantages other ways to impart my thoughts concerning; only crave that you would be pleased candidly to accept of this testimony of my respects to you ; and seeing no other things are in the ensuing treatise pleaded for, but such as are universally owned amongst you, that according to your several degrees, you would take it into your patronage or use; affording him in his daily labours the benefit of your prayers at the throne of grace, who is.

Your unworthy fellow-labourer, JOHN OWEN.

Oxon. CL Ck. Coll. April. 1.

TO THOSE THAT LABOUR IN THE WORD AND DOCTRINE, IN THESE NATIONS OF ENGLAND, SCOTLAND, AND IRELAND, WITH ALL THAT CALL UPON THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD: JOHN OWEN WISHETH GRACE AND PEACE FROM GOD OUR FATHER, AND FROM THE LORD JESUS CHRIST.

That so mean a person, as I am, should presume in this public manner, to make address to all those comprised in the title of this epistle; I desire it may be ascribed to the business I come about, and the message that I bring. It is about your great interest and concernment, your whole portion and inheritance, your all, that I am to deal with you. If he who passes by his neighbour's house, seeing a thief breaking up its foundations, or setting fire to its chief materials, will be far from being censured as importune and impudent, if he awake and call upon the inhabitants, though every way his betters (especially if all his own estate lie therein also), although he be not able to carry one vessel of water to the quenching of it; I hope, that finding persons endeavouring to put fire to the house of God, which house ye are, and labouring to steal away the whole treasure thereof, wherein also my own portion doth lie, I shall not be condemned of boldness, or presumption, if I at once cry out to all persons, however concerned, to take heed that we be not utterly despoiled of our treasure; though when I have so done, I be not able to give the least assistance, to the defence of the house, or quenching of the fire kindled about it. That of no less importance is this address unto you, a brief discovery of its occasion will evince.

The Holy Ghost tells us, that ' we are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone, in whom the whole building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord, in whom we are built together for an habitation of God through the spirit;' Eph. ii. 20—22. And thus do all they become the house of Christ, 'who hold fast the confidence, and the hope of rejoicing to the end;' Heb. iii. 6. In this house of God there are daily builders, according as new living stones are to be fitted to their place therein; and continual oppositions have there been made thereto, and

will be,' till we are come, in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ;' Eph. iv. 13. In this work of building are some employed by Jesus Christ, and will be so to the end of the world; Matt, xxviii. 20. Eph. iv. 12. and some employ themselves, at least in a pretence thereof, but are indeed to a man every one like the foolish woman, that pulls down her house with both her hands. Of the first sort, ' other foundation can no man lay,' nor doth go about to lay, * save that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ;' 1 Cor. iii. 11. But some of them build on the foundation 'gold, silver, and precious stones,' keeping fast in the work to the 'form of wholesome words,' and contending for ' the faith that was once delivered to the saints.'

Others again lay 'on wood, hay, and stubble;' either contending about foolish questions, or ' vain and unprofitable janglings;' or adding to what God hath commanded, or corrupting, and perverting what he hath revealed and instituted, contrary to the proportion of faith, which should be the rule of all their prophecy, whereby they discharge their duty of building in this house. Those with whom I am at present to deal, and concerning whom I desire to tender you the ensuing accounts, are of the latter sort; such, as not content with others to attempt sundry parts of the building, to weaken its contexture, or deface its comeliness, do with all their might set themselves against the work itself; the great foundation and corner stone of the church, the Lord Jesus, who is ' God blessed for ever.' They are those, I say, whom I would warn you of, in whom of old, and of late, the spirit of error hath set up itself with such an efficacy of pride and delusion, as by all ways, means, devices imaginable, to despoil our dear and blessed Redeemer, our Holy One, of his 'eternal power and Godhead ;' or to reject the eternal Son of God, and to substitute in his room, a Christ of their own; one like themselves, and no more; to adulterate the church and turn aside the saints to a thing of naught. If I may enjoy your patience, whilst I give a brief account of them, their ways, and endeavours, for the compassing of their cursed ends; of our present concernment in their actings and seductions ; of the fire kindled by them at our doors ;

THE PREFACE TO THE READER. XVll

of the sad diffusion of their poison throughout the world, beyond what enters into the hearts of the most of men to imagine; I shall subjoin thereunto those cautions, and directions, which, with all humbleness, I have to tender to you, to guide some, and strengthen others, and stir uj3 all, to be watchful against this great, and I hope the last considerable attempt of Satan (by way of seduction, and temptation), against the foundation of the gospel.

Those then who of old opposed the doctrine of the Trinity, especially of the Deity of Christ, his person and natures, may be referred to three heads, and of them and their ways this is the sum :

The first sort of them may be reckoned to be those, who are commonly esteemed to be followers of Simon Magus, known chiefly by the names of Gnostics and Valentinians. These, with their abominable figments of jEons, and their combinations, conjugations, genealogies, and unintelligible imaginations, wholly overthrowing the whole revelation of God concerning himself and his will, the Lord Jesus, and the gospel, who chiefly with their leaders, Marcus, Basilides, Ptolomaeus, Valentinus secundus (all following or imitating Simon Magus and Menander), of all others most perplexed and infected the primitive church. As Ireneeus, lib. 1. Ter-tullian, prsescrip. ad heret. cap. 49. Philastrius, in his catalogue of heretics ; Epiphanius, in Panario, lib. 1. torn. 2. ana Augustine, in his book of "Heresies, 'ad quod vult deus manifeste.' To these may be added, Tatianus, Cerdon, Marcion, and their companions (of whom see Tertullian at large, and Eusebius in their respective places), 1 shall not separate from them Montanus, with his enthusiastical formal associates ; in whose abominations it was hoped that these latter days might have been unconcerned, until the present madness of some, commonly called Quakers, renewed their follies : but these may pass (with the Manichees) and those of the like fond imaginations, that ever and anon troubled the church with their madness and folly.

Of the second rank, Cerinthus is the head, with** judai-zing Ebion ; both denying expressly the Deity of Christ, and

* Epiphan. Hseres. 47.

b E^ittiv 2a|M.agstTaiv lyei to CSsXiipov, 'louSaiaJV to Qvoy.a, Na^aogaioiv t>)V j/vw^w, Kaj-TTOXgaTiaviv tw xajtoTfOiri'av £piph.

VOL. VIII. C

XVlll THE PREFACE TO THE READER.

asserting him to be but a mere man, even in the entrance of the gospel; being confounded by John, as is affirmed by Epiphanius, Hajres. 51. " Hieronymus de Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis de Johanne.' The same abomination was again revived by Theodotus, called Coriarius (who having once denied Christ, was resolved to do so always), excommunicated on that account by Victor, as Eusebius relates. Hist. Eccles. 1. 5. c. ult. where he gives also an account of his associates in judgment; Artemon, Asclepiodotus, Nata-lius, &-C. and the books written against him are there also mentioned. But the most notorious head and patron of this madness was Paulus Samosatenus, bishop of Antioch, An. 272; of whose pride and passion, folly, followers, assistants, opposition, and excommunication, the history is extant at large in Eusebius. This man's pomp and folly, his compliance with the Jews and Zenobia the Queen of the Palmy-rians, who then invaded the eastern parts of the Roman empire, made him so infamous to all Christians, that the Socinians do scarce plead for him, or own him as the author of their opinion. Of him who succeeded him in his opposition to Jesus Christ, some fifty or sixty years after, namely Photinus, bishop of Sirmium, they constantly boast: of Samosatenus and his heresy, see Euseb. Hist. Eccl. lib. 7. cap. 29, 30. and Hilary de Synodis : of Photinus, Socrat: Eccles. Hist. 1. 2. cap. 24, 25, and with these do our present Socinians"^ expressly agree in the matter of the person of Christ.

To the third head I refer that deluge of Arianism, whose rise, conception, author, and promoters; advantages, success, and propagation ; the persecutions, cruelty, and tyranny of the rulers, emperors, kings, and governors infected with it; its extent and continuance are known to all, who have taken care in the least, to inquire what was the state of the cliurch of God in former days : that heresy being as it were the flood of waters, that pursued the church for some ages. Of Ma-cedonius, Nestorius, and Eutychus ; the first denying the

<^ Injuria afficit Franken coinplurcs, qui hac dc re idem aut senserunt aiit sen-tiuntquod Socinus ;etnedc iisqui hodie viviint, quidqiiain dicainus, duos taiitum nonii-nabitnus, (]uoruin alter ante annos niille duccntos, alter vero nostra rotate vixit. llle Photinus i'uit quondam Sirmii episcopus, ipsorum etiani adversariorum testimonio divinanim lilerarnm doctissimus, &c. Faust. Socin. dispulat. de Adorat. Christi. cum Ciiristian. Franken. p. 29.

Deity of the Holy Ghost, the second the hypostatical union of the two natures of Christ, and the last confounding them in his person, I shall not need to speak. These, by the So-cinians of our days, are disclaimed.'^

In the second sort chiefly we are at present concerned. Now to give an account, from what is come down unto us, by testimonies of good report and esteem, concerning those named, Theodotus, Paulus, Photinus, and the rest of the men, who were the predecessors of them, with whom we have to do, and undertook the same work in the infancy of the church, which these are now engaged in, when it is drawing with the world to its period, with what were their ways, lives, temptations, ends, agreements, differences, among them, and in reference to the persons of our present contests (of whom a full account shall be given), is not my aim nor business. It hath been done by others : and to do it with any exactness, beyond what is commonly known, would take up more room than to this preface is allotted. Some things peculiarly seem of concernment for our observation, from the time wherein some of them acted their parts, in the service of their master. What could possibly be more desired for the safeguarding of any truth, from the attempts of succeeding generations, and for giving it a security above all control, than that upon public and owned opposition, it should receive a confirmation, by men acted by the Holy Ghost, and giving out their sentence by inspiration from God. That among other important heads of the gospel (as that of justification by faith and not by works, of Christian liberty, of the resurrection of the dead), this most glorious truth of the eternal Deity of the Son of God, underwent an open opposition from some of them above written, during the life of some of the apostles, before the writing of the gospel by John, and was expressly vindicated by him in the beginning thereof, is acknowledged by all, who have in any measure inquired into, and impartially weighed, the reports of those days. What could the heart of the most resolved unbeliever desire more for his satisfaction, than that God should speak from heaven, for the conviction of his folly and ignorance ? or what can our adversaries expect more from us, when we tell them, that

•i Socin. ad Weick, cap. 9. p. 151. Smalc. Respon. ad lib. Smiglec. lib. 1. cap. 1. p.l.

c 2

God himself, immediately determined in the controversy wherein they are engaged. Perhaps they think, that if he should now speak from heaven, they would believe him. So said the Jews to Christ, if he would come down from the cross when they had nailed him to it; in the sight, and under the contempt of many miracles greater than the delivery of himself could any way appear to be. The rich man in torments thought his brethren would repent if one came from the dead and preached to them, Abraham tells him, 'if they will not believe Moses nor the prophets, they would not believe though one should come from the dead.' Doubtless if what is already written, be not sufficient to convince our adversaries, though God should speak from heaven, they would not believe, nor indeed can, if they will abide by the fundamental principles of their religion. Under this great disadvantage, did the persuasion of the Socinians, that Christ is only \piXbg av^pioTTog, by nature no more but a man, set out in the world ; so that persons not deeply acquainted with the methods of Satan, and the darkness of the minds of men, could not but be ready to conclude it certainly bound up in silence for ever. But how speedily it revived, with what pride and passion it was once and again endeavoured to be propagated in the world, those who have read the stories of Paulus Samosatenus, are fully acquainted, who jv/uivij ry KecpaXy blasphemed the Son of God, as one no more than a man. In some space of time these men being decryed by the general consent of the residue of mankind professing the name of Jesus Christ, and their abomination destroyed by the sword of faith managed in the hands of the saints of those days ; Satan perceiving himself at a loss, and under an impossibility of prevalency, whilst the grossness of the error he strove to diffuse terrified all sorts from having any thing to do therewith, he puts on it by the help of Arius and his followers, another gloss and appearance, with a pretence of allowing Christ a Deity, though a subordinate, created, made, divine nature, which in the fulness of time, assumed flesh of the virgin. This opinion being indeed no less really destructive to the true and eternal Deity of the Son of God, than that of theirs before-mentioned, who expressly affirmed him to be a mere man, and to have had no existence before his nativity at Bethlehem ; yet, having got a new pretence and

colour of ascribing something more excellent and sublime unto him, than that whereof we are all in common partakers, it is incredible with what speedy progress, like the breaking out of a mighty flood, it overspread the face of the earth. It is true, it had in its very entrance, all the advantages of craft, fraud, and subtilty ; and in its carrying on, of violence, force, and cruelty; and from the beginning to its end, of ignorance, blindness, superstition, and profaneness, among the generality of them, with whom it had to deal, that ever any corrupt folly of the mind of man met withal. The rise, progress, cruelty, and continuance of this sect, with the times and seasons that passed with it over the nations, its entertainment by the many barbarous nations, which wasted, spoiled, and divided among themselves the Roman empire, with their parting with it upon almost as evil an account as at first they embraced it, is not, as I said, my business now to discover. God purposing to revenge the pride, ingratitude, ignorance, profaneness, and idolatry, of the world, which was then in a great measure got in amongst the professors of Christianity, by another, more spiritual, cruel, subtle, and lasting mystery of iniquity, caused this abomination of Arianism to give place to the power of the then growing Roman antichristian state; which, about the sixth or seventh century of years, since the incarnation of the Son of God, having lost all church order and communion of the institution of Jesus Christ, fell into an earthly, political, carnal combination, authorised and animated by the spirit of Satan for the ends of superstition, idolatry, persecution, pride, atheism, which thereby ever since vigorously pursued. With these 'Arians, as was said, do our Socinians refuse communion, and will not be called after their name; not that their profession is better than theirs, or that they have

e Ariani Christo divinum cultum noa tribuerunt. Atqui longe praestat Trinitariiim esse quam Christo divinum cultum non tribuere. Irao Trinitarius(meo quidem ju-dicio) modo alioqui Christi pracepta conservet, nee ulla ratione eos persequatur, qui trinitarli non sunt sed potius cum ipsis fraterne conferre, ac veritatem inquirere non recuset, merito Cliristianus dici debet. Qui vero Christum divina ratione non colit, is nullo modo Christianus dici potest: Quocirca non est dubitanduni, quin Deo minus displicuerunt Homousiani Trinitarii, quam vulgus Arianorum. Quid i«itur niirum, si cum totus fere orbis Christianus in Las duas (ut ita dicam) factiones divisus esset, Deus vislonibus et miraculis testari voluisset utram ipsarum viara salutis vel adhuc retineret, vcl jam abjecisset. Adde Arianos acerrime tunc persecutos fuisse mise-ros Honiousiaiios, idque diu et variis in locis: quare mcrito so Deus Arianis iraluni ostendit. Socin. ad Weick. p. ■l.'i'i.

XXll THE PREFACE TO THE READER.

much to blame, in what they divulge, though they agree not with them in allowing a pre-existing nature to Christ before his incarnation, but that that generation of men, having made themselves infamous to posterity, by their wickedness, perjuries, crafts, and bloody cruelties, and having been pursued by eminent and extraordinary judgments from God, they are not willing to partake of the prejudices which they justly lie under.

From the year 600, for divers ages, we have little noise of these men's abominations, as to the person of Christ, in the world. Satan had something else to busy himself about.

A design he had in hand, that was like to do him more service than any of his former attempts. Having, therefore, tried bis utmost in open opposition to the person of Christ (the dregs of the poison thus shed abroad infecting in some measure a great part of the east to this day), by away never before heard of, and wliich Christians were not exercised with, nor in any measure aware of, he subtilely ruins and overthrows all his offices, and the whole benefit of his mediation, and introduceth secretly a new worship, from that which he appointed, by the means and endeavours of men, pretending to act, and do all that they did, for the advancement of his kingdom and glory. And therefore, whilst the fatal apostacy of the western world, under the Roman antichrist, was contriving, carrying on, and heightening, till it came to its discovery and ruin, he stirs not at all with his old engines, which had brought in a revenue of obedience to his kingdom, in no measure proportionable to this, which by this new device he found accruing to him. But when the appointed time of mercy was come, that God would visit his people with light from above, and begin to unravel the mystery of iniquity, whose abominations had destroyed the souls of them that embraced it, and whose cruelty had cut off the lives of thousands who had opposed it, by the reformation eminently and successively begun and carried on, from the year 1517 ; Satan perceiving that even this his great masterpiece of deceit and subtilty was like to fail him, and not to do him that service, which formerly it had done, he again sets on foot his first design of oppugning the eternal Deity of the Son of God; still remembering that the ruin of his kingdom arose from the Godhead of his person, and the eJEfi-

cacy of his mediation. So that as for the first three hundred years of the profession of the name of Christ in the world, he had variously opposed the Godhead of our blessed Saviour, by Simon Magus, Ebion, Cerinthus, Paulus Samosatenus Marcus, Basilides, Valentinus, Colobarsus, Marcion, Photi-nus, Theodotus, and others ; and from their dissipation and scattering, having gathered them all to a head in Arius and his abomination ; which sometimes with a mighty prevalency offeree and violence, sometimes more subtilely (putting out by the way the several branches of Macedonianism, Nesto-rianism, Eutichianism, all looking the same way in their tendency therewith), he managed almost for the space of the next three hundred years ensuing; and losing at length that hold, he had spent more than double that space of time, in carrying on his design of the great antichristian papal apos-tacy, being about the times before-mentioned most clearly and eminently discovered in his wicked design, and being in danger to lose his kingdom, which he had been so long in possession of; intending if it were possible to retrieve his advantage again; he sets on those men, who had been instrumental to reduce the Christian religion into its primitive state and condition, with those very errors and abominations, wherewith he opposed and assailed the primitive professors thereof. If they will have the apostle's doctrine, they shall have the opposition that was made unto it in the apostles' times. His hopes being possibly the same, that formerly they were; but assuredly Christ will prevent him. For as whilst the professors of the religion of Jesus Christ were spiritual and full of the power of that religion they did profess, they defended the truth thereof, either by suffering, as under Constantius, Valens, and the Goths and Vandals; or by spiritual means and weapons ; so when they were carnal, and lost the life of the gospel, yet endeavouring to retain the truth of the letter thereof, falling on carnal politic ways for the supportment of it, and the suppressing of what opposed it, Satan quickly closed in with them, and accomplished all his ends by them, causing them to walk in all those ways of law, policy, blood, cruelty, and violence, for the destruction of the truth, which they first engaged in, for the rooting out of errors and heresies ; 'baud ignota loquor.' Those who have considered the occasions and advantages of

the bishop of Rome's rise and progress, know these things to be so. Perhaps, I say, he might have thoughts to manage the same or the hke design, at the beginning of the reformation, when, with great craft and subtlety, he set on foot again his opposition to the person of Christ; which being the business chiefly under consideration, I shall give some brief account thereof.

Those who have formerly communicated their thoughts and observations to us, on this subject, have commonly o-iven rise to their discourses from Servetus, with the transactions about him in Helvetia, and the ending of his tragedy at Geneva. The things of him being commonly known, and my design being to deal with them, in their chief seat and residence, where, after they had awhile hovered about most nations of Europe, they settled themselves, I shall forbear to pursue them up and down in their flight, and meet with them only at their nest in Poland, and the regions adjoining. The leaders of them had most of them separated themselves from the papacy, on pretence of embracing the reformed re-lio-ion; and under that covert were a long time sheltered from violence, and got many advantages of insinuating the abominations (which they thoroughly drenched withal, before they left the papacy) into the minds of many who professed the gospel.

The first open breach they made in Poland, was in the year 1562 (something having been attempted before), being most of the leaders, ^Italians, men of subtile and serpentine wits. The chief leaders of them were Georgius Blandrata, Petrus Statorius, Franciscus Lismaninus, all which had been eminent in promoting the reformation.

Upon their first tumultuating, Statorius, to whom afterward Socinus wrote sundry epistles, and lived with him in great intimacy, was summoned to a meeting of ministers, upon an accusation, that he denied that the Holy Spirit was to be invocated. Things being not yet ripe, the man know-inrr that if he were cast out by them, he should not know where to obtain shelter, he secured himself by dissimulation,

f Detribus in una divina essentia personis anno 1562, controversiam moverunt, in min. Pol. Itali quidani advena; ; prsecipui autcni assertores contra S. S. Trinitatera fuerc, Georgius Blandrata Theologus ac RJedicus, Petrus Statorius, Tonvillanus, Franciscus Lismannius Tlieologiae Doctor, quorum tamen ab initio ojiera reforniatiouLs valde fuit Ecclesiffi Dei procliva: Histor. Eccles. Slavon. lio. 1. p. 84.

and subscribed this confession: '§1 receive and reverence the prophetical and apostolical doctrine, containing the true knowledge of God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and freely profess, that God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, ought to be worshipped with the same religion or worship, distinctly, or respectively, and to be invocated according to the truth of the Holy Scripture. And lastly, I do plainly detest every heretical blasphemy, concerning God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, whether it be Arian, Servetian, Eu-nomian, or Starcarian.' And this confession is to be seen in tile acts of that convention, under his own hand to this day ; which, notwithstanding, he was a fierce opposer of the doctrine here professed all his days afterward.

And 1 the rather mention this, because I am not without too much ground of persuasion, that thousands of the same 3 udgment with this man, do at this day, by the like dissimulation, live and enjoy many advantages both in the papacy, and among the reformed churches, spreading the poison of their abominations as they can. This Statorius I find by the frequent mention made of him by Socinus, to have lived many years in Poland, with what end and issue of his life I know not; nor more of him, but what is contained in Beza's two epistles to him, whose scholar he had been, when he seemed to have had other opinions about the essence of God, than those he afterward settled in, by the instruction of Socinus.

And this man was one of the first heads of that multitude of men, commonly known by the name of Anabaptists, among the Papists (who took notice of little but their outward worship); who, having entertained strange, wild, and blasphemous thoughts concerning the essence of God, were afterward brought to a kind of settlement by Socinus, in that religion he had prepared to serve them all, and into his word at last consented the whole droves of Essentiators, Tritheits, Arians, and Sibellians, that swarmed in those days, in Silesia, Moravia, and some other parts of Germany.

? Propheticam et apostolicam doctrinam, quae veram Dei patris, fi!ii, et spiritus sancti cognitionem contiiiet, aniplector ac veneror parique Religione Deuin patrem lilium et spirituiu sanctum distiiicte secundum sacrarum literarum veritatera colen-dum, iraplorandumqueprecibus, libera profiteer. Deniqueomnem hsereticam de Deo patre filio et spirilu sancto blaspheraiam, plane detestor, sive Ariani ilia, sive Serve-tiana, sive Eunomiana, sive Stancoriana. Act Eccles. mino. Pol. sjnod. Piuczovian. An. 1559.

For Blandrata, his story is so well known, from the epistles of Calvin and Beza, and others, that I shall not insist much upon it. Tlie sum of what is commonly known of him is collected by Hornbeck.

The records of the Synods in Poland of the reformed churches, give us somewhat farther of him, as doth Socinus also against Wiek. Being an excellent physician, he was entertained at his first coming into Poland, by Prince Radzivil, the then great patron of the reformed religion in those parts of the world : one of the same family with this captain-general of the Polonian forces, for the great dukedom of Lithuania, a man of great success in many fights and battles against the Muscovites, continuing the same ofiice to this day. To him ''Calvin instantly wrote, that he should take care of Blandrata, as a man not only inclinable to, but wholly infected with, Servetianism,in that, as in many other things, he admonished men of by his epistles, that wise and di-ligentiperson had the fate to tell the truth, and not be believed. See Calvin's epistles, about the year 1561. But the man on this occasion being sent to the meeting at Pinkzow (as Statorius), he subscribes this confession:

" I profess myself to believe in one God the Father, and in one Lord Jesus Christ his Son, and in one Holy Ghost, whereof each is essentially God. I detest the plurality of Gods, seeing to us there is one only God, indivisible in essence ; I confess three distinct persons; the eternal Deity and generation of Jesus Christ; and the Holy Ghost, true and eterna,l God, proceeding from them both.'

This did the wretched man think meet to do, that he might serve the good esteem of his patron and reserve him-

•> De Gcorgio Blandrata, pro singnlari suo ia Ecclcsiam Dei amore praeiuonuit Polonos CI. vir Julian. Cal, quineliani Ilkistrissinnim Principeiii Palalinum, Vilo-censcni, Nicolauiii Radzivilimn, cujus Patrociiiio Blandrata turn utebatur. Siibol-fercrat enini vir doctiis Blandratic ingoniuni ad Servcti sentcntiara esse coniposiluni: itaque scrius principi suasor fuit, ut sibi ab eo cavcret: sed lioino ille facile, tcciniis suis fallacibus, optirao Principi fucuni fecit, adco ut ille iratus Johanni Calvino, Blandratam nomine suo ad S^noduin Pinckzoviensein ainio 1561. 25. Jun. habitani, delegare! cum Uteris, quibus serio postulabat in causa Blandratas, cum Ecclesiac, di-cebatque male et prrecipitanter egissc Calviiuun, quod Blandratam traduccret, et Servetismi notaret. Jiegen. Hist. 1. 1. p. 85.

' Fateor me credere in ununi Dcum patrem ct in unum dominum Jesum Christum filium ejus, ct in unum Spiritum Sanctum, quorum quilibct est cssentialiter Deus ; Dcorum pluralitatem detestor: cum unus tantum sit nobis Deus, essentia indivisi-bilis : fateor Ires esse distiuctas hypostases ; ct ajtcrnam Chrisli Divinitatem et gene-irationeni; et Spiritum Sanctum unum et ;eternum Dcum ab utroque proccdenteuj : Act: Synod. Pinczov. Anno 1561.

THE PREFACE TO THE READER. XXVU

self for a fitter opportunity of doing mischief: which also he did, obtaining a testimonial from the whole meeting of his soundness in the faith, v.'ith letters to prince Radzivil, and to Calvin, signifying the same.

Not long after this, by the great repute of his skill in physic, he became known and physician to Stephen, king of Poland ; by whose favour, having no small liberty indulged him, he became the patron of all the Antitrinitarians of all sorts throughout Poland and Transylvania. What books he wrote and what pains he took in propagating their cause, hath been declared by others. The last epistle of Socinus in order as they are printed (it being without date ; yet evidently written many years before most of them that went before it), is to this Blandrata; whose inscription is, ' Ara-plissimo Clarissimoque viro Georgio Blandratse Stephani invictissimi regis Polonise, &c. Archiatro et conciliario intimo, Domino, ac patrono suo perpetua observantia co--lendo : et subscribitur, Tibi in Domino Jesu deditissimus Cliens Tuus F. S.' To that esteem was he grown amongst them, because of his advantages to insinuate them into the knowledge of great men, which they mostly aimed at. So that afterward, when Socinus wrote his answer about magistrates to Palaeologus in defence of the Racovians, ''Marcel-lus, Squarcialupus's countryman, a man of the same persuasion with him, falls foully on him, that he would venture to do it, without the knowledge and consent of this great patron of theirs.

But though this man by his dissimulation and falsehood thus escaped censure, and by his art and cunning insinuation, obtained high promotions and heaped up great riches in the world, yet even in this life he escaped not the I'evenging hand of God. He was found at length with his neck broke in his bed, by what hand none knoweth. Wherefore 'So-

l' Dixit heri vir amplissimus Blandrata, libruni se tuum contra Palasologuni acce-pisse. Habes tu unum salteni cui sis charissimus, cui omnia debes, qui judicio max-ime poUeat, cur tantum studium, confiliique pondus neglexisti? poteras non tantiim ejus censuram, absoluti jam libri petere, sed consilium postulare de subeundo non levi labore. Et possum affirmare senis consilium tibi fine dubiosi petivisti, profutu-runi fuisse. Ep. Marcel. Square, ad Faust. Socin.

' Monendum lectorem barum reruin ignaruni censui, Blandratam baud paulum ante morlem suam vivente adhuc Stepliano rege Poloniaj, in illius graliara, et quo ilium erga se liberaliorem (ut fecit) redderet, plurimum reraisisse de studio suo in ecclesiis nostris Transilvanicis nostrisque honiinibus juvandis : irao eo tandem deve-nisse ut vix existimaretur prioiem quam tautopere foverat de Deo et Cliristo senten-

XXVlll THE PREFACE TO THE READER.

cinus, observing that this judgment of God upon him, as that of Franciscus David (of which mention shall be made afterward), would be fixed on, in the thoughts of men, to the prejudice of the cause which he favoured, considering more what was for his interest, than what was decent or convenient; descries him for an apostate to the Jesuits, before he was so destroyed; and intimates that he was strangled in his bed by a kinsman whom he had made his heir, for haste to take possession of his great wealth.

The story I have adjoined at large, that the man's ingenuity and thankfulness to his friend and patron may be seen. He tells us that before the death of Stephen, king of Poland, he was turned from their profession by the Jesuits. Stephen, king of Poland, died in the year 1588, according to Helvitus. That very year did Socinus write his answer to Volanus ; the second part whereof he inscribed with all the niagnifical titles before-mentioned to Blandrata; professing himself his devoted client; and him the great patron of their religion. So that though I can easily believe what he reports of his covetousness and treachery, and the manner of his death, yet as to his apostacy (though possibly he might fall more and more under the power of his Atheism), I suppose the great reason of imputing that to him, was to avoid the scandal of the fearful judgment of God on him in his death.

For Lismaninus, the third person mentioned, he was accused of Arianism at a convention at "'Morden^ anno 1353, and there acquitted with a testimonial. But in the year 1561, at another meeting at Whodrislave, he was convicted of double dealing, and after that wholly fell off" to the Anti-trinitarians, and in the issue "drowned himself in a well.

And these were the chief settled troublers at the first, of the Polonian reformed churches; the stories of Paulus Al-

tiam rctinere, sed potius Jcsuitis qui in ea provincia tunc teniporis Stophani regis et ejus fratris CliiistoplK'ri liautl iiuilto ante vitani fundi o|)eac llberalitate non nie-diociitcr, floicbant, jam adha^rere aut ccrte cum eis qiioilammodo colludere. lllud ccrtissiuium est, cum ab co ten)porc quo liberalitatem quam ambiebdi regis Stepbani erga sc est expertus, cccpissc quosdam ex nostris hominibus quos charissimos prius liabebat, et suis opibus juvabat spernere, ac descrerc, etiani contra promissa et obli-gationeni suani, et tandem illos penitus deseruisse, atque omni vera; et sincere pie-tatis studio valedixisse, et solis |)ecuviis congorendis iiitentum fuisse, qua; forlasse justissimo ])ei judicio, quod gravissimum exercere solet contra tales desertores, ei nccem ab eo quern suum lieredem fecerat conciiiarunt. Socinus ad VVeik. cap. 2. p. -io, 14:.

THE PREFACE TO THE READER. XXlX

ciatus, Valentinus Gentilis, Bernardus Ochinus, and some others, are so well known out of the epistles of Calvin, Beza, Bullinser, Zanchius, witli what hath of late from them been collected by Cloppenburgius, Hornbeck, Maresius, Becma-nuus, &c. that it cannot but be needless labour forme to go over them again. That which I aim at is, from their own writings, and what remains on record concerning them, to give a brief account of the first breaking in of Autitrinita-rianism into the reformed churches of Poland, and their confused condition, before headed by Socinus, into whose name they have since been all baptized.

This, then, was the state of the churches in those days. The reformed religion spreading in great abundance, and churches being multiplied every day in Poland, Lithuania, and the parts adjoining; some tumults having been raised, and stirs made by Osiander and Stancarus, about the essential righteousness and mediation of Christ (concerning which the reader may consult Calvin at large), many wild and foolish opinions being scattered up and down, about the nature of God, the Trinity, and Anabaptism, by many foreigners; sundry being thereby defiled ; the opinions of Servetus having wholly infected sundry Italians. The persons before spoken of then living at Geneva, and about the towns of the Switzers, that embraced the gospel, being forced to flee for fear of being dealt withal as Servetus was (the judgment of most Christian rulers in whose days leading them to such a procedure, how rightly I do not now determine), scarce anyone of them escaping without imprisonment and abjuration (an ill foundation of their after profession); they went most of them into Poland, looked on by them as a place of liberty, and joined themselves to the reformed churches in those places. And continuing many years in their communion, took the opportunity to entice and seduce many ministers with others, and to strengthen them who were fallen into the abominations mentioned, before their coming to them.

After many tergiversations, many examinations of them, many false subscriptions, in the year °1562, they fell into

" Cum dici jus non possint in ecclesia delitescere, manifesto scismate Petriconias anno 156'i, iiabito priiis colloqiiio earn scindunt et in sententiani suani pertrahunt pluriraos turn ex ministris, tuni ex Patronis. Ministri qui partem eoruni sequebantur erant in principio Gregofias Pauli, &c. Histor. Ecclesi. Slavon. Regn. lib. 1. p. 86.

open division and separation from the reformed churches. The ministers that fell off with them, besides Lismannus and his companion (of whom before), were Gregorius Pauli, Stanislaus, Lutonius Martinus Crovicius, Stanislaus Pacle-sius, Georgius Schonianus, and others ; most of whom before had taken good pains in preaching the gospel. The chief patrons and promoters were Johannes Miemoljevius, Hie-ronymusPhiloponiuSjJohannesCazaccovius, the oneajudge, the other a captain, the third a gentleman, all men of great esteem.

The Pyear that this breach was made, Laelius Socinus, then of the age of thirty-seven years, who laid the foundations that his nephew after built upon, died in Switzerland; as the author of the life of Faustus Socinus informs us. The man's life is known: he was full of Servetianism, and had attempted to draw sundry men of note to his abominations. A man of great subtilty and cunning, as ^Beza says of him, incredibly furnished for contradiction and sophisms ; which the author of the life of Socinus's phrases, he was ' sugge-rendse veritatis.mirus artifex.' He made, as I said, many private attempts on sundry persons to entice them to Pho-tinianism; on some with success, on others without. Of his dealing with him, and the advantage he had so to do, ""Zan-chius gives an account in his preface to his book 'DeTribus Elohim.'

He was, as the author of the life of Faustus Socinus relates, in a readiness to have published his notions and conceptions, when God by his merciful providence, to prevent a little the pouring out of the poison, by so skilful a hand, took him off by sudden death; and Faustus himself gives

P Lxlius iiiteiiin prceniatura morte extiiictus est: incidit mors in diem parendinum id. Mail. 1562, aetatifi vcro ejus spptinii supra trigessimum. Eqiics Polon. vita Faus. Socin. Senens.

q Faitetiain Lrelius Socinus Senensis incrcdibiliter ad contradiceiidum et varios necteiulos nodes comparatiis; ncc nisi post mortem cognitus, liujusmodi pernicio-sissimis liasresibus iaborarc. Epist. ad F>cclc. Orthodox. Epist. 81.

r Fuit is Lffilius nobili bonestacpie faniilia natus, bene Grajce ct Hebraice doctus, vita^quc etiani extcrnec inculpatao quurum rerum causa mihi quoqne intercesserat cum illo non vulgaris amicitia, scd homo fuit plenus diversarum liajrcsium, quas tamen mihi nunquam proponebat nisi disputandi causa, et semper interrogans, quasi cupc-retdoceri: banc vero Samosatanianani imprimis annos uuiltos fovit, et quoscunque potuit pertraxit in eundem errorem: pcrtraxit autem non paucos: me quoquc ut dixi divcrsis tentabat rationibus, si eodcm possit errore simul, ct atcrno exitio seeum involvere. Zanch. Prefat. ad lib. de tribus.

THE PREFACE TO THE READER. XXXI

the same account of the season of his death in an epistle to Dudithius ^

At his death, Faustus Socinus, being then about the age of twenty-three years, seizing upon all his uncle's books, after awhile returned into Italy; and there spent in courtship and idleness in Florence twelve years, which he afterward grievously lamented, as shall be declared. Leaving him awhile to his pleasure in the court of the great duke, we may make back again into Poland, and consider the progress of the persons, who made way for his coming amongst them. Having made their separation, and drawn many after them, they at length brought their business to that height, that they came to a disputation* with the reformed ministers at Petricove (where the parliament of the kingdom then was), by the permission of Sigismund the King, in the year 1565, whereof the ensuing account is given by Antonius Possevine the Jesuit, in Atheis. sui sseculi, cap. 13. fol. 15.

The assembly of states was called against the Musco-vians; the mobility desiring a conference between the ministers of the reformed churches and the Antitrinitarians, it was allowed by Sigismund the king. On the part of the reformed churches, there were four ministers: as many of the other side came also prepared for the encounter.

Being met, after some discourse, the chief martial of the kingdom, then a Protestant, used these words : " ' Seeing the

proposition to be debated is agreed on, begin in the name

of the one God, and the Trinity.'

Whereupon one of the opposite party instantly cried

out;

" ' We cannot here say amen: nor do we know that God,

the Trinity.'

Whereunto the ministersv subjoined,' we have no need of

any other proposition, seeing this hath offered itself; for,

s Cum aniicorum precibas permotus tandem constituisset, atque etiam ccepisset, saltern inter ipsos, nonnuila in apertura proferre. Socin. ad Andrajum Dudithiura.

' Cum his Antitrinitariis publicani habuerunt evangelic! disputationem Petrico-viae in comitiis regni Sigism. 11. Aug. rege permittente Anno. 1565. Disputatores fuerunt, &c. Regcnvolscius. ubi supra.

» Jam igitur constituta propositione qua de agendum est, in nomine Dei unius ct Trinitatis exordimini.

■'« Nos vero hie non dicimus Amen, neque enim nos novimus Deum istum Trini-tatem.

y Nulla jam alia propositione nobis opus est, cum hfec se obtuierit, nos autem Deo volente, et volumus, et parati sumus deraonstrare, quod Spiritus Sanctus non

XXXll THE PREFACE TO THE READER.

God assisting, we will, and are ready to, demonstrate that the Holy Ghost doth not teach ns any other God in the Scripture, but him only, who is Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; that is, one God in Trinity.'

This colloquy continued three days. In the first, the ministers who were the ojjponents (the other always choosing to answer), by express texts of Scripture in abundance, confirmed the truth. In the beginning of their testimonies, they appealed to the ''beginning of the Old and New Testament, and upon both places confounded their adversaries.

The second day, the testimonies of the ancient writers of the church were produced, with no less success.

And on the third, The stories of Arius, and some other heretics of old. The issue of the disputation was to the great advantage of the truth, which Possevine himself cannot deny ; though he affirm a little after, that the Calvinists could not confute the Trinitarians, as he calls them, though they used the same arguments that the Catholicks did; chap. 14. p. 366.

" Possevine confesses, that the ministers (as they called themselves of Salmatia and Transylvania), in their book of the true and false knowledge of God, took advantage at the images of the Catholicks ; for whose satisfaction, it seems, he subjoins the theses ofThyreus,_whereinhe labours to prove the use of those abominable idols to be lawful; of which in the close of this address.

And this was the first great obstacle that was laid in the way of the progress of the reformed religion in Poland; v^rhich, by Satan's taking the advantage of this horrible scandal, is at this day in those parts of the world, weak and oppressed. With what power the gospel did come upon

aliura nos Deum in Scriptura doceat, nisi soluni Patrcm.Filium, et Spiritum Sauctum, id est, Dfuni ununi in Trinitate.

^ Nos quideni o amici liaud difficulter poterinius vobiscuin earn rem transigere, nam ubi priiiium biblia aperueiilis, et initiuni vetcris et novas legis considcraveritis, statim oft'endctis, id ibi asseri quod vos pernegatis, sic enini Geneseos prinio Scriptura loquitur. ' Faciaimis honiineni ad imagineni nostram.' Nostrani inquit, non nieain : postea vero addit, Fecit Deus. Nova auteni legis iniiiiim hoe est. Vcrbuin erat apud Deuni, et vcrbum erat Deus. Videlis ut in vetcri lege loquatur unus Deus tanquara de tribus; hie vero quod Fiiius, verbuni a,>ternuni (nam quod ab initio erat, EEternuni est) erat apud Deum, et erat idem, non ahus, uti vos perperani interpreta-mini, Deus.

* Mox agunt de imaginibus sanctissimtc Trinitatis, non content! sinipliciorum quorundani picturas convellere, eas item quaj ab Ecclesia Catholica rite usur|)ata; sunt, sconiruatibus et blasphemis carminibus proscindunt. Anton. Possev. Lib. 8. cap. 15,16.

THE PREFACE TO TJIE READER. XXXlll

the inhabitants of those nations at the first, and what number of persons it prevailed upon to forsake their dumb idols, which in Egyptian darkness they had long worshipped ; is evident from the complaint of ''Cichovius, the priest, who tells us, that'about those times in the whole parliament of the dukedom of Lithuania, there were not above one or two Catholicks,' as he calls them, 'besides the bishops.'

Yea, among the bishops themselves, some were come off to the reformed churches, amongst whom Georgius Petro-vicius, bishop of Sarmogitia, is reckoned by Diatericus, Chron. p. 49.

Yea, and so far had the gospel influenced those nations, that in the year 1542, upon the death of king Sigismund the second, during the interregnum, a decree was made in parliament with general consent, that no prejudice should arise to any for the protestant religion ; but that a firm union should be between the persons of both religions. Popish and Protestant. And that whosoever was chosen king, should take an oath to preserve this union, and the liberty of the Protestant religion. (Sarricius. Annal. Pol. lib. 8. p. 403.)

And when ''Henr)^ duke of Anjou, brother to Charles the ninth, king of France, was elected king of Poland (being then a man of great esteem in the world, for the wars which in France he had managed for the Papists against the Prince of Conde, and the never enough magnified ''Gasper Coligni, being also consenting at least, to the barbarous massacre of the Protestants in that nation), and coming to the church where he was to be crowned, by the advice of the clergy, would have avoided the oath of preserving the Protestants, and keeping peace between the dissenters in religion j John Shirli, Palatine of Cracovia, took up the crown, and making ready to go away with it out of the convention, cried out,

^ Profecto illis temporibus res catliolicorum fere deplorataerat; cum in amplissi-mo senatu vix unus aut alter proeter Episcopos repcriebatur. Casper Cicovius Canon, et Parock. Sardom. Alloquia.

<= Neque vero hoc juranienluin pro tuenda pace evangelica prajslitisset, nisi euni Johannes Shirli Palatiiius Cracoviensis, vir pienus zeii et niagns cum potentia autho-ritatis, adegisset; fertnr cnim cum rex Henricus jam coronaiidus esset nee paccni inter dissidentes se conservaturum jurasset, sed sileiitio illudere vellet, acceptaquas regi turn praferebalur corona, exituni ex tcn)plo parasse, et in ha?c prorupisse verba, si non jurabis non regnabis. Hist. Eccles. Slavon. Regenvol. lib. 1. p. 92.

•^ Condreo succedit Colignius, vir natalibus et militia clarus, qui nisi regi suo mo-veret bellum, dissidii fomes et caput, virtutis heroicas exemplar erat, supra antiquos duces, quos niirata est Griecia, quos Roma extulit. Gramond. Histor. Gal. lib. 6.

* Si non jurabis non regnabis: if you will not swear you shall not reign ;' and thereby compelled him to take the oath agreed upon.

This progress, I say, had the doctrine of the gospel made in those nations, so considerable a portion of the body of the people were won over to the belief of it, when, through the craft and subtlety of the old enemy of the propagation thereof, this apostacy of some to Treithism, as Georgius Pauli; of some to Arianisra, as ErasmusJohannes; of some to Photinianism, as Statorius Blandrata; some to Judaism, as Sidelius, of whom afterward ; the foundation of the whole building was loosened; and, instead of a progress, the religion has gone backwards almost constantly to this day. When this difference first fell out, the 'Papists not once moved a mouth, or pen for a long time, against the broachers of all the blasphemies mentioned, hoping that by the breaches made by them on the reformed churclifis, they should at length be able to triumph over both. .For which end, in their disputes since with Protestants, they have striven to make advantage of the apostacy of many of those who had pretended to plead against the Papacy, in behalf of the reformed churches, and afterward turned Antitrinitarians : as I remember it is particularly insisted on in an English treatise which I saw many years ago, called Micheus, the converted Jew : and indeed it is supposed, that both '^Paulus Alciatus and Ochinus turned Mahometans.

Having thus then disturbed the carrying on of the reformation, many ministers and churches falling off to Tri-theism and Samosatenianism, they laid the foundation of their meeting at Racovia, from which place they have been most known since, and taken notice of in the world. The first foundation of what they call the church in that place, was made by a confluence of strangers out of ^Bohemia and

« Quid interea bonus ille Hosus Cardinalis cum suis Catliolicis? Nenipe ridcre suavitcr, et quasi ista nihil ad ipsos pcrtiiu'rei't, aliud quidvis agere, inio etiam nos-Iros uiidiqiic, ad extlngucnduiu lioc inceiidiuin accurcnles, probrosis libellis arcessere. Bez. Ep.8l.

f Cum Gentilis de Paulo Alciato sodali suo rogaretur, factus estinquit Maliome-tanus. Beza. Epist. ubi supra.

e Erant alii quoquc Antitriuitarii sectre Anabaptistica; per Bohsemiam et Mora-viaui lotigc lateque serpcntis scctatnrcs, qui absurdam illam bonorum comniunioncui, obscrvaturi ultro abjectis suis conditionibus Racoviam se contulerunt. Novaai Hicru ■ salem ibi loci exlriicturi,(ut aiebaiit) ad banc ineptain societatem plurinios invitnbant Bobiics, &ic, Regun. lib. 1. p. 90.

Moravia, with some Polonians, known only by the name of Anabaptists, but professing a community of goods, and a setting up of the kingdom of Christ; calling Racovia, where they met, the New Jerusalem, or at least professing, that there they intended to build and establish the New Jerusalem, with other fanatical follies, which Satan hath revived in persons not unlike them, and caused to be acted over again in the days wherein we live ; though for the most part, with less appearance of holiness and integrity of conversation than in them who went before.

The leaders of these men who called themselves their ministers, were GregoriusPauli, and Daniel Bielenscius; of whom Bielenscius afterward recanted, and '^Gregorius Pauli being utterly wearied, ran away from them, as from a hard service.

And as Faustus Socinus tells us in his preface to his answer to Palseologus, in his old age left off all study, and betook himself to other employments : such were the persons by whom this stir began.

This Gregorius Pauli, 'Schlusselburgius very ignorantly affirms to have been the head of the Antitrinitarians, and their captain, when he was a mere common trooper amongst them, and followed after others, running away betimes : an enthusiastical, antimagistratical heretic, pleading for community of goods. But this Gregory had said, that Luther did but the least part of the work, for the destruction of antichrist; and thence is the anger of Doctor Cunradus, who every where shews himself as zealous of the honour of Luther, as of Jesus Christ. So was the man, who had some divinity, but scarce any Latin at all.

Be pleased now to take a brief view of the state of these men, before the coming of Faustus Socinus into Poland and Transylvania ; both those nations, after the death of Sigis-mund the second, being in the power of the same family of the Bathori. Of those who professed the reformed religion,

'i Quid commeinorem aniniosi illius Gregorii Pauli insalufato suo grege fugam, Bez.

'Novi istiAriani exorti sunt in Polonia, Lithuania, et ipsa nimirum Transylvania, ac eorum caput et ducem se prolitetur Gregorius Pauli minister Ecclesiffi Racovien-sis, homo impius, arabitiosus, et in blaspheniiis eft'utiendis plane eft'rsnis ; et ila quidera jactabuiidus, ut adscribere sibi, cum aliis Arianis, non vereatur excisionem anticliristi; et ejusdera extirpationeni ab imis fundanicntis : Lutlierura enira vix minimain partem revelationis autichristi reliquisse; Schluftelburgh, de Antitri. p. 3.

p 2

XXXVl THE PREFACE TO THE READER.

and were fallen from the Papacy, there were three sorts; Lutherans, and Calvinists, and the united brethren; which last were originally Bohemian exiles; but, professing and practising a more strict way of church order and fellowship than the other, had very many of the nobility of Poland, and the people joined to their connnunion. The two latter agreed in all points of doctrine, and at length came in sundry meetings and Synods to a fair agreement and correspondency, forbearing one another, wherein they could not concur in judgment. Now as these grew up to union amongst themselves, the mixed multitude of several nations that had joined themselves with them in their departure out of Egypt, fell a lusting after the abominations mentioned ; and either withdrew themselves, or were thrown out from their communion.

At first there were almost as many minds as men amongst them : the tessera of their agreement among themselves, being purely opposition to the Trinity, upon what principles soever; had a man learned to blaspheme the Holy Trinity, were it on Photinian, Arian, Sabellian, yea, Mahometan, or Judaical principles, he Vv'as a companion and brother amongst them. To this, the most of them added Anabaptism, with the necessity of it, and among the Papists were known by no other name. That they opposed the Trinity, that they consented not to the reformed churches, was their religion : for Pelagianism, afterward introduced by Socinus, there was little or no mention among them. In this estate, divided amongst themselves, notwithstanding some attempts in their Synods (for Synods they had) to keep a kind of peace in all their diversities of opinions, spending their time in disputes and quarrellings, were they when Faustus Socinus came into Poland, who at length brought them into the condition wherein they are, by the means and ways that shall be farther insisted on.

And this state of things, considering how not unlike the condition of multitudes of men is thereunto in these nations wherein we live, hath oftentimes made me fear, that if Satan should put it into tiu- heart of any person of learning and ability, to serve his Inst and ambition with craft, wisdom, and diligence, it were not impossible for him to gather the dispersed, and divided opinionatists of our days to a consent in some such body of religion, as that which Socinus framed

THE PREFACE TO THE READER. XXXVll

for the Polonians. But of him, his person, and labours, by what ways and means he attained his end, it may not be unacceptable from his own, and friends' writings to give some farther account.

That Faustius Socinus, of Sene, was born of a good and ancient family, famous for their skill in the law, in the month of December, in the year 1539 ; that he lived in his own country, until he was about the age of twenty years. That then leaving his country after his uncle Laslius, he went to Leyden, and lived there three years. That then upon the death of his uncle, having got his books, he returned into Italy, and lived in the court of the great duke of Tuscany twelve years; about the close of which time he wrote his bookinltalian, 'de AuthoritateSacraeScripturse.' Thatleav-ing his country he came to Basil, in Switzerland, and abode there three years, and somewhat more, are things commonly known, and so little to our purpose, that I shall not insist upon them.

All the vv'hile he was at Basil, and about Germany, he kept his opinions much to himself, being*" intent upon the study of his uncle Leelius's notes, as the Polonian gentleman who wrote his life confesseth: whereunto he added the dialogues of Bernard us Ochinus, as himself acknowledgeth, which, about that time were turned into Latin by' Castellio, as he professed, to get money by his labour to live upon (though'" he pleads that he read Ochinus's dialogues in Poland, and as it seems not before); and from thence he was esteemed to have taken his doctrine of the mediation of Christ.

The papers of his uncle Lselius, of which himself often makes mention, were principally his comment upon the first chapter of St. John, and some notes upon sundry texts of Scripture, giving testimony to the Deity of Christ; among

^ Illic sollidura trlennium quod excnrrit theologia; studio incubuit, paucissimis Lselii patrui scriptis et pluribus ab iis relictis notis multum adjutus est. Vita Fausti Socini.

' Bernardini Ocliini Dialogos transtuli, non ut judex, sed ut translator; etexejus-modi opera ad alendani familiam quffistuiu facere solitus. Castel. Apol.

m Illud certissiinuin est, Gregoriura Zarnovecium ministruin ut vocant evangelicum qui nomiualini ad versus disputationem meara de Jesu Christo Salvatore libellum Po-lonice edidit, in ejus praefatione asserit, me ex Ochini dialogis annis ab hinc circiter trigiiita quiiique editis sentetitiam iiiius nieoe disputationis accepisse, nam certe in Dialogis illis, quorum non pauca exempla jaradiu in ipsa Polonia niihi videre con-tigit,&c. Faust. Socin. Episf. ad Martinum Vadovituni Acad. Craco. Professorera.

XXXVIU THE PREFACE TO THE READER.

which Faustus extols that abominable corruption of John viii. 58. of which afterward 1 shall speak at large. Socin. Respon. ad Eras. Johan. His comment on the first of John, "Beza tells us, is the most depraved and corrupt that ever was put forth ; its author having outgone all that went before him in depraving that portion of Scripture.

The comment itself is published by Junius,' in defensione sanctffi Trinitatis,' and confuted by him ; and Zanchius, at large,'de tribus Elohim. lib. 6. cap. 2.etdeinceps;' Faustus varying something from his uncle in the carrying on of the same design.

His book, * de Jesu Christo servatore,' he wrote, as the author of his life assures us, whilst he was in, and about Basil; as also many passages in his epistles and other writings manifest.

Aboufthe year 1575, he began it, which he finished about the year 1578; although the book was not printed till the year 1594. For, upon the divulging of it (he then living at Cracovia), a tumult was raised against him by the unruly and disorderly students, wherein he was dragged up and down, and beaten, and hardly escaped with his life; which inhuman precedence he expostulates at large in an epistle to Martin Vaidovita, a professor of the university, by whose means he was delivered from being murdered. But this fell out in the year 1598, as is evident from the date of that epistle, four years after the book was printed.

The book is written against one Covet, whom I know by nothing else, but what of his disputes with Socinus is by him published. Socinus confesseth that he was a^ learned man, and in repute for learning. And, indeed, if we may take an estimate of the man from the little that is there delivered of him, he was a godly, honest, and very learned man, and spake

" Lrelius in Samosafcni paries clam traiisiit; verbo Dei lit ex quodam ejus scripto nunc liquet adeo veteralorie ct plane veisutc depravato, ac pripsertini prinio cvan-gelii Joliann. capitc, ut niilii quidcm vidcatur ouines ejus coiruptorcs superasse. BezaKpist. 81.

o Cum Basiliae degeret ad annum usque 1575 dum lumen sibi exortum, ad alios propagarc studet, ab ainicis ad alienos sensim dllapso disserendi argumento, dispu-tationeni de Jesu Chrislo Servatore ore priniura intlioataiu, postca scripto coiupiex-us est: cui anno 1578 suramam nianum iniposuit. Eques I'oloii. \'ita Socin.

P Et sane niirum est cum bonis Uteris ut audio, et ex sermone queni simul lia-buiraus conjicere, atque ex tuis scriptis pofui sisadmodum ex cultus te id iion vidissc. Socin. de Senratore, 1. 1. part 1. c. 10.

as much iu the cause as might be expected, or was needful before farther opposition was made to the truth he did defend. Of all the books of him concerning whom we speak, thishis disputation ' de Jesu Christo Servatore' is written with the greatest strength, subtlety, and plausibility ; neither is any thing said afterward by himself, or the rest of his followers, that is not comprised in it. Of this book he was wont afterward toi boast, as Crellius informs us, and to say,'that if he might have some excellent adversary to deal withal upon the point, he then would shew what could farther be spoken of the subject.'

This book at its first coming out, was confuted by Gre-gorius Zarnovecius (as Socinus testifies in his epistle to Vadovita) in the Polonian language, which was afterward translated into Latin by Conradus Huberus, and printed at Franeker, an. 1618. Also, by one Otho Casmannus; and thirdly, at large, by Sibrandus Lubbertus, anno 1611; who, together with his refutation, printed the whole book itself: I hope to no disadvantage of the truth, though a late apostate to Rome, whom we called here "^Hugh Cressey, but is lately commenced B. Serenus Cressey, a priest of the order of Benedict, and who would have been even a Carthusian, (such high honour did the man aim at) tells us, that some of his scholars procured him to do it, that so they might get the book itself in their hands. But the book will speak for itself with indifferent readers, and for its clearness is extolled by^ Vossius. Generally, all that have since written of that subject, in theses, commonplaces, lectures, comments, professed controversies, have made that book the ground of their procedure.

One is not to be omitted, which is in the hands of all those who inquire into these things, or think that they are concerned in the knowledge of them: this is Grotius's * Defensio fidei catholicse de satisfactione Christi, adversus Faustum SocinumSenensem.' Immediately upon the coming-out of that book, animadversions were put forth against it

1 Audiviraus ex iis qui famiiiariter ipso sunt usi, cum significasse, sicut turn jacla-batur, excellens sibi si contingeret adversarius, qui librum de Jesu Christo servatore adoriretur, tuin demum se totum hoc arguraentum ab origine explicaturum. Crelli. Prsefat. Respon. ad Grot. p. 12.

•■ Exoniologesis of Hugh Paulin de Cressey, &c.

» Postluculeutas Sibrandi Luberti commentationes adversum Socinum cditas Vos. resp. ad judicium Ravcnsp.

by Harmannus Ravenspergerus, approved, as'it seems, by *our doctor Prideaux.

The truth is, those animadversions of Ravenspergerus are many of them slight, and in sundry things he was mistaken, whereby his endeavours were easily eluded by the learned Vossius," in his vindication of Grotius against hira. Not that the dissertation of Grotius is free from being liable to many and just exceptions, partly in things v.lierein he was mistaken, partly wherein he failed in what he undertook (v.'hereby many young students are deluded, as ere long may be manifested); but that his antagonist had not well laid his action, nor did pursue it with any skill.

However, the interpretations of Scripture, given therein by that learned man, will rise up in judgment against many of the annotations, which in his after-comments on the Scripture he hath divulged. His book was at length answered by Crellius, the successor of Valentinus Smalcius, in the school and society of Racovia ; after which Grotius lived about twenty years, and never attempted any reply. Hereupon it has been generally concluded, that the man was wrought over to drink in that, which he had before published to be the" most destructive poison of the church ; the belief whereof was exceedingly increased and cherished by an epistle of his to Crellius, who had subtilely managed the man, according to his desire of honour and regard, and by his annotations, of which we shall have cause to speak afterward. That book of Crellius has since been at large con-futed byy Essenius, and enervated by a learned and ingenuous author in his 'Specimen refutationis Crellii de Satisfactions Christi;' published about the same time with the well-deserving labour of Essenius, in the year 1648.

Most of the arguments and sophisms of Socinus about this business are refuted and dissolved by David Parous, in his comment on the Romans, not mentioning the name of him, whose objections they were.

About the year 1608, Michael Gitichius gathered together the sum of what is argumentative in that book of

'In eosdeniexercuitstylum ut Socinianismi suspicioncm amoliretur Hugo Grotius, sed praevaricantem aliquotics vellicat in censura, Ravenspergerus. Prideaux lecti. dc justificaiione.

" Vossii rcspon. ad judicium Ravensperger.

* Praeseiitissiiimni ccclcsia; vencnuiu. >' 'J'riumpiuis Crucis Auforc AikI. Essen.

THE PREFACE TO THE READER. xU

Socinns, against the satisfaction of Christ, which was answered by^ Ludovicus Lucius, professor then at Hamburgh, and the reply of Gitichius, confuted and removed out of the way by the same hand. In that brief rescript of Lucius, there is a clear attempt to the enervating of the whole book of Socinus, and that with good success, byway of a logical and scholastical procedure. Only I cannot but profess my sorrow, that having in his first answer laid that solid foundation of the necessity of the satisfaction of Christ, from the eternal nature and justice of God, whereby it is absolutely impossible, that upon the consideration and supposition of sin committed, it should be pardoned without a due compensation ; in his rejoinder to the reply of Gitichius, he closes with a commonly known expression of Augustine: 'That" God could, if he would, have delivered us without satisfaction, but he would not.' So casting down the most stable and unmoveable pillar of that doctrine, which he so dexterously built up, in spite of its adversaries.

I dare boldly acquaint the younger students in these weighty points of the religion of Jesus Christ, that the truth of this one particular, concerning the eternal justice of God, indispensably requiring the punishment of sin, being well established (for which end they have not only the consent, but the arguments of almost all who have handled these controversies with skill and success), will securely carry them through all the sophisms of the adversaries, and cut all the knots, which with so much subtlety they endeavour to tie, and cast upon the doctrine of the satisfaction of Christ, as I have in part' elsewhere demonstrated. From this book did also Smalcius take the whole of what he has delivered about the death of Christ in his Racovian catechism, not adding any thing at all of his own; which cc.techisra as it was heretofore confuted by Frederick Bauldvvinus, by order of the university of Wittenburgh, and is by several parcels by many removed out of the way, especially by Altin-gius, and Maccovius; so of late it is wholly answered by

^ De gravisslma quajstione iitrum Christus pro peccatis nostris justitiae divinae satisfecerit necne ? scliolastica disputatio.

a Gitichio itaqiie de absohitaDei potentia seu potestate (de qua nulla nobis du-bitatio) inaniter blaterantt, elegantissimis Augustini verbis respondeo, Omnia Deus potuit si voiuisset, &;c. Lucius ad Gitich. p. 110.

'' Diatrib. de justit. Divin. Viud.

'^Nicholaus Arnoldus, now professor at Franeker, which coming lately to my hands prevented me from proceeding to a just, orderly refutation of the whole, as I was intended to do, although I hope the reader will not find any thing of importance therein omitted.

To close the story of this book of Socinus, and the progress it hath made in the world. This I dare assure them, who are less exercised in these studies, that tliough the whole of the treatise have at first view a very plausible pretence and appearance, yet there is a line of sophistry running through it, which being once discovered (as indeed it may be easily felt) with the help of some few principles, the whole fabric of it will fall to the ground, and appear as weak and contemptible a piece, as any we have to deal withal in that warfare, which is to be undertaken for the truths of the gospel. This also I cannot omit, as to the rise of this abomination of denying the satisfaction of Christ; that as it seems to have been first invented by the Pelagians, so in after ages, it was vented by Petrus Abailardus, professor of philosophy at Paris; of whom Bernard, who wrote against him, saith ; * Habemusin Francia novum de vetere magistro Theologum, qui ab ineunte oetate sua in arte lusit dialectica, et nunc in scripturis Sanctis insanit.' And in his'' epistle (which is to pope Innocent) about him, he strongly confutes his imaginations about this very business, whereupon he was condemned in a^ council at Rome, held by the same Innocent.

This part of our faith being of so great weight and importance, the great basis and foundation of the church, you will find it at large insisted on and vindicated, in the ensuing treatise.

The*^ author of the life of Socinus tells us (as he himself also gives in the information), that whilst he abode about Switzerland, at Basil, and Tiguri, he had a dispute with Puccius, which also is since published : this was before his going into Poland, in the year 1578.

The story of this Puccius, because it may be of some use, as to the present estate of the minds of many in the things of God, I shall briefly give from Socinus himself;

<= Religio Sociniani icfiitata. <• Bernard. Epist. 190.

" Baroni. ad ann. 1140. f Aliam interim cutii Francisco Puccio incuntc. an. 1578. Tiguri confecil. Vi^^ Fausti Socin.

THE PREFACE TO THE READER. xliil

(Epist. 3. ad Matt. Radec) and that as a tremendous example of the righteous judgment of God, giving up a person of a light unstable spirit to fearful delusions, with a desperate issue. Originally^ he was a merchant, of a good and noble family ; but leaving his profession he betook himself to study, and for his advantage therein came hither to'' Oxford. After he had stayed here until he began to vent some paradoxes in religion, about the year 1565 (being not able here to prevail with any to close with him), he went to Basil, where there was a dispute between him and Socinus before-mentioned; in the issue whereof, they both professed, that they could agree in nothing in religion, but, that there was a God that made the world. At Basil he maintained universal redemption, and a natural faith, as they then termed it; or an innate power of believing without the efficacy of the grace of God ; for which he was compelled thence to depart; which doing he returned again into England ; where, upon the same account he was cast into prison for a season; thence being released, he went into Holland ; from whence by letters he challenged Socinus to dispute, and went one thousand miles (viz. to Cracovia ia Poland) afterward, to make it good. After some disputes there (both parties condescending to them on very ridiculous conditions), Socinus seeming to prevail, by having most friends among the judges, as the other professed, he stayed there awhile, and wrote a book, which he styled the ' Shut Bible, and of Elias ;' wherein he laboured to deny all ordinances, ministry, and preaching, until Elias should come and restore all things. His reason was taken from the defection and apostacy of the church ; wherein, said he, all truth and order w^as lost, the state of the church beino; not again to be recovered, unless some with apostolical authority and power of working miracles were immediately-sent of God for that purpose. How far this persuasion hath prevailed with some in our days, we all know and lament. Puccius at length begins to fancy, that he shall himself be employed in this great restoration, that is to be made of the church by immediate mission from God. Whilst he was in

g Ex nobili adraodam familia, qu?e etiam tres Cardinales habuit, natus, merca-tura relicta se totuni sacrarura literarum studio tradidit.

•> Quod utcoiuinodius facere posset in Angliam se contulit, ibique in Oxoniensi Gjmnasio aliquandiu se exercuit, »kc.

expectation of his call hereunto, there comes two Englishmen into Poland; men pretending discourse with angels and revelations from God ; one of them was the chief at revelations (their names 1 cannot learn), the other gave out what he received, in his daily converse with angels, and words he heard from God, about the destruction of all the present frame of the worship of God. To these men Puccius joined liimself, and followed them to Prague in Bohemia, though his friends dealt with him to the contrary, assuring him, that one of his companions was a mountebank, and the other a magician; but,_being full of his^former persuasions, of the ceasing of all ordinances and institutions, with the necessity of their restitution by immediate revelation from God, having got companions fit to harden him in his folly and presumption, he scorned all advice and away he went to Prague. No sooner came he thither, but his prophet had a revelation by an angel, that Puccius must become Papist; his cheating companion having never been otherwise. Accordingly he turns Papist, begs pardon publicly for his deserting the Roman church, is reconciled by a priest; in whose society, after he had awhile continued and laboured to pervert others to the same superstition with himself, he died a desperate magician. Have none in our days been led in the like maze ? hath not Satan led some in the same circle, setting out from superstition to profaneness, passing through some zeal and earnestness in religion, rising to a contemptof ministry and ordinances, with an expectation of revelations, and communion with angels ? And how many have again sunk down into popery, atheism, and horrible abominations, is known to all in this nation, who think it their duty to inquire into the things of God. I have given this instance, only to manifest that the old enemy of our salvation is not playing any new game of deceit and temptation, but such as he hath successfully acted in former generations. Let not us be ignorant of his deceits.

By the way a little farther to take in the consideration of men like minded with him, last mentioned. Of those who denied all ordinances, and maintained such an utter loss, and defection of all church, state, and order, that it was impossible it should be restored without new apostles, evidencing their ministry by miracles, this was commonly

the issue ; that being pressed with this, that there was nothing needful to constitute a church of Christ, but that there were a company of men believing in Jesus Christ, receiving the word of God, and taking it for their rule ; they denied that indeed now there was, or could be any faith in Jesus Christ, the ministers that should beget it being utterly ceased; and therefore, it was advisable for men to serve God, to live justly, and honestly, according to the dictates of the law of nature, and to omit all thoughts of Christ, beyond an expectation of his sending persons hereafter, to acquaint the world again with his worship.

• That this was the judgment of'Math. Radecius, his ho noured friend Socinus informs us ; though he mollifies his expression, p. 123. ascribing it to others ; whether many in our days are not insensibly fallen into the same abominations a little time will discover. The main of the plea of the men of this persuasion in those days, was taken from the example of the Israelites under that idolatrous apostacy, wherein they were engaged by Jeroboam. In the days of Elijah there were, said they, seven thousand who joined not with the residue in their false worship and idolatry; but yet they never went about to gather, constitute, and set up a new church, or churclies ; but remained in their scattered condition, keeping themselves as they could from the abominations of their brethren ; not considering that there is not the same reason of the Judaical and Christian churches; in that the carrying on of the worship of God among them, was annexed to one tribe, yea to one family in that tribe, chiefly tied to one certain place, no public instituted worship, such as was to be the bond of communion for the church, being acceptable, that was not performed by those persons, in that place. So that it was utterly impossible for the godly in Israel then, or the ten tribes to set up a new church state, seeing they neither had the persons, nor were possessed of the place, without which no such constitution was acceptable to God; as being not of his appointment. Under the gospel it is not so ; neither as to the one or other. All places being now alike, and all persons who are enabled thereunto, having liberty to preach the word, in the order by Christ appointed, the erecting of churches, and the

* Epist. nd Radec. 3. p. 87. 119.

celebration of ordinances, is recoverable according to the mind of God, out of the greatest defection imaginable, whilst unto any persons there is a continuance of the word and Spirit.

But to proceed with Socinus. Blandrata having got a great interest in the king of Poland, and prince of Transylvania, as hath been declared, and making it his business to promote the Antitrinitarians, of what sort soever, being in Transylvania, where the men of his own abomination were exceedingly divided about the invocation and adoration of Jesus Christ, Franciscus David carrying all before him, in an opposition thereunto (of which whole business I shall give a farther account afterward), he sends for"^ Socinus, who was known to them, and from his dealing with Puccius began to be famed for a disputant, to come to him into Transylvania, to dispute with, and confute Franciscus David, in the end of the year 1578; where what success his dispute had, in the imprisonment and death of David, shall be afterward related.

Being now fallen upon this controversy, which fell out before Faustus's going into Poland, before I proceed to his work and business there, I shall give a brief account of this business which I have now mentioned, and on which occasion he was sent for by Blandrata into Poland ; referring the most considerable disputes he had about that difference to that place in the ensuing treatise, where I shall treat of the invocation and worship of Christ.

After w^ay was once made in the minds of men, for the farther work of Satan, by denying the Deity of our blessed Lord Jesus; very many quickly grew to have more contemptible thoughts of him, than those seemed to be willing they should, from whose principles they professed (and indeed righteously) that their mean esteem of him did arise. Hence Franciscus David, Georgius Enjedinus, Christianus Franken, and sundry others, denied that Christ was to be worshipped, with religious worship, or that he might be in-vocated, and called upon. Against these Socinus indeed

'' Multiim ilia teinpestate turbarum dcderat TransylvaTiicis Ecclesiis Fiancisci Davidis ct reliquoruni de honore ac ])Otcstate Cliristi o()inio ; cui nialo reiiK-dium qujetens Georgius Blandrata Socinum Basiliae evocavit (Anno 1578). Ut pra^cipuura faclionis diiceni Franciscuin Davidein, a taiii turpi ct pernicioso errore abstralicrct. "V^ita Faust. Socia.

contended with all his might, professing that he would not account such as Christians, who would not allow that Christ might be invocated, and was to be worshipped ; which that he was to be, he proved by undeniable testimonies of Scripture. But yet when himself came to answer their arguments, whereby they endeavoured to prove, that a mere man (such as on both sides they acknowledged Christ to be) might not be worshipped with religious worship, or divine adoration, the man with all his craft and subtleties was entangled, utterly confounded, silenced, slain with his own weapons, and triumphed over, as I shall afterward manifest, in the account which I shall give of the disputation between him and Christianus Franken about this business. God in l}is righteous judgment so ordering things, that he who would not embrace the truth, which he ought to have received, should not be able to maintain and defend that truth which he did receive ; for having what in him laid digged up the only foundation of the religious worship and adoration of Christ, he was altogether unable to keep the building upright ; nor did this fall out for want of ability in the man, no man under heaven being able on his false hypothesis, to maintain the worship of Christ; but, as was said, merely by the just hand of God, giving him up to be punished by his own errors and darkness.

Being hardened in the contempt of Christ by the success they had against Socinus and his followers, with whom they conversed and disputed, some of the men before-mentioned, stayed not with him at the affirming of him to be a mere man, nor yet were they began, building on that supposition, that he was not to be worshipped, but proceeded yet farther, and affirmed, that he was indeed a good man, and sent of God, but yet he spake not by the spirit of prophesy; but so, as that whatever was spoken by him, and written by his apostles, was to be examined by Moses and the prophets, whereto if it did not agree, it was to be rejected : which was the sum of the ''first and second theses of Fran-

■' Homo ille Jes. Nazarenus qui Christus appellatur, non per spirituiii propheti-cura, sed per Spiritum sanctum locutus est; id est, quamvis a Deo legatus fuerit, non tamen quaecunque verba ex ipsius Dei ore provenisse censenda sunt. 2. Hinc fit ut illius et apostolorum ejus verba, ad Mosaicaj legis et aliorum propheticorum oraculo-rum noriuam expendenda sint, et siquid contrarium vel diversum ab bis in illis repe-litur, aiit reperiri, videtur, id aut rejicicndura, aut certe ita interpretandum sit, ut

ciscus David, in opposition to which ^Socinus gave in his judgment in certain antitheses to Christopher Barthorseus, prince of Transylvania ; who had then cast David into prison for his blasphemy.

To give a little account by the way, of the end of this man, with his contempt of the Lord Jesus.

In"' the year 1579, in the beginning of the month of June, he was cast into prison by the prince of Transylvania, and lived until the end of November. That he w'as cast into prison by the instigation of Socinus himself and Blandrata, the testimonies are beyond exception : for this is not only recorded by Bellarmine and others of the Papists, to whose assertions concerning any adversary with whom they have to do, I confess much credit is not to be given, but by others also of unquestionable authority." This indeed" Socinus denies, and would willingly impose the odium of it upon others ; but the truth is, considering the keenness and wrath of the man's spirit, and the 'thoughts he had of this miserable wretch, it is more than probable, that he w'as instrumental towards his death. The like apology does'! Smalcius make in his answer to Franzius about the carriage of the Saraosatenians in that business of Franciscus David, where they accused one another of craft, treachery, bloody

cum Mbsis et Prophetaruni doctrina consentiat quae sola raorum et divini cuilus regula est.

1 Theses quibus Francisci Davidis sententia de Christi niunere explicatur una cum antiihcsibusEcclesiffi a Socino couscripiis, et illustrissimoTransjlvanise Principi Christophero Banliorao oblatis.

•" Cerium est ilium in ipso initio mensis Jiinii carceri inclusiun fuisse, et vixisse usque, ad mensem Noverabris, nisi vebementer fallor, quo extinctus est. Socin. ad Wiek. cap. 2. p. 44.

n lllud vero notandiim.quod procurantibus Georgio Blandrata etFausto Sncino, in Transylvania exbnlibus, Franciscus David raorti traditus fuit. Adrian. Regcn. Ilisto. Ecclcs. Slavonlca, lib. 1. p. 90.

o Quod si Wiekus intciiigit damnandi veibo noslros niiuistros ccnsuisse ilium aliqua poena aflicicndum, aut vult fallere, aut cgregie faliilur : nam certum est, in judicio illo, cum minister quidam Calvinianus Cliristopliero Principi, qui toti action! interfuit, et pra'fuit, satis longa oratione pcrsu?.siss( I, ut tulcin iiominein e medio tolleret, minilans iram Dei nisi id fecissct, ministros noslros proprius ad ipsum prin-cipem accedentes, rcvcrenter illi suppiicasse, ut miseri hominis misereri veliet, et clementcm et benignum sc crga ilium pra^bere. Socin. ad Wiekum. cap. 2. p. 47.

P Imo plusquam lia'reticum eum (Ecclesiai nostra-) jndicaverunt, nam talern ho-niinem indignum Cliristiano nomine esse dixerunt; quippc qui Cbristo iuvocationis cultum prorsHs dctralicndo, et cum curam Ecclcsiiu gerere negando. simul reipsa negaret eum esse Christum, idem ubi supra.

'I Exemplum dcniquc aft'ert nostrorum (Tbes. 108.) quomodo sc gessermt in Transylvania, in negotio Francisci Davidis : quomodo scmclipsos in actu illo inter se reo3 ajant valricia;, crudelitatis sanguinaria', proditionis, &c. Smalcius. Refula. Tbcs. do Hjpocrit. disput. 9. p. 298.

cruelty, treason. Being cast into prison the miserable creature fell into a 'frenetical distemper through the revenging hand of God upon him, as Socinus confesseth himself. In this miserable condition the devil (saith the historian) appeared unto him ; whereupon he cried out, ^' Behold who expect me their companion in my journey ;' whether really, or in his vexed distempered imagination, disordered by his despairing mind, I determine not; but most certain it is, that in that condition he expired : not' in the year 1580, as Bellarmine, Weike, Rsemundus, and some of ours from them, inform us, but one year sooner, as he assures us who best knew. And the consideration of this man's desperate apostacy and his companions, might be one cause that about this time, sundry of the Antitrinitarians were converted ; amongst whom was " Daniel Bielenscius, a man afterward of good esteem.

But neither yet did Satan stop here, but improved the advantage given him by these men, to the utter denying of Jesus Christ: for unto the principle of Christ's being not God, adding another of the same nature, that the prophecies of the Old Testament were all concerning temporal things ; some amongst them at length concluded, that there was no promise of any such person as Jesus Christ in the whole Old Testament. That the Messiah or King promised, was only a king promised to the Jews, that they should have after the captivity, in case they did not offend, but walk with God. "' The kingdom,' say they, 'promised in the Old

' De Phrenesi ista in quam inciderit, aliquid sane auditum est, non tantum biduo ante mortem sed pluribus diebus. Socin. ubi supra.

8 Ecce qui me comiteni itineris expectant. Flor. Remund, lib. 4. cap. 12.

t Manifeste in eo sunt decepti, qui hoc An. 1580, accidisse scribunt, cum cer-tissiraum sit ea facta fuisse uno anno ante, hoc est, Anno 1579. Socinus : ad Weik. p. 44.

« Duces hujus agminis Anabaptistici, et Antitrinitarii erant Gregorius Paulas, Daniel Bielenscius, et alii, quorum tandem aliqui phanatico proposito relicto, ad ecclesiaiu evangelicam redierunt, ut Daniel Bielenscius, qui Cracovire omnium su-orum eorum publice pcenitentiam egit, ibidemque, ecclesiae Dei commode prajfuit: Adrian. Regenvol. Histor. Ecclesiae Slavonicee. lib. 1. p. 90.

^ Ita arguraentor, quoties regnum Davidi usque in seculum promissum est, tale necesse fuit, ut posteri ejus, in quibus ha;c promissio impleri debebat, liaberent: sed regnum mundanum Davidi usque in seculum promissum est, ergo regnum mnnda-num posteri Davidis ut haberent necesse est: et per consequens. Rex iile, quem Prophetse ex hac promissione post captivitatem Babylonicam regnaturum promise-runt, perinde ut cieteri posteri Davidis, mundanum regnum debuit habere. Quod quia Jesus iile non habuit, non enim regnavit ut David, et posteri ejus, sed dicitur habere coeleste regnum, quod est diversum a niundano regno, ergo Jesus iile non est Hex, quem Propheta? promiserunt. Martin. Seidelius Epist. I. ad Socinum.

VOL. VIII. E

Testament, is a kingdom of this world only ; but the kingdom which you assert to belong to Jesus of Nazareth, was a kingdom not of this world, a heavenly kingdom, and so consequently not promised of God, nor from God :' and therefore, with him they would not have ought to do. This was the argument of Martin Seidelius, in his epistle to So-cinus and his companions.

What advantage is given to the like blasphemous imaginations with this, by such Judaizing annotations on the Old Testament as those of Grotius, time will evidence. Now because this man's creed is such as is not to be paralleled, perhaps some may be contented to take it in his own words, which are as followeth :

' Cseterumut sciatis cujas sim religionis,quamvis idscrip-to meo quod habetis, ostenderim,tamenhic breviter repetam. Et primum quidem doctrinade Messia, seu rege illo pro-misso, ad meam religionem nihil pertinet: nam Rex ille tan-tum Judffiis promissus erat, sicut et bona ilia Canaan. Sic etiam circumcisio, sacrificia, et reliquce ceremoniae Mosis ad me non pertinent, sed tantum populo Judaico promissa, data, et mandata sunt. Neque ista fuerunt cultus Dei apud Judasos, sed inserviebant cultui divino, et ad cultum divinum deducebant Judaeos. Verus autem cultus Dei quem meam religionem appello, est Decalogus : qui est seterna, etimmu-tabilis voluntas Dei; qui Decalogus ideo ad me pertinet, quia etiam mihia Deodatus est, non quidem pervocem sonantera de coelo, sicut populo Judaico, at per creationem insita est raenti meas; quia autem insitus Decalogus, per corruptionem naturaj humange, et pravis consuetudinibus, aliqua ex parte obscuratus est, ideo ad illustrandum eum, adhibeo vocalem decalogum, qui vocalis decalogus, ideo etiam ad me, et ad omnes populos pertinet, quia cum insito nobis decalogo consentit, imo idem ille decalogus est. Hac est mea sen-tentia de Messia, seu rege illo promisso, et hsec est mea re-ligio, quam coram vobis ingenue profiteor.' Martin. Seidelius Olaviensis Silesius

To this issue did Satan drive the Socinian principles, in this man and sundry others : even to a full and peremptory denial of the Lord that bought them. In answering this man, it fell out with Socinus much as it did with him in his disputation with Franken, about the adoration and invo-

THE PREFACE TO THE READER. ll

cation of Jesus Christ; for granting Franken tliat Christ was but a mere man, he could no way evade his inference thence, that he was not to be invocated. So granting Sei-delius, that the promises of the Old Testament were all temporal ; he could not maintain against him, that Jesus Christ, whose kingdom is heavenly, was the King and Me-sias therein promised: for ^ Faustus hath nothing to reply, btit that God gives more than he promised, of which no man ought to complain. Not observing that the question being not about the faithfulness of God in his promises, but about the thing promised, he gave away the whole cause, and yielded that Christ was not indeed the King and Me-siah promised in the Old Testament.

Of an alike opinion to this of Seidelius, was he of whom we spake before, Franciscus David ; who, as to the kingdom of Christ, delivered himself to this purpose : 'That he was appointed to be a King of the Jews, and that God sent him into the world to receive his kingdom, which was to be earthly and civil, as the kingdoms of other kings : but the Jews rejected him, and slew him, contrary to the purpose of God, who therefore took him from them, and placed him in a quiet place, where he is not at all concerned in any of the things of the church, but is there in God's design a King, and he will one day send him again to Jerusalem, there to take upon him a kingdom, and to rule as the kings of this world do, or have done.' (Thes. Francisci David de adorat. Jes. Christi.)

The reminding of these abominations, gives occasion by the way to complain of the carnal apprehensions of a kingdom of Clirist, which too many amongst ourselves have filled their thoughts and expectations withal. For my part, I am persuaded that before the end of the world, the Lord Jesus, by his word and Spirit, will multiply the seed of Abraham as the stars of heaven, bringing into one fold the remnant of Israel, and the multitude of the Gentiles; and that his church shall have peace after he hath judged and broken the stubborn adversaries thereof, and laid the kingdoms of

y Nam quod dicimus, si Deus mundanum regem niuiidanumque regnuro pro-misit, caBlestem autem regem, Cfeleste regnum reipsa prffistitit plus eura prasstitisse quam proraiserit, recte omnino dicimus, nam qui plus prsestat quam promisit, suis proraissis non modo non stetisse sed ea etiam cumulate praestitisse est agnoscendus. Socin. Epist. ad Seideliuni, p. 20.

E 2

the nations in a useful subserviency to his interest in this world ; and that himself will reign most gloriously, by a spirit of light, truth, love, and holiness, in the midst of them. But that he hath a king-dom of another nature and kind to set up in the world, than that heavenly kingdom which he hath peculiarly exercised ever since he was exalted and made a Ruler and a Saviour, that he should set up a dominion over men, as men, and rule either himself present or by his substitutes, as in a kingdom of this world, which is a kingdom neither of grace nor glory. I know it cannot be asserted, without either the denial of his kingdom for the present or that he is, or hitherto hath been, a king, which was the blasphemy of Franciscus David before-mentioned; or the affirming that he hath, or is to have, upon the promise of God two kingdoms of several sorts, of which in the whole word of God there is not the least tittle.

To return. About the end of the year 1579, Faustus So-cinus left ^Transylvania, and went into Poland, which he chose for the stage whereon to act his design. In what estate and condition the persons in Poland and Lithuania were, who had fallen off from the faith of the Holy Trinity, was before declared. True *it is, that before the coming of So-cinus, Blandrata, by the help of Franciscus David had brought over many of them from Sabellianism, and Tritheism, and Arianism, unto Samosatenianism, and a full plain denial of the Deity of Christ.

But yet with that Pelagian doctrine, that Socinus came furnished withal unto them, they were utterly unacquainted; and were at no small difference many of them about the Deity. The condition of the first man to be mortal and obnoxious to death, that there was no original sin, that Christ was not a high-priest on the earth, that he made no satisfaction for sin, that we are not justified by his righteousness, but our own, that the wicked shall be utterly consumed and annihilated at the last day, with the rest of his opinions, which afterward he divulged, they were utterly strangers

' Anno 1515, jam quadragcnarius niigravit in Poloniam. Vita Faust. Socin.

=' Extat apud me ipsius Blandrafa> cpistola.non tamen scripta sineThcseo (Stato-rio) si Blandratuni bene novi, in (jiia Grcfiorium Pauliiiii a Trithcisiiio ad Saniosateni dogma revocare nititiir. lucidit eniiii Ijlandrata in 'J'ransylvaniam rcdiens in fjuen-dain Franciscuni David, paulo niugis, qiiaiu buperiores illi ut aiiirit providuiu. Beza, Epjit. 81.

unto; as is evident from the contests he had about these things with some of them in their synods, and by writing, especially with Nieraojevius, one of the chief patrons of their sect.

In this condition of affairs the man being wise and subtle, obtained his purpose by the ensuing course of procedure.

He joined himself to none of their societies; because, being divided amongst themselves, he knew that by adhering to any one professedly, he should engage all the rest against him. That which he pretended most to favour and for whose sake he underwent some contests, was the assembly at Racovia, which at first was collected by Gregorius Paulus, as hath been declared.

From these his pretence of abstaining, was their rigid injunction of all to be rebaptized, that entered into their fellowship and communion. But he who made it his design to gather the scattered Antitrinitarians into a body, and a consistency in a religion among themselves, saw plainly, that the rigid insisting upon Anabaptism, which was the first principle of some of them, would certainly keep them at an unreconcilable distance. Wherefore he falls upon an opinion much better suited to his design, and maintained, that baptism was only instituted for the initiation of them, who from any other false religion were turned to the religion of Christ; but that it belonged not to Christian societies, or to them that were born of Christian parents, and had never been of any other profession or religion, though they might use it, if they pleased, as an indifferent thing. And, therefore, he refused to join himself with the Racovians, unless upon this principle, that they would desist for the time to come, from requiring any to be baptized that should join with them. In a short time he divided that meeting by this opinion, and at length utterly dissolved them, as to their old principles they first consented into, and built the remainder of them by the hand of Valentinus Smalcius into his own mould and frame.

The author ""of his life sets it forth, as a great trial of his

^ Ecclesiis Polonicis, qua3 soluni patrem Domini Jesu sumniumDeum agnoscuiit, ])ubllce adjungi arabivit, sed satis acerbe atque din repulsam passus est, qua tamen jgnoniinia iiiinime accensus, vir, non tam indole quaiii aninii instituto, ad patientiani coinpositus, nulla unquara alienati aiiirai vestigia dedit. V^ita Faust. Socin.

prudence, piety, and patience, that he was repulsed from the society at Racovia, and that with ignominy; when the truth is, he absolutely refused to join with them, unless they would at once renounce their own principles and subscribe to his, which is as hard a condition as can be put upon any perfectly conquered enemy. This himself delivers at large on sundry occasions, especially insisting on and debating that business in his epistles to Simon Ronembergius and to Sophia Siemichovia. On this score did he write his disputation ' de baptismo aquas,' with the vindication of it from the animadversions of A. D. whom I suppose to be Andrew Dudithius, and of M. C. endeavouring with all his strength to prove that baptism is not an ordinance appointed for the use of Christians or their children, but only such as were converted from Paganism or Mahomedism : and this he did in the year 1580, two years after his coming into Poland, as he declares by the date of the disputation from Cracovia, at the close thereof. And in this persuasion he was so fixed, and laid such weight upon it, that after he had once before broken the assembly at Racovia, in his old days he encourages Valentinus Smalcius,'' then their teacher to break them again, because some of them tenaciously held their opinion; and for those, who, as Smalcius informed him, would thereupon fall off to the reformed churches, he bids them go, and a good riddance of them. By this means, I say, he utterly broke up, and divided and dissolved the meeting at Racovia, which was collected upon the principles before-mentioned, that there remained none abiding to their first engagement, but a few old women, as '^Squarcialupus tells him, and as himself confesses in his answer for them to ^Palseologus. By this course of behaviour, the man had these two advan-

« Nam quod mihi objicis me commiinionem cum fratribus, ct Chrisii fidelibus sper-nerc, nee curare ul cuu) ipsis ca'naiu Domini celcbrem, rcspondoo, uio postquani ia Poloniani veiii, nihil aufiquius habuissc, quam ut me cpiani niaxiiiic fratribus conjtin-gerera, licet invcnisscm illos in non parvis rcligionis nostra; capitibus, anie diversuni scntire; quemadmodum nuilti hodioque sentiunt: quod si nibiinminus aquai baptis-nium una cum illis non accipio, hoc prreterea tit, quia id bona conscienlia facere ne-quco, nisi publice ante ]Kotcstor, me non quod censeani baptismum aquse mihi mei-que siinilibus, ullo modo neccssariuin esse, &cc. F.pisl. ad Sopiiiam Sicmichoviani, fieniinam nobileni. Epistol. 11. ad Valentinum Smalciuu), Ann. 160-k

•• Dico .secessionem Racoviensium ac delirium, esse ab ecciesia ratione sejungen-dum, nisi velis conciliabula qu;cqiie amentium anicularum partesecclesiaj Christiana; aut ecclesiam api)ellare, Men. Squarcialup. Ejiist. ad Faustum Socinum, p. 8.

•■■ Hue accedit, quod Racovienscs isti, sive ccetus Racoviensis.quem tu pctis atque oppugnas, vel non ainplius extat, vel ita hodit; inulatus est, et in aliam (piodammodo formam versus, ut agnosci non quoat. Socin. pra^fat. ad Palaeolog.

tages : l.He kept fair with all parties amongst them, and provoked not ?,ny by joining with them, with whom they could not agree ; so that all parties looked on him as their own, and were ready to make him the umpire of all their differences, by which he had no small advantage of working them all to his own principles.

2. He was less exposed to the fury of the Papists, which he greatly feared (loving well the things of this world), than he would have been, had he joined himself to any visible church profession. And, indeed, his privacy of living was a great means of his security.

His second great advantage was, that he was a scholar and was able to defend and countenance them ao;ainst their opposers ; the most of them being miserably weak and unlearned. One of their best defensatives before his joining with them, was a clamour against logic and learning, as himself confesseth in some of his epistles. Now this is not only evident by experience, but the nature of the thing itself makes it manifest, that so it will be; whereas, men of low and weak abilities, fall into by persuasions in religion, as they generally at first prevail by clamours, and all sorts of reproaches cast on learning, and learned men; yet if God in his providence at any time, to heighten the temptation, suffer any person of learning and ability to fall in amongst and with them, iie is presently their head and ruler without control, some testimony hereof our own days have afforded: and I wish we may not have more examples given vis. Now how far he prevailed himself of this advantage, the consideration of them with whom he had to do, of the esteem they had of his abilities, and the service he did them thereby, will acquaint us.

For the leaders of them, they were for the most part unlearned ; and so unable to defend their opinions in any measure against a skilful adversary. Blandrata,^ their great patron was not able to express himself in Latin, but by the help of Statorius, who had some learning, but no judgment; and therefore, upon his difference with Franciscus David, in Transylvania, he was forced to send for Socinus out of Helvetia, to manage the disputation with him. And what kind

f Petro Statorio operam oninem suam fucandis barbarissinii scriptoris Blandrata; comnientis navante. Beza.

of cattle those were, with whom he had to do at Cracovia, as well as Racovia, is manifest from the epistle of Simon Ronembergius, one of the leaders and elders of that which they called their church, which is printed with Socinus's answer unto it. I do not know that ever in my life I saw, for matter and form, sense and language, any thing so simple and foolish, so ridiculously senseless and incoherent, unless it were one or two in our own days; which, w ith this, deserve an eminent place, ' inter epistolas obscurorum viro-rum.' And, therefore, Socinus justly feared that his party would have the worst in disputes, as he acknowledges it befell sLicinius in his conference with Smiglecius, at Novo-grade ; and could not believe ''Ostorodus, that he had such success as he boasted in Germany with Fabritius ; and tells us himself a story of 'some pastors of their churches in Lithuania, who were so ignorant and simple that they knew not that Christ was to be worshipped. What a facile thing it was, for a man of his parts, abilities, and learning, to obtain a kingdom amongst such as these, is easily guessed. He'' complains, indeed, of his own lost time, in his young days, by the instigation of the devil, and says that it made him weary of his life to think of it, when he had once set up his thoughts in seeking honour and glory, by being the head and master of a sect, as Ignatius, the father of the Jesuits did (with whom as to this purpose he is compared all along by the gentleman that wrote his life), yet it is evident, that his learning and abilities were such, as easily promoted him to the dictatorship among them with whom he had to do.

e Dolerem equldcm ruirum in niodum si disputatio is(a sic liabita fuisset, ut adver-sarii affirmant, suspitor taiiien nihilominus, quatenus disputationcm ab ipsis editain pcrcurrt'iido, aniniadvertere ac coiisequi coiijectura potiii, Licinii aiitagonislam arte disputandi et ipso superiorein es!^c, et id i)i ista ipsa disputatione facilo plorisque constitissc : nam etsi (ni fallor) Liciiiius nosier neutiquaui in ea Iireresi est, in qua non pauci ex nostris s\mt, non esse Christiano homini dandam operara diaiecticas. Epist. ad Baiverovecium, p. 338.

'' A'oidovius Ostoiodi tonics ea ad me scribit, qua; vix niilii permittunt ut exitum disputationis iilius eum fiiisse ciedam, queui ipse Ostorodus ad me scripsit. Epist. ad \'alfiif. Sinalciuin quarta, p. n2'2.

' Quod totum fere pondus iilius disputationis, advcrsus eos qui Cliristum adhuc ignorare dici pnssunt, suslinucris, vebcmenter tibi gratuinr niliil niiiii novum fuit, ex nanatione ista percipere, ])nstorcs illos Lithuanicos ab ejusmodi ignoralione minima liberos deprehensos I'uisse. Epist. 5. ad Smaleiuni.

■^ ]Me imitari noli,'qui r.escio quo nialo genio diictorc, cum jam divina; veriiafis fontes degustassem, ita sum abrcptus, ut niajorem et pofioreni juventutis mcaj partem, inanibus ijuibusdam aliis studiis, inio inertia; atquc olio dederim, quod cum mecum jj)se reputo, rcputo autem s;epissinic,taiito dolorc afficior, ut nic vivcre quodam modo pige»it. Epitt. ad Suial. p. 513.

It may then be easily imagined what kind of esteem such men as those would have of so great an ornament and glory of their religion, who at least was with them in that, wherein they dissented from the rest of Christians.

Not only after his death, when they set him forth as the most incomparable man of his time, but in his own life and to himself, as I know not what excellent person:' that he had a mind suited for the investigation of truth, was a philosopher, an excellent orator, an eminent divine, that for the Latin tongue, especially, he might contend with any of the great wits of Europe, they told him to his face; such thoughts had they generally of him : it is then no wonder they gave themselves up to his guidance. Hence Smalcius wrote unto him, to consult about the propriety of the Latin tongue, and in his answer to him he excuses'" it as a great crime, that he had used a reciprocal relative where there was no occasion for it.

And to make it more evident how they depended on him, on this account of his ability for instructions, when he had told Ostorodus an answer to an objection of the Papists, the man having afterward forgot it," sends to him again to have his lesson over once more, that he might remember it.

And therefore, as if he had been to deal with school-boys, he would tell his chief" companions, that he had found out, and discovered such or such a thing in religion, but would not tell them until they had tried themselves, and therefore was afraid lest he should, through unawares, have told it to any of them : upon one of which adventures OstorodusP mak-

' Ad te quod attinet, aninio es tu quidera ad omnem doctriune rationem, ac veritatis investigationem nato, magna reruni sopliisticarura cognitio, orator suniinus, et tlico-logus insignis, linguas tencs maxime Latinam, ut possis cum prsecipuis totius Europaj ingeniis certare. Marcel. Squarialup. Epist. ad. FaustumSociri.

™Aliud interim in Latina lingua erratum, gravius quam istud sit.anieest corarais-siim, quod scilicet relative reciproco ubi nullus erat locus usus sum. Epist. 4. ad Va-lentinum Smalcium, p. .521.

" Memini te mihi liujus rei solutionem cum esses Racoviae afferre, sod qniB mea esttarditas, vel potins stupiditas,nou bene illius recorder. Ostorod. Epist. ad Faus-tum Socinum, p. 4bG,

° Tibi siguifico me ni fallor invenisse viam quomodo varum esse possit, quod Chris-tiis plane libere et citra omnem necessitatem Deo perfectissime obedirit, et tameii necessarium omnino fuerit ut sic obediret; qutenam ista via sit, nisi cam ipse per te (ut plane spero) inveneris, postea tibi aperiara: volo enira prius»tunm hoc in re et Statorii ingenium experiri, tauietsi vereor ne jam cam illi indicaverim. Epist. ad Os-toroduni 4. p. 472.

P De quffistione tibr proposita non bene conjecisti, nee quara afters solutionem ea probari uJlo mode potest. Epist. 6. ad Ostorod. p. 473.

ing bold to give in his conception, he does little better than tell him he is a blockhead. Being in this repute amongst them, and exercising such a dominion in point of abilities and learning, to prevail the more upon them, he was perpetually ready to undertake their quarrels, which themselves were not able with any colour to maintain. Hence most of his books were written, and his disputations engaged in, upon the desire of one assembly, synod, or company of them or other, as I could easily manifest by particular instances ; and by this means got he no small advantage to insinuate his own principles. For whereas the men greedily looked after, and freely entertained the things, which Avere professedly written in their defence; he always wrought in together therewith something of his own peculiar heresy, that poison might be taken down with that which was most pleas-, ing. Some of the wisest of them, indeed, as Niemojevius, discovered the fraud ; who, upon his answer to Andraeus Vo-lanus, commending what he had written against the Deity of Christ, which they employed him in, "ifalls foul upon him, for his delivering in the same treatise, that Christ was not a priest whilst he was upon the earth; which one abominable figment lies at the bottom of his whole doctrine of the justification of a sinner. The case is the same about his judgment concerning the invocation of Christ, which was, 'that we might do it, but it was not necessary from any precept or otherwise, that so we should do.'

And this was nine years after his coming into Poland, as appears from the date of that Epistle ; so long was he in getting his opinions to be entertained among his friends. But though this man were a little weary, and held out some opposition with him, yet multitudes of them were taken with this snare, and freely drank down the poison they loathed, being tempered with that which they had a better liking to. But this being discovered, he let the rest of them know, that

9 Perlecto scripto tuo contra \ olanuiii aniniadverti argumcnta ejus satis accurate a te refutata, locaquc scripturas picraque cxaminata, ac elucidata, veruiii noii sine niarore (ne quid gruvius addam) incidi inter legcnduni iii quoddani paradoxon.scrip-turffi sacra; contrariwrn ac plane liorrcnduni, dum Christum in niurtu sua sivc incruce, sacrificiuiu obtulisse pernegas, niiror (juid tiiii in nienteni vcnerit, ut tani contidcii-tcr (nc quid aliud dicain) contra ujanifesta sacra; scriptura; listiuionia pugnarc, con-trarianiqne scntentiam tucri non timeas. Ej)ist. 1. Joli. Nieniojcv. ad Faubt. Socin. p. 196.

THE PREFACE TO THE READER. lix

though he was"" entreated to write that book by the Racovi-ans, and did it in their name, yet, because he had published somewhat of his own private opinions therein, they might if they pleased deny, yea, and forswear that they were not written by their appointment.

And this was with respect to his doctrine about the satisfaction of Christ, which, as he says, he heard they were coming over unto. And it is evident from what he writes elsewhere to Baicerovicius, that he begged this employment of writing against Volanus; it being agreed by them, that he should write nothing but by public consent, because of the novelties which he broached every day. By this readiness to appear and write in their defence, and so commending his writing to them on that account, it is incredible how he got ground upon them, and won thpm over daily to the residue of his abominations, which they had not received.

To these add as another advantage to win upon that people the course he had fixed on, in reference to others, which was to own as his, and of his party of the church, ail persons whatever, that on any pretence whatever opposed the doctrine of the Trinity, and forsook the reformed church. Hence he dealt with men as his brethren, friends, and companions, who scarcely retained any thing of Christians ; some nothing at all; as Martin Seidelius, who denied Christ; with Philip Buccel, who denied all difference of good and evil in the actions of men ; with Eramus Johannes, an Arian; with Mathias Radecius, who denied that any could believe in Christ, without new apostles ; indeed, with all or any sorts of men whatever, that would but join with him, or did consent unto the opposition of the Deity of our Lord Jesus Christ,-which was the principal work which he engaged in.

Unto these and the like advantages, the man added all the arts and subtleties, all the diligence and industry, that was any way tending to his end. Some of his artifices and insinuations, indeed, were admirable; though to them who now review them in cold blood, without recalling to mind

"■ Rogavit me dominus Schomanus, dominus Simon Roneniberf;ius et alii ut ad pa-reenesin Andrea3 Volaiii responderem, volui ut si quid in hac responsione vobis minus recte dictum videretur, non bona conscientia tantum, sed jure etiani, earn semper ejurare possetis. Epist. ad Mar. Balccrovicium, p. 336.

the then state of things, they may seem of another complexion.^

By these and the like means, though he once despaired of ever getting bis opinions received amongst them, as he professeth, yet in the long continuance of twenty-four years (so long he lived in Poland), with the help of ValentinusSraal-cius, Volkelius, and some few others, who wholly fell in with him, he at length brought them all into subjection to himself, and got all his opinions enthroned, and his practice taken almost for a rule. So that whereas in former days they accused him for a' covetous wretch, one that did nothing but give his mind to scrape up money, and v/ere professedly oifended with his putting money to usury; for his full justification, Ostorodus and Voidovius, in the close of the compendium of their religion v;hich they brought into Holland, profess that their" ' churches did not condemn usury, so that it were exercised with moderation, and without oppression.' I thought to have added a farther account in particular, of the man's craft and subtlety, of his several ways for the instilling of his principles and opinions, of his personal temper, wrath, and anger, and multiplying of words in disputes, of the foils he received in sundry disputations with men of his own Antitrinitarian infidelity, of his aim at glory and renown, expressed by the Polonian gentlemen, who wrote his life, his losses and troubles which were not many, with all which and the like concernments of the man, and his business in that generation, by the perusal of all that he hath wrote, and of much that hath been written against him, with what is extant of the conferences and disputations, synods and assemblies of those days, I have some little acquaintance ; but, being not convinced of much usefulness in my so doing, I shall willingly spare my labour. Thus much was necessary that we might know the men and their conversation, who have caused so much trouble to the Christian world ; in which work, having the assistance of that Atheism and those corrupted principles, which are in the hearts of all by

' Spero fore, lit si quid ilium inecum sentire vetet inleliexero facile viam invenlani cum in nieam sententiain pertralieiifli. Epist. secunda ad Baiceroviciiini.

' Aliqui fratruni putant congcrendis [K-cuniis me nunc prorsus intcnt\iiu esse. Epist. ad Eliaiii Arcistrium p. 407 . vide opistolam ad Cliristopli. Morstiiium. pp. .')03—505.

" Non simpliciter usurani daninant: iiiodo a'quitafis ft cliaritatis regub non vio-Ictur Compcnd. Religionis Ostorod. ct A^oidovii.

nature, without the infinite rich mercy of God, sparing a sinful world as to this judgment, for his elects' sake they will undoubtedly proceed.

Leaving him then in the possession of his conquest, Tri-theists, Sabellians, Arians, Eunomians, with the followers of Francis David, being all lost and sunk, and Socinians standing up in the room of them all, looking a little upon what ensued; I shall draw from the consideration of the persons to their doctrines, at first proposed.

After the death of Socinus, his cause was strongly carried on by those whom in his life he had formed to his own mind and judgment. Among whom Valentinus Smalcius, Hiero-nymus Moscorovius, Johannes Volkelius, Cristopherus Os-torodus, were the chief. To Smalcius he wrote eleven epistles that are extant; professing his great expectations of him, extolling his learning and prudence. He afterward wrote the Racovian Catechism, compiling it out of Socinus's works; many answers and replies to and with Smiglecius the Jesuit, and Franzius the Lutheran; a book of the divinity of Christ, with sundry others, and was a kind of professor among them at Racovia. The writings of the rest of them are also extant. To him succeeded Crellius, a man of more learning and modesty than Smalcius, and of great industry for the defence of his heresy : his defence of Socinus, against Grotius's treatise ' de causis mortis Christi, de effectu SS.' his comments and ethics, declare his abilities and industry in his way. After him arose Jonas Schlichtingius, a man no whit behind any of the rest for learning and diligence, as in his comments and disputations against Meisnerus, is evident. As the report is, he was burned by the procurement of the Jesuits some four years ago, that they might be sure to have the blood of all sorts of men found upon them; what advantage they have obtained thereby, time will shew. I know that generation of men retort upon us, the death of Servetus, at Geneva ; but the case was far different. Schlichtingius lived in his own country and conversed with men of his own persuasion, who in a succession had been so, before he was born. Servetus came out of Spain, on purpose to disturb and seduce them who knew nothing of his abominations. Schlichtingius disputed his heresy without reproaching or blaspheming God willingly, under pretence of denying the

way and worship of his adversaries. Servetus stuffed all his discourses with horrid bhisphemies. Beza tells us, that he called the Trinity, tricipitem Cerberum, and wrote that Moses was a ridiculous impostor; Beza. Epist. 1, And there are passages cited out of his book of the Trinity (which I have not seen), that seem to have as misch of the devil in them, as any thing that ever yet was written or spoken by any of the sons of men. If, saith he, Christ be the son of God, * debuissent ergo dicere, quod Deus habebat uxorem quan-dam spiritualem, vel quod solus ipse masculus faemineus aut hermaphroditus, simul erat pater et mater, nam ratio voca-buli non patitur, ut quis dicatur sine matre pater; et si logos filius erat, natus ex patre sine matre ; die mihi quomodo peperit eum, per ventrem an per latus.'

To this height of atheism and blasphemy had Satan wrought up the spirit of the man. So that I must say, he is the only person in the world, that I ever read or heard of, that ever died upon the account of religion, in reference to whom the zeal of them that put him to death may be acquitted. But of these things, God will judge. Socinus says he died calling on Christ; those that were present say quite the contrary; and that in horror he roared out mise-ricordia to the magistrates, but nothing else: but Arcana Deo.

Of these men last named, their writings and endeavours for the propagation of their opinion^ others having written already ; I shall forbear. Some of note amongst them have publicly recanted and renounced their heresy, as Vogelius and Peuschelius, whose retractations are answered by Smal-cius. Neither shall I add much as to their present condition. They have as yet many churches in Poland and Transylvania, and have their superintendents after the manner of Germany. Regenv." tells us, that all the others are sunk and lost, only the Sociuians remain. The Arians, Sa-bellians, David Georgians, with the followers of Franciscus David, being all gone over to the confession of Socinus; which makes me somewhat wonder at that of Johannes La^tus, who affirms that about the year 1619, in a convention of the

" Dcnique Sociuistae recensendi niihi veniuiit quia Fausto Socino, per Poloniam et Transylvaniam virus suum disseniiuanto, turn noiuen lum doctriuani sumpscre ; atque lii soli, cxtinctis Farnesianis, anaba|)tislis, ct Fraiicisci Davidis sectatoribus supcrsuiit; homines ad failaciasct sopliisruata facti. Histor. Ecclcs. Slavon. Jib. 1. p. 90.

states in Poland, bhose who denied that Christ ought to be invocated (which were the followers of Francis David, Christianas Franken, and Palffiologus), pleaded that the liberty that was granted to Antitrinitarians, was intended for them, and not for the Socinians. And the truth is, they had footino; in Poland before ever the name of Socinus was there known, though he afterward ''insults upon them, and says that they most impudently will have themselves called Christians when they are not so.

But what numbers they are, in those parts of the v>^orld, how the poison is drunk in by thousands in the Papacy, by what advantages it hath, and continues to insinuate itself into multitudes living in the outward profession of the reformed churches, what progress it makes, and what ground it gets in our native country every day, I had rather bewail, than relate. This I am compelled to say, that unless the Lord in his infinite mercy lay an awe upon the hearts of men, to keep them in some captivity to the simplicity and mystery of the gospel, who now strive every day to exceed one another in novel opinions, and philosophical apprehensions of the things of God, I cannot but fear that this soul-destroying abomination, will one day break in as a flood upon us.

I shall only add something of the occasions and advantages that these men took, and had, for the renewing and propagation of their heresy, and draw to a close of this discourse.

Not to speak of the general and more remote causes of these and all other soul-destroying errors, or the darkness, pride, corruption, and wilfulness of men; the craft, subtlety, envy, and malice of Satan, the just revenging hand of God, giving men up to a spirit of delusion, that they might believe lies, because they delighted not in the truth, [ shall only remark one considerable occasion, or stumbling-block at which they fell, and drank in the poison, and one considerable advantage that they had for the propagation of what they had so fallen into.

Their great stumbling-block I look upon to be the horrible corruption and abuse of the doctrine of the Trinity in the

* Palaeologus prsecipuus fuit ex Antefignanis illorum qui Christum nee invocan-dum, nee adorandum essehodie affirmant et interim tamen se Christianos esse irapu-dcnter profitentur, quo vix quidquam scelestius in religione nostra depravanda ex-cogitari posse existimo. Socin. Ad. Wiek. Ref. ad cap. 4. cap. 2. p. 42.

writings of the schoolmen, and the practice of the devotion-ists among the Papists. With what desperate boldness, atheistical curiosity, wretched inquiries and babbling, the schoolmen have polluted the doctrine of the Trinity, and gone off from the simplicity of the gospel in this great mystery, is so notoriously known, that I shall not need to trouble you with instances for the confirmation of the observation. This, the men spoken of (being the most, if not all of them brought up in the Papacy) stumbled at. They saw the doctrine concerning that God whom they were to worship rendered unintelligible, curious, intricate, involved in terms and expressions, not only barbarous in themselves, and not used in the Scripture, but insignificant, horrid, and remote from the reason of men ; which, after some struggling, set them at liberty from under the bondage of those notions : and when they should have gone to the law and testimony for their information, Satan turned them aside to their own reasonings and imaginations, where they stumbled and fell. And yet of the forms and expressions of their schoolmen are the Papists so zealous, as that whoever departs from them in any kind is presently an Antitrinitarian heretic. The dealings of Bellarmine, Genebrard, Possevine, and others, with Calvin, are known : one instance may be taken of their ingenuity. Bellarmine, in his book *de Christo,' lays it to the charge of Bullinger, that in his book 'de Scripture etEcclesiae autho-ritate/ he wrote, that there were three persons in the Deity, *non statu, sed gradu, non subsistentia, sed forma, non po-testate, sed specie differentes ;' on which he exclaims, that the Arians themselves never spake more wickedly : and yet these are the very words of TertuUian against Praxeas, which I confess are warily to be interpreted. But by this their measuring of truth by the forms received by tradition from their fathers, neglecting and forsaking the simplicity of the gospel, that many stumbled and fell is most evident.

SchlufFelburgius,' in his wonted respect and favour unto

y Notatu vevo dignissimuni est hisce novis Arianis ad apostasiam sen Arianisnium occasionem fuisse, doctrinam Calvinistaruni, id quod ipsi Ariani haud obscure profess! sunt. Recitabo liujus rei exeinpluni nieinorabile de Adamo Neusero ante paucos amies Ecclesia; Heidelbergeiisis ad S. S. priniario pastorc nobilissiiiio sacraraentario. Hie ex Zvinglianisrao per Arianisimini ad IMaliomctismuni usque, cum aliis non pau-cis Calvinisfis Constantinopolin circunicisioneiii judaieam recijiiens et verilatcni ag-nitam abnegaus progressus est. Hie Adaraus sequeiitia verba dedil Coustautinopol. D. Gerlachio Anno 1574. nullus nostro tempore inihi notus factus est Arianus qui

the Calvinists, tells us, that from them and their doctrine was the occasion administered unto this new abomination ; also, that never any turned Arian, but he was first a Calvi-nist, which he seems to make good by a letter of Adam Neuserius, who, as he saith, from a sacramentarian turned Arian ; and afterward a Mahometan, and was circumcised at Constantinople, ' This man,' says he, * in a letter from Constantinople to doctor Gerlachius, tells him, that none turned Arians but those that were Calvinists first; and therefore, he that would take heed of Arianism, had best beware of Calvinism.' I am very unwilling to call any man's credit into question, who relates a matter of fact, unless undeniable evidence enforce me, because it cannot be done without an imputation of the foulest crime; I shall therefore but take leave to ask,

1. What credit is to be given to the testimony of this man, who upon Conradus's own report, was circumcised, turned Mahometan and had wholly renounced the truth which he once professed ? For my part, I should expect from such a person nothing but what was maliciously contrived for the prejudice of the truth, and therefore suppose he might raise this on purpose, to strengthen and harden the Lutherans against the Calvinists, whom he hated most, because that they professed the truth which he had renounced, and that true knowledge of Christ and his will, which now he hated; and this lie of his he looked on as an expedient for the hardening of the Lutherans in their error, and helping them with a stone to cast at the Calvinists.

2. Out of what kindness was it that this man bare to Gerlachius, and his companions, that he gives them this courteous admonition to beware of Calvinism ? Is it any honour to Gerlachius, Conradus himself, or any other Lutheran, that an apostate, an abjurer of Christian religion, loved them better than he did the Calvinists? What person this Adam Neuserus was, and what the end of him was, we have an account given by Maresius from a manuscript history of Altingius. From Heidelberg, being suspected of a conspiracy with one Sylvanus, who for it was put to death, he fled into Poland, thence to Constantinople, where he

non antca fuerit Calvinista. Servetiis, &c. igitiir qui sibi timet ne incidat in Arianis-rnuin, caveat Calvinisinuin.

VOL. VIII. F

turned Mahometan and was circumcised ; and after awhile fell into such miserable horror and despair, that with dreadful yellings and clamours, he died 5 so that the Turks themselves confess, that they never heard of a more horrid, detestable, and tragical end of any man. AVhereupon they commonly called him Satan Ogli, or the son of the devil; and so much good may it do Conradus, with his witness.

3. But what occasion, I pray, does Calvinism give to Arianism, that the one should be taken heed of, if we intend to avoid the other? What offence doth it give to men inquiring after the truth, to make them stumble on their abominations? What doctrine doth it maintain that should prepare them for it ? But no man is bound to burden himself with more than he can carry, and therefore, all such inquiries Schlusselburgius took no notice of.

The truth is, many of the persons usually instanced in, as apostates from Calvinism to Arianism, were such, as leaving Italy and other parts of the pope's dominion, came to shelter themselves, where they expected liberty, and opportunity of venting their abomination among the reformed churches, and joined themselves with them in outward profession ; most of them, as afterward appeared, being thoroughly infected with the errors against the Trinity, and about the Godhead, before they left the Papacy where they stumbled and fell.

In the practice of the church, as it is called, wherein they were bred, they nextly saw the horrible idolatry that was countenanced in abominable pictures of the Trinity, and the worship yielded to them, which strengthened and fortified their minds against such gross conceptions of the nature of God, as by those pictures were exhibited.

Hence when they had left the Papacy, and set up their opposition to the blessed Trinity, in all their books they still ma'de mention of those idols and pictures, speaking of them as the God of those that worshipped the Trinity; this instance makes up a good part of their book ' De falsa et vera cognitionc Unius Dei, Patris, Filii, et Spiritus Sancti,' written in the name of the ministers of the churches in Sar-matia, and Transylvania; a book full of reproach and blasphemies ; but this, I say, was another occasion of stumbling to those miserable wretches ; they knew what thoughts the

men of their communication had of God, by the pictures made of him, and the worship they yielded to them. They knew how abhorrent to the very principles of reason it was, that God should be such as by them represented; and therefore, set themselves at liberty (or rather gave up themselves to the service of Satan) to find out another God whom they might worship.

Neither are they a little confirmed to this day in their errors by sundry principles, which under the Roman apos-tacy got footing in the minds of men professing the name of Jesus Christ; particularly they sheltered themselves from the sword of the word of God, evidencing the Deity of Christ, by ascribing to him divine adoration, by the shield of the Papists' doctrine, that those who are not God by nature, may be adored, worshipped, and invocated.

Now that to this day the Papists continue in the same idolatry (to touch that by the way), I shall give you for your refreshment a copy of verses or two, whose poetry does much outgo the old,

O crux spes uuica Hoc passionis tempore

Auge piis constantiam Reisque dona veniam.

and whose blasphemy comes not at all short of it. The first is of Clarus Bonarous the Jesuit, lib, 3. Amphitrial. Honor, lib. 3. cap. ult. ad divinam Hallensem et Puerum Jesum, as followeth ;

Hffireo lac inter meditans, interque cruorem

Inter delicias uberis et lateris. Et dico (si forte oculos super ubera tendo)

Diva parens mammae gaudia posco tuffi. Sed dico (si deinde oculos in vulnera verto),

O Jesu lateris gaudia nialo tui. Rem scio, prensabo si fas erit ubera dcxtra

Ljeva prensabo vulnera si dabitur. Lac matris miscere volo cnm sanguine nati,

Non possem antidoto nobiiiore frui. Vulnera restituant turpem ulceribus mendicum

Testa cui saniem radere sola potest. Ubera reficient Isniaelem sitientem

Quern Sara non patitur, quem neque nutrit Agar. Ista mi hi ad pestein, procul et procul expungendam

Ista mihi ad longas evalitura febres. Ira vomit flammas suraalque libidinis ^tna

SufFbcare queo sanguine, lacte queo. Livor inexpleta rubigine saevit in artus

Detergere queo lacte, cruore queo: Vanus lionos me perpetua prurigine tentat

Exsaturare queo sanguine, lacte queo. Ergo parens et nate, meis advertite votis

Lac peto, depcreo sanguineni, utruraque volo.

F 2

O sitio tamen ! o voccm sitis intercludit.

Nate cruore sitim comprimc lacte parens. Die raatri, ineus liic frater sitit, optima mater,

Vis e fonte tuo promerc, deque nieo. Die nato, tuus hie frater mi meilee fiii

Captivus monstrat vincula, ijtron liabes. Ergo Redemptorem monstra tc jure vocari

Nbbilior reliquis si tibi sanguis inest. Tuque parens monstra, raatrem te jure vocari

libera si reliquis divitiora geris. O quando lactabor ab ubere, vulnere pascar?

Deliciisque fruar, mamma latusque tuis.

The other is ofFranciscus de Mendoza in viridario utri-usque eruditionis, lib. 2. prob. 2. as ensueth,

Ubera me matris, nati me vulnera pascunt

Scilicet base animi sunt medicina niei, Nam mihi dum lachrymas amor elicit ubera sugo

Rideat ut dulci uiaestus amore dolor. At me pertentant dum gaudia, vulnera lambo

Ut me laeta pio mista dolore juvent. Vulnera sic nati, sic ubera sugo parentis

Securae ut variaj sint mihi forte vices. Quis sine iaete precor, vel quis sine sanguine vivat?

Lacte tuo genetrix, sanguine natc tuo. Sit lac pro ambrosia, suavi pro nectare sanguis

Sic me perpetuum vulnus et uber alit.

And this their idolatry is objected to them by Socinus/ who marvels at the impudence of Bellarmine closing his books of controversies (as is the manner of the men of that society) with ' Laus Deo, Virginique matri Mariae ;' wherein, as he says (and he says it truly), divine honour with God, is ascribed to the blessed virgin.

The truth is, I see not any difference between that dedication of himself and liis work, by Redemptus Baranzanus the priest, in these words, * Deo, virginique matri, Sancto Paulo, Bruno, Alberto, Redempto, Francisco, Clarac, Joannas, Catharinae Senensi, divisque omnibus, quos peculiari cultu honorare desidero, omnis meus labor consecratus sit,' (Ba-ranzan. Nov. Opin, Physic. Diglad.) and that of the Athenians, by the advice of Epimenides: Qtolg'Aataa^KaVEvpwirig, KOI AtjSvrjc, ^tw ayv(L<TT(i) KaX Sivc)) : both of them being suitable to the council of Pythagoras :

'A&avaTOUf fjiiv Trpoiira, &£Oi-'j, vofxx iii; XiiixEiTai, Ti'/ua not (Ti^ov ofxov E-arEiS' 'r.^cea(; ayavovq. Tov(; TE nara^^oviou; a'lBi ^ai/xova^, 'inofxa fi^aiv,

y Hoc tantum dicani, cum nuper Bellarniini disputationum primum tomuni evol-verem, supra moduni me miratum fuisse, quod ad iinem fere singularum controver-siarum homo alioqui acutus ac sagax ea verba aut curaverit aut perniiserit adscribi; Laus Deo, Virginique Matri; quibus verbis manifestc Virgini jMariaj divinns cultus, aut ex aequo cum ipso Deo, aut certe secundum Deum cxhibetur. Socin. ad Weik. <ap. 1. p. 2i.

Let them be sure to worship all sorts that they may not miss. And by these means, amongst others, hath an occasion of stumbling and hardening been given to these poor souls.

As to the propagation of their conceptions, they had the advantage, not only of an unsettled time, as to the civil government of the nations of the world, most kingdoms and commonweals in Europe undergoing in that age considerable mutations and changes (a season wherein commonly the envious man hath taken opportunity to sow his tares); but also men being set at liberty from the bondage under which they were kept in the Papacy, and from making the tradition of their fathers the rule of their worship and walkings, were found indeed to have, upon abiding grounds, no principles of religion at all; and therefore were earnest in the inquiry after something that they might fix upon. What to avoid they knew, but what to close withal, they knew not. And therefore, it is no wonder, if among so many (I may say) millions of persons, as in those days there were, that fell off from the Papacy, some thousands perhaps (much more scores) might in their inquirings, from an extreme of superstition, run into another almost of atheism. Such was the estate of things and men in those days, wherein Soci-nianism, or the opposition to Christ of this latter edition, set forth in the world. Among the many that were convinced of the abominations of popery, before they were well fixed in the truth, some were deceived by the cunning sleight of some few men, that lay in wait to deceive. What event and issue and alike state and condition of things and persons, have gone forth imto, in the places and days wherein we live, is known to all. And that the saints of God may be warned by these things, is this address to them. To what hath been spoken, I had thought for a close of this discourse, to have given an account of the learning that these men profess, and the course of their studies, of their way of disputing, and the advantages they have therein ; to have instanced in some of their considerable sophisms, and subtle depravations of Scripture ; as also to have given a specimen of distinctions and answers, which may be improved to the discovering and sleighting of their fallacies, in the most important heads of religion : but being diverted by new and

unexpected avocations, 1 shall refer these, and other considerations, unto a prodromus for the use of younger students who intend to look into these controversies.

And these are the persons with whom we have to deal; these their ways and progress in the world. I shall now briefly subjoin some advantages they have had, something of the way and method wherein they have proceeded for the diffusing of their poison, with some general preservatives against the infection, and draw to a close of this discourse.

1. At the first entrance upon their undertaking, some of them made no small advantao;e in dealingr with weak and un-wary men, by crying out, that the terms of trinity, person, essence, hypostatical union, communication of properties, and the like were not found in the Scripture, and therefore were to be abandoned.

With the colour of this plea, they once prevailed so far on the churches in Transylvania, as that they resolved and determined to abstain from the use of those words; but they quickly perceived, that though the words were not of absolute necessity to express the things themselves to the minds of believers, yet they were so, to defend the truth from the opposition and craft of seducers, and at length recovered themselves by the advice of Beza;'^ yea, and Socinus^ himself doth not only grant, but prove, that in general this is not to be imposed on men, that the doctrine they assert is contained in Scripture in so many words, seeing it sufficeth that the thing itself pleaded for, be contained therein. To which purpose I desire the learned reader to peruse his

^ Nam ego quiclem sic statuo, etsi non pendet aliunde rerum sacranim Veritas quam ab unico Dei verbo, et sedulo vitanda est nobis oiunis Kintpiuvla,: taiiien sub-lato essentia; et hypostaseajn discrimine (quibuscunque tandem verbis utaris) ct ab-rogato o/xooua-iiu, vix ac ne vix quidem istoriini blaspheinorum fraudes detegi, et errores satis perspicue coargui posse. Nego qiioque sublatis vocabulis natur;e, proprietatis, hypostatics unionis, l^iaifAaTajv xomvia^ posse Nestorii et Eutichei blasphemias cora-mode a quoquam rcfelli: qua in re si forte hallucinor, hoc age, nobis deraonstrelqui potest, et nos ilium coronabinius. Beza. Epist. 81.

* Ais igitur adversus id quod a me affirmatum fuerat, in controversis dogmatibus probandis, aut iraprobandis, necesse esse literam adferre, et id quod asscritur niani-festc deraonstrarc : id quod asscritur nianifeste dcmonstrari dcbcre plane conccdo ; literam autem adferre necesse esse prorsus nego ; me autcm jure hoc faccre id aperte confirmat, quod qusdam dogmata in Cliristi ccclesia rcceptissima, non solum per expressam literam non probantur, sed ipsam sibi contrariani liabent. Exouipli causa, inter omnes fere Christiani nominis liomincs rcceptissiiiuim est, Deiun non habere aliqua membra corporis, ut aures, oculos, naves, brachia, pedes, manus, et tamcn non modo expresse et literaliter (ut vocant) id scriptum in sacris libris non est : verum etiam contrariuiu oninino passim diserte scriptum extat. Faust. Socin. Frag, dis-put.de Ador. Christi cum Fran. David, cap. 10. p 59.

THE PREFACE TO THE READER.

Ixxi

words, seeing he gives an instance of what he speaks, somewhat opposite to a grand notion of his disciple, with whom I have chiefly to do: yea, and the same'' person rejects the plea of his companions, of the not express usage of the terras wherein the doctrine of the Trinity is delivered in the Scripture, as weak and frivolous. And this hath made me a little marvel at the precipitate undigested conceptions of some, who in the midst of the flames of Socinianism kindling upon us on every side, would (contrary to the wisdom and practice of all antiquity, no one assembly in the world excepted) tie us up to a form of confession composed of the bare words of the Scripture in the order wherein they are there placed. If we profess to believe that Christ is God blessed for ever, and the Socinians tell us, true ; but he is a God by office, not by nature ; is it not lawful for us to say, nay; but he is God of the same nature, substance, and essence with his Father? If we shall say that Christ is God, one with the Father, and the Sabellians shall tell us, true; they are every way one, and in all respects, so that the whole Deity was incarnate ; is it not lawful for us to tell them, that though he be one in nature and essence with his Father, yet he is distinct from him in person ? and the like instances may be given for all the expressions wherein the doctrine of the blessed Trinity is delivered. The truth is, we have sufficient ground for these expressions in the Scripture, as to the words, and not only the things signified by them: the nature of God we have. Gal. iv. 8. the person of the Father and the Son distinct from it, Heb. i. 3. the essence of God, Exod. iii. 14. Rev. i. 4. the Trinity, 1 John v. 7. the Deity, Col. ii. 9.

2. Their whole business in all their books and disputations, is to take upon themselves the parts of answerers; so cavilling and making exceptions, not careing at all what becomes of any thing in religion, so they may with any colour avoid the arguments wherewith they are pressed. Hence almost all their books, unless it be some few short catechisms

•> Simile quod affers de vocabulis esscntife, et personarnm a nobis repudiatis, qnia in Sanctis iitcris non inveniantur, non est admittendum, neinini enini vere cordato persuadebitis id quod per ca vocabuli adversarii significare voluerunt, idcirco repu-diandum esse, quia ipsa vocabula scripta non inveniantur, inao quicunque ex nobis liac ratioue sunt usi, suspectani apud noiiiiuUos, alioquin ingenio, ct cruditione pra;-stantes viros, causam nostram reddidere. Idem, ubi sup. p. 6'2.

and confessions, are only answers and exceptions to other men's writings. Beside the fragments of a catechism or two, Socinus himself wrote very little but of this kind; so do the rest. How heavy and dull they are in asserting, may be seen in Volkelius's institution ; and here, whilst they escape their adversaries, they are desperately bold in their interpretations of Scripture. Though for the most part it suffices, that what is urged against them is not the sense of the place, though they themselves can assign no sense at all to it. I could easily give instances in abundance to make good this observation concerning them, but I shall not mention what must necessarily be insisted on, in the ensuing discourse. Their answers are, * this may otherwise be expounded ; it may otherwise be understood ; the word may have another signification in another place.'

3. Their greatest triumphs which they set up in their own conceits are, when by any ways they possess themselves of any usual maxim that passes current amongst men, being applied to finite, limited, created things, or any acknowledged notion in philosophy, and apply it to the infinite, uncreated, essence of God. Than which course of proceeding nothing indeed can be more absurd, foolish, and contrary to sound reason. That God and man, the creator and creature, that which is absolutely infinite and independent, and that which is finite, limited, and dependent, should be measured by the same rules, notions, and conceptions, unless it be by way of eminent analogy, which will not farther their design at all, is most fond and senseless. And this one observation is sufficient to arm us against all their profound disputes about essence, personality, and the like.

4. Generally, as we said, in the pursuit of their design, and carrying it on, they begin in exclaiming against the usual words wherein the doctrines they oppose are taught and delivered. They are not Scripture expressions, &;c. for the things themselves, they do not oppose them ; but they think them not so necessary as some suppose. Having got some ground by this on the minds of men, great stress is immediately laid on this, that a man may be saved though he believe not the doctrine of the Trinity, the satisfaction of Christ, &c. so that he live holily, and yield obedience to the precepts of Christ; so that it is mere madness and folly

to break love and communion about such differences. By this engine I knew not long since a choice society of Christians, through the cunning sleights of one lying in wait to deceive, disturbed, divided, broken, and in no small part of it infected. If they once get this advantage, and have thereby weakened the love and valuation of the truth with any ; thev generally, through the righteous judgment of God, giving up men of light and vain spirits to the imaginations of their own hearts, overthrow their faith, and lead them captive at their pleasure.

5. I thought to have insisted in particular, on their particular ways of insinuating their abominations, of the baits they lay, the devices they have, their high pretences to reason, and holiness in their lives, or honesty ; as also to have evinced by undeniable evidences, that there are thousands in the Papacy, and among the reformed churches, that are wholly baptized into their vile opinions and infidelity, though for the love of their temporal enjoyments, which are better to them than their religion, they profess it not.

As also how this persuasion of theirs hath been the great door, whereby the flood of atheism which is broken in upon the world, and which is almost professed by them who would be accounted the wits of the times, is come in upon the nations : farther, to have given general answers and distinctions applicable to the most, if not all of the considerable arguments, and objections wherewith they impunge the truth. But referring all these to my general considerations, for the study of controversies in divinity; with some observations that may be preservatives against their poison, I shall speedily acquit you from the trouble of this address. Give me leave then in the last place (though unfit and unworthy), to give some general cautions to my fellow-labourers and students in divinity, for the freeing our souls from being tainted with these abominations, and I have done.

1. Hold fast the form of wholesome words and sound doctrine : know that there are other ways of peace and accommodation with dissenters, than by letting go the least particle of truth. When men should accommodate their own hearts to love and peace, they must not double with their souls, and accommodate the truth of the gospel to other men's imaginations : perhaps some will suggest great things

of going a middle way in divinity between dissenters; but what is the issue for the most part of such proposals ? After they have by their middle ways raised no less contentions, than was before between the extremes (yea, when things before were in some good measure allayed), the accommodators themselves, through an ambitious desire to make good, and defend their own expedients, are insensibly carried over to the party and extreme, to whom they thought to make a condescension unto ; and by endeavouring to blanch their opinions to make them seem probable they are engaged to the defence of their consequences, before they are aware. Ami-raldus (whom I look upon as one of the greatest wits of these days) will at present go a middle way between the churches of France, and the Arminians; what hath been the issue ? Among the churches, divisions, tumult, disorder; among the professors and ministers, revilings, evil surmisings; to the whole body of the people, scandals and offences; and in respect of himself, evidence of daily approaching nearer to the Arminian party, until, as one of themsaith of him, he is not far from their kingdom of heaven. But is this all ? nay, but Grotius, Episcopius,*^ Curcellseus, &c. (quanta nomina) with others, must go a middle way to accommodate with the Socinians, and all that will not follow are rigid men, that by any means will defend the opinions they are fallen upon. The same plea is made by others for accommodation with the Papists, and still moderation, the middle way, condescension, are cried up. I can freely say, that I know not that man in England, who is willing to go farther in forbearance, love, and communion with all that fear God, and hold the foundation than I am; but that this is to be done upon other grounds, principles, and ways, by other means and expedients, than by a condescension from the exactness of the least apex of gospel truth, or by an accommodation of doctrines by loose and general terms, I have elsewhere sufficiently declared. Let no man deceive you with vain pretences ; hold fast the truth as it is in Jesus, part not with one iota, and contend for it, when called thereunto.

2. Take heed of the snare of Satan in affecting eminency

' Quotquot hactcnus tlicologica tractarunt, id sibi negotii crediderunt solum dari, ut rjuani sive sorsillis obtiilcrat, sive judicio amploxi craiit scntcnliain, (otis illam ri-ribus tuerentur. Curccllajus prmfat. ad opera Ejiiscop.

by singularity. It is good to strive to excel, and to go before one another in knowledge and in light, as in holiness and obedience. To do this in the road is difficult. Ahi-maaz had not outrun Cushi, but that he took a by-path. Many finding it impossible to emerge unto any consideration, by walking in the beaten path of truth (all parts of divinity, all ways of handling it, being carried already to such an height and excellency, that to make any considerable improvement requires great pains, study, and an insight into all kind of learning), and not yet able to conquer the itch of being accounted tiveq fxijaXoi, turn aside into by-ways, and turn the eyes of all men to them, by scrambling over hedge and ditch, when the sober traveller is not at all regarded.

The Roman historian, giving an account of the degeneracy of eloquence, after it once came to its height in the time of Cicero, fixeth on this as the most probable reason. ' Difficile in perfecto mora est; naturaliterque quod procedere non potest, recedit; et ut ad consequendos quos priores du-cimus accedimus : ita ubi prgeteriri, aut aequari eos posse desperamus, studium cum spe segnescit, et quod assequi non potest, sequi desinit; et velut occupatam relinquens materiam, quserit novam: prseteritoque eo in quo eminere non possuraus, aliquid in que nitamur conquaerimus; sequiturque ut frequens ac mobilis transitus maximum perfecti operis impediraentum sit.' Paterc. Hist. Rom. lib.

I wish some such things may not be said of the doctrine of the reformed churches. It was not long since raised to a great height of purity in itself, and perspicuity in the way of its delivery; buf^ athletic constitutions are seldom permanent: men would not be content to walk after others, and finding they could not excel what was done, they have given over to imitate it, or to do any thing in the like kind; and therefore, neglecting that wherein they could not be eminent, they have taken a course to have something peculiar, wherein to put forth their endeavours. Let us then watch against this temptation, and know that a man may be higher than his brethren, and yet be but a Saul.

^ 'Ev Toio-f yv/Miaanxoiffiv ii ett' oixpov ive^iai;, ir<J>aX£ja(, ^v Iv t« la-^ariii tooan' tit yap ^vvavrai fxtvuv Iv rS avritc ouJs ar^tfAittv Itte; HoIk, ar^ifjcioutrtv olii ri Svvavrai im to BgXTfov lwiSi5oWi,X£iV»Tai«7ri t3 j^s"p';v. Hipocrat. Aphoris. lib. 1. sect. 11.

THE PREFACE TO THE READER.

3. Let not any attempt dealing with these men, that is not in some good measure furnished with those kinds of literature, and those common arts, wherein they excel; as first, the knowledge of the tongues, wherein the Scripture is written ; namely, the Hebrew and Greek. He that is not in some measure acquainted with these, will scarcely make thorough work in dealing with them. There is not a word, nor scarce a letter in a word (if I may so speak), which they do not search, and toss up and down ; not an expression which they pursue not through the whole Scripture, to see if any place will give countenance to the interpretation of it, which they embrace. The curious use of the Greek articles, which, as Scaliger calls them, are 'loquacissimae gen-tis flabellum,' is their great covert against the arguments for the Deity of Christ: their disputes about the Hebrew words, wherein the doctrine of the satisfaction of Christ is delivered in the Old Testament, the ensuing treatise will in part manifest. Unless a man can debate the use of words with them in the Scripture, and by instances from other approved authors, it will be hard so to enclose or shut them up, but that they will make way to evade and escape. Press them with any testimony of Scripture, if to any one word of the testimony, whereon the sense of the whole in any measure depends, they can except that in another place that word in the original hath another signification; and therefore, it is not necessary that it should here signify as you urge it, unless you are able to debate the true meaning and import of the word with them, they suppose they have done enough to evade your testimony. And no less, nextly, are the common arts of logic and rhetoric wherein they exercise themselves: among all Socinus's works there is none more pernicious, than the little treatise he wrote about sophisms, wherein he labours to give instances of all manner of sophistical arguments, in those which are produced for the confirmation of the doctrine of the blessed Trinity.

He that would reinforce those arguments, and vindicate them from his exceptions, and the entanglements cast upon them, without some cohsiderable acquaintance with the principles of logic, and artificial rules of argumentation, will find himself at a loss : besides, of all men in the world in their argumentations they are most sophistical. It is seldom that

they urge any reason, or give any exception, wherein they conclude not' a particulari ad universale,' or * ab indefiuito ad universale, exclusive,' or 'ab aliquo statu Christi ad omnem,' or 'ab oeconomia Trinitatis ad Theologiam Deitatis,' or *ab iisuvocisalicubi'to 'ubique.' As Christis a man, therefore not God; he is the servant of the Father, therefore not of the same nature ; and the like instances may be given in abundance : from which kind of arguing he will hardly extricate himself, who is ignorant of the rudiments of logic. The frequency of figurative expressions, which they make use of to their advantage in the Scripture, requires the knowledge of rhetoric also, in him that will deal with them, to any good purpose. A good assistance (in the former of these especially) is given to students by Keslerus, ' in examine Logicas, Me-taphysicae, et PhysicaePhotinianae.' The pretended maxims also which they insist on from the civil law, in the business of the satisfaction of Christ, which are especially urged by Socinus, and Crellius in his defence against Grotius, will make him who shall engage with them, see it necessary in some measure to be acquainted with the principles of that faculty and learning also.

With those who are destitute of these, the great Spirit of truth is an abundantly sufficient preserver from all the cunning sleights of men that lie in wait to deceive. He can give them to believe and suffer for the truth ; but that they should at any time look upon themselves as called to read the books, or dispute with the men of these abominations, I can see no ground.

4. Always bear in mind the gross figments that they seek to assert and establish in the room of that, which they cunningly and subtilely oppose. Remember that the aim of their arguments against the Deity of Christ, and the blessed Trinity, is to set up two true Gods, the one so by nature, the other made so; the one God in his own essence, the other a God from him by office ; that was a man, is a spirit, and shall cease to be a God. And some farther account hereof you will meet with in the close of the ensuing treatise.

5. Diligent, constant, serious reading, studying, meditating on the Scriptures, with the assistance and directions of all the rules and advantages for the right uuderstandino-

of them, which by the observation and diligence of many-worthies, we are furnished withal, accompanied with continual attendance on the throne of grace, for the presence of the Spirit of truth with us to lead us into all truth, and .o increase his anointing of us day by day, shining into our hearts to give us the * knowledge of the glory of God, in the face of Jesus Christ;' is, as for all other things in the course of our pilgrimage and walking with God, so for our preservation against these abominations, and the enabling of us to discover their madness, and answer their objections, of in-dispensible necessity. Apollos, who was mighty in the Scriptures, Acts xviii. 24. did mightily convince the gainsaying Jews ; ver. 28. Neither in dealing with these men is there any better course in the world, than in a good order and method to multiply testimonies against them, to the same purpose. For, whereas they have shifts in readiness to every particular, and hope to darken a single star, when they are gathered into a constellation, they send out a glory and brightness which they cannot stand before. Being engaged myself once in a public dispute about the satisfaction of Christ, I took this course, in a clear and evident coherence, producing very many testimonies to the confirmation of it; which together gave such an evidence to the truth, that one who stood by, instantly affirmed, that there was enough spoken to stop the mouth of the devil himself. And this course in the business of the Deity and satisfaction of Christ, will certainly be triumphant. Let us then labour to have our senses abundantly exercised in the word, that we may be able to discern between good and evil, and that not by studying the places themselves that are controverted, but by a diligent search into the whole mind and will of God, as revealed in the word, wherein the sense is given in to humble souls, with more life, power, evidence of truth, and is more effectual for the begetting of faith and love to the truth, than in a curious search after the annotations of men upon particular places. And truly I must needs say, that I know not a more deplorable mistake in the studies of divines, both preachers and others, than their diversion from an immediate direct study of the Scriptures themselves, unto the studying of commentators, critics, scholiasts, annotators, and the like helps, which God in his good providence making

use of the abilities, and sometimes the ambition, and ends of men, hath furnished us withal. Not that I condemn the use and study of them, which I wish men were more diligent in, but desire pardon if I mistake, and do only surmise by the experience of my own folly for many years, that many which seriously study the things of God, do yet rather make it their business to inquire after the sense of other men on the Scriptures, than to search studiously into them themselves.

6. That direction in this kind, which with me is instar omnium, is, for a diligent endeavour to have the power of the truths professed and contended for, abiding upon our hearts, that we may not contend for notions ; but what we have a practical acquaintance within our own souls. When the heart is cast, indeed, into the mould of the doctrine that the mind embraceth ; when the evidence and necessity of the truth abides in us ; when not the sense of the words only is in our heads, but the sense of the things abides in our hearts ; when we have communion with God in the doctrine we contend for; then shall we be garrisoned by the grace of God against all the assaults of men. And without this, all our contending is as to ourselves, of no value. What am I the better, if I can dispute that Christ is God, but have no sense or sweetness in my heart from hence, that he is a God in covenant with my soul? What will it avail me to evince by testimonies and arguments, that he hath made satisfaction for sin, if through my unbelief the wrath of God abides on me, and I have no experience of my own being made the righteousness of God in him ? If I find not in my standing before God, the excellency of having my sins imputed to him, and his righteousness imputed to me; will it be any advantage to me in the issue, to profess and dispute that God works the conversion of a sinner, by the irresistible grace of his Spirit, if I was never acquainted experimentally with the deadness and utter impotency to good, that opposition to the law of God which is in my own soul by nature, with the efiicacy of the exceeding greatness of the power of God in quickening, enlightening, and bringing forth the fruits of obedience in me ? It is the power of truth in the heart alone, that will make us cleave unto it indeed, in an hour of temptation. Let us then not think that we are any thing the

better for our conviction of the truths of the great doctrines of the gospel, for which we contend with these men, unless we find the power of the truths abiding in our own hearts, and have a continual experience of their necessity and excellency, in our standing before God and our corumunion with him.

7. Do not look upon these things, as things afar off, wherein you are little concerned. The evil is at the door; there is not a city, a town, scarce a village in England, wherein some of this poison is not poured forth. Are not the doctrines of free will, universal redemption, apostacy from grace, mutability of God, of denying the resurrection of the dead, with all the foolish conceits of many about God and Christ in this nation, ready to gather to this head.

Let us not deceive ourselves; Satan is a crafty enemy. He yet hovers up and down in the lubricous vain imaginations of a confused multitude, whose tongues are so divided that they understand not one the other. I dare boldly say, that if ever he settle to a stated opposition to the gospel, it will be in Socinianism. The Lord rebuke him, he is busy in, and by many, where little notice is taken of him. But of these things thus far.

A particular account of the cause and reasons of my engagement in this business, with what I have aimed at in the ensuing discourse, you will find given in my epistle to the University; so that the same things need not here also be delivered. The confutation of Mr. Biddle's and Smalcius's catechism, commonly called the ' Racovian,' with the vindication of all the texts of Scripture, giving testimony to the Deity of Christ throughout the Old and New Testament, from the perverse gloss and interpretations put upon them by Hugo Grotius, in his annotations on the Bible, with those also which concern his satisfaction, and on the occasion hereof the confirmation of the most important truths of the Scripture, about the nature of God, the person of Christ and the Holy Ghost, the offices of Christ, Sic. hath been in my design. With what mind and intention, with what love to the truth, with what dependance on God for his presence and assistance, with what earnestness of supplication to enjoy the fruit of the promise of our dear Lord Jesus, to lead me into all truth by his blessed Spirit, I have

have gone through this work, the Lord knows. I only know that in every particular I have come short of my duty therein, that a review of my paths and pains would yield me very little refreshment, but that I know in whom I have believed, and am persuaded, ' that even concerning this also, he will remember me for good, and spare me according to the greatness of his mercy.' And whatever becomes of this weak endeavour before the Lord, yet'he hath made with me an everlasting covenant, ordered in all things and sure ; and this is all my salvation, and all my desire, although he make it not to grow :' what is performed is submitted humbly to the to the judgment of them to whom this address is made. About the thoughts of others, or any such, as by envy, interest, curiosity, or faction, may be swayed or biassed, 1 am not solicitous. If any benefit redound to the saints of the Most High, or any that belong to the purpose of God's love be advantaged, enlightened, or built up in their most holy faith in the least, by what is here delivered, I have my reward.

VOL. vili.

MR. BIDDLE^S PREFACE

CATECHISM.

I HAVE often wondered and complained that there was no catechism yet extant (that I could ever see or hear of), from whence one might learn the true grounds of the Christian religion, as the same is delivered in the Holy Scripture ; all catechisms generally being so stuffed with the sup-posals and traditions of men, that the least part of them is derived from the word of God. For when councils, convocations, and assemblies of divines, justling the sacred writers out of their place in the church, had once framed articles and confessions of faith, according to their own fancies and interests, and the civil magistrate had by his authority ratified the same, all catechisms were afterward fitted to those articles and confessions, and the Scripture either wholly omitted, or brought in only for a shew, not one quotation amongst many being a whit to the purpose, as will soon appear to any man of judgment, who taking into his hand the said catechisms, shall examine the texts alledged in them : for if he do this diligently and impartially, he will find the Scripture, and those catechisms to be at so wide a distance one from another, that he will begin to question whether the catechists gave any heed at all to what they wrote, and did not only themselves refuse to make use of their reason, but presume that their readers also would do the same. In how miserable a condition, then, as to spiritual things, must Christians generally needs be, when thus trained up, not, as the apostle adviseth, 'in the nurture and admonition of the Lord,' but in the supposals and traditions of men, having little or no assurance touching the reality of their religion ! Which some observing, and not having the happiness to light upon the truth, have quite abandoned all piety whatsoever, thinking there is no firm ground whereon to build the same. To prevent which mischief in time to come, by bringing men

G 2

to a certainty (I mean such men as own the divine authority of the Scripture), and withal to satisfy the just and pious desires of many, who would fain understand the truth of our religion, to the end they might not only be built up themselves, but also instruct their children and families in the same, I have here (according to the understanding I have gotten by continual meditation on the word of God) compiled a Scripture catechism, wherein I bring the reader to a sure and certain knowledge of the chiefest things pertaining both to belief and practice, whilst I myself assert nothing (as others have done before me), but only introduce the Scripture faithfully uttering its own assertions, which all Christians confess to be of undoubted truth. Take heed therefore whosoever thou art that lightest on this book, and there readest things quite contrary to the doctrines that pass current amongst the generality of Christians (for I confess most of the things here displayed, have such a tendency), that thou fall not foul upon them, for thou canst not do so without falling foul upon the Holy Scripture itself, inasmuch as all the answers throughout the whole catechism are faithfully transcribed out of it, and rightly applied to the questions, as thou thyself mayest perceive if tliou make a diligent inspection into the several texts with all their circumstances. Thou wilt perhaps here reply, that the text:i which I have cited do indeed in the letter hold forth such things as are contrary to the doctrines commonly received amongst Christians, but they ought to have a mystical or figurative interpretation put upon them, and then both the doctrines and the texts of Scripture will suit well enough. To which I answer, that if we once take tliis liberty to impose our mystical or figurative interpretations on the Scripture, without express warrant of the Scripture itself, we shall have no settled belief, but be liable continually to be turned aside by any one that can invent a new mystical meaning of the Scripture, there being no certain rule to judge of such meanings, as there is of the literal ones: nor is there any error, how absurd and impious soever, but may on such terms be accorded with the Scripture. All the abominable idolatries of the Papists, all the superstitious fopperies of the Turks, all the licentious opinions and practices of the Ranters, may by this means be not only

palliated, but defended by the word of God. Certainly might we of our own heads figuratively interpret tlie Scripture, when the letter is neither repugnant to our senses, nor to the scope of the respective texts, nor to a greater number of plain texts to the contrary; (for in such cases we must of necessity admit figures in the sacred volume, as well as we do in profane ones, otherwise both they and it will clash with themselves, or with our senses, which the Scripture itself intimates to be of infallible certainty, see 1 John i. 2, 3.) might we, I say, at our pleasure impose our figures and allegories on the plain words of God, the Scripture would in very deed be, what some blasphemously affirm it to be, ' a nose of wax.' For instance; it is frequently asserted in the Scripture, that God hath a similitude or shape, hath his place in the heavens, hath also affections or passions, as love, hatred, mercy, anger, and the like ; neither is any thing to the contrary delivered there, unless seemingly in certain places, which neither for number nor clearness are comparable unto those of the other side. Why now should I depart from the letter of the Scripture in these particulars, and boldly affirm with the generality of Christians (or rather, with the generality of such Christians only, as being conversant with the false philosophy that reigneth in the schools, have their understandings perverted with wrong notions), that God is without a shape, in no certain place, and incapable of affections ? Would not this be to use the Scripture like a nose of wax, and when of itself it looketh any way, to turn it aside at our pleasure ? And would not God be so far from speaking to our capacity in his word (which is the usual refuge of the adversaries, when in these and the like matters concerning God, they are pressed with the plain words of the Scripture), as that he would by so doing render us altogether incapable of finding out his meaning, whilst he spake one thing, and understood the clean contrary ? Yea, would he not have taken the direct course to make men substitute an idol in his stead (for the adversaries hold, that to conceive of God as having a shape, or aflfections, or being in a certain place, is idolatry), if he described himself in the Scripture otherwise than indeed he is, without telling us so much in plain terms, that we might not conceive amiss of him ? Thus we see, that when sleep,

which plainly argueth weakness and imperfection, had been ascribed to God, Psal. xliv. 23. the contrary is said of him, Psal. cxxi. 4. Again, when weariness had been attributed to him, Isa. i. 14. the same is expressly denied of him, Isa. xl. 28. And would not God, think ye, have done the like in those forementioned things, were the case the same in them as in the others? This consideration is so pressing, that a certain author (otherwise a very learned and intelligent man) perceiving the weight thereof, and not knowing how to avoid the same, took up (though very unluckily) one erroneous tenet to maintain another, telling us in a late book of his entitled Conjectura Cabalistica,' that for Moses, by occasion of his writings, to let the Jews entertain a conceit of God as in human shape, was not any more a way to bring them into idolatry, than by acknowledging man to be God, as (saith he) our religion does in Christ.' How can this consist even with consonancy to his own principles, whilst he holds it to be false that God hath any shape, but true that Christ is God ? For will a false opinion of God no sooner lead men into idolatry, than a true opinion of Christ? But it is no marvel, that this author, and other learned men with him, entertain such conceits of God and Christ as are repugnant to the current of the Scripture, whilst they set so high a rate on the sublime, indeed, but uncertain notions of the Platonists, and in the meantime slight the plain but certain letter of the sacred writers, as being far below the Divine Majesty and written pnly to comply with the rude apprehensions of the vulgar, unless by a mystical interpretation they be screwed up to Platonism. This is the stone at which the pride of learned men hath caused them continually to stumble ; namely, to think that they can speak more wisely and worthily of God, than he hath spoken of himself in his word. This hath brought that more than Babylonish confusion of language into the Christian religion, whilst men have framed those horrid and intricate expressions, under the colour of detecting and excluding heresies, but in truth to put a baffle on the simplicity of the Scripture, and usher in heresies, tliat so they might the more easily carry on their worldly designs, which could not be effected but through the ignorance of the people ; nor the people brought into ignorance, but by wrapping

up religion in such monstrous terms, as neither the people nor they themselves that invented them (or at least took them from the invention of others) did understand. Wherefore there is no possibility to reduce the Christian religion to its primitive integrity; a thing, though much pretended, yea, boasted of, in reformed churches, yet never hitherto sincerely endeavoured much less effected (in that men have by severe penalties been hindered to reform religion beyond such a stint as that of Luther, or at most that of Calvin), but by cashiering those many intricate terms and devised forms of speaking imposed on our religion, and by wholly betaking ourselves to the plainness of the Scripture. For I have long since observed (and find my observation to be true and certain), that when to express matters of religion, men make use of words and phrases unheard of in the Scripture, they slily under them couch false doctrines, and obtrude them on us : for without question the doctrines of the Scripture can be so aptly explained in no language as that of the Scripture itself. Examine therefore the expressions of God's being infinite and incomprehensible, of his being a simple act, of his subsisting in three persons, or after a threefold manner, of a divine circumincession, of an eternal generation, of an eternal procession, of an incarnation, of an hypostatical union, of a communication of properties, of the mother of God, of God dying, of God made man, of transubstantiation, of consubstantiation, of original sin, of Christ's taking our nature on him, of Christ's making satisfaction to God for our sins, both past, present and to come, of Christ's fulfilling the law for us, of Christ's being punished by God for us, of Christ's merits, or his meritorious obedience both active and passive, of Christ's purchasing the kingdom of heaven for us, of Christ's enduring the wrath of God, yea, the pains of a damned man, of Christ's rising from the dead by his own power, of the ubiquity of Christ's body, of apprehending and applying Christ's righteousness to ourselves by faith, of Christ's being our surety, of Christ's paying our debts, of our sins imputed to Christ, of Christ's righteousness imputed to us, of Christ's dying to appease the wrath of God, and reconcile him to us, of infused grace, of free grace, of the world of the elect, of irresistible workings of the Spirit in bringing men

to believe, of carnal reason, of spiritual desertions, of spiritual incomes, of the outgoings of God, of taking up the ordinance, &c. and thou shalt find, that as these forms of speech are not owned by the Scripture, so neither the things contained in them. How excellent therefore was that advice of Paul to Timothy in his second epistle to him, chap. i. 13. * Hold fast the form of sound words which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus V For if we once let go those forms of sound words learned from the apostles, and take up such as have been coined by others in succeeding ages, we shall together part with the apostles' doctrine, as woful experience hath taught us. For after Constantine the great, together with the council of Nice, had once deviated from the language of the Scripture, in the business touching the son of God, callinn; him co-essential with the Father, this opened a gap for others afterward, under a pretence of guarding the truth from heretics, to devise new terms at pleasure, which did by degrees so vitiate the chastity and simplicity of our faith delivered in the Scripture, that there hardly remained so much as one point thereof sound and entire. So that as it was wont to be disputed in the schools, whether the old ship of Theseus (which had in a manner been wholly altered at sundry times by the accession of new pieces of timber upon the decay of the old) were the same ship it had been at first, and not rather another by degrees substituted in the stead thereof: in like manner there was so much of the primitive truth worn away by the corruption that did by little and little overspread the generality of Christians, and so many errors in stead thereof tacked to our religion at several times, that one might justly question whether it were the same religion with that which Christ and his apostles taught, and not another since devised by men, and put in the room thereof. But thanks be to God through our Lord Jesus Christ, who, amidst the universal corruption of our religion, hath preserved his written word entire (for had men corrupted it, they would have made it speak more favourably in behalf of their lusts and worldly interests, than it doth), which word, if we with diligence and sincerity pry into, resolving to embrace the doctrine that is there plainly delivered, though all the world should set itself against us for so doing, we shall

easily discern the truth, and so be enabled to reduce our religion to its first principles. For thus much I perceive by mine own experience, who being otherwise of no great abilities, yet setting myself with the aforesaid resolution for sundry years together upon an impartial search of the Scripture, have not only detected many errors, but here presented the readers with a body of religion, exactly transcribed out of the word God; which body, whosoever shall well ruminate and digest in his mind, may, by the same method wherein I have gone before him, make a farther inquiry into the oracles of God, and draw forth whatsoever yet lies hid, and being brought to light, will tend to the accomplishment of godliness amongst us, for at this only all the Scripture ainieth. The Scripture, which all men who have thoroughly studied the same, must of necessity be enamoured with as breathing out the mere wisdom of God, and being the exactestrule of a holy life (which all religions whatsoever confess to be the way unto happiness) that can be imagined, and whose divinity will never even to the world's end be questioned by any, but such as are unwilling to deny their worldly lusts, and obey the pure and perfect precepts thereof. Which obedience, whosoever shall perform, he shall not only in the life to come, but even in this life be equal unto angels.

JOHN BIDDLE.

MR. BIDDLE'S PREFACE

BRIEFLY EXAMINED.

In the entrance of Mr. B.'s preface he tells the reader, very modestly,' that he could never yet see or hear of a catechism, (although I presume he had seen, or heard at least of one or two written by Faustus Socinus, though not completed ; of one by Valentine Smalcius, commonly called the ' Racovian Catechism.' from whence many of his questions and answers are taken ; and of an exposition of the articles of faith in the creed, called the apostle's, in way of catechism, by Jonas Schliclitingius,publishedinFrench,anno 1646; in Latin,anno 1651) from whence the true grounds of Christian religion

might be learned, as it is delivered in Scripture;' and therefore, doubtless, all Christians have cause to rejoice at the happy product of Mr. B.'s pains, wherewith he now acquaints them (ushered in with this modest account), whereby at length they may know their own religion, wherein as yet they have not been instructed to any purpose. And the reason of this is, because * all other catechisms are stuffed with many supposals and traditions, the least part of them being derived from the word of God,' Mr. B. being judge. 'And this is the common language of his companions, comparing themselves and their own writings with those of other men. The common language they delight in is, * though Christians have hitherto thought otherwise.'

Whether we have reason to stand to this determination, and acquiesce in this censure and sentence, the ensuing considerations of what Mr. B. substitutes in the room of those catechisms which he here rejects, will evince and manifest. But to give countenance to this humble entrance into his work, he tells his reader, 'that councils, convocations, and assemblies of divines have justled out the Scripture, and framed confessions of faith according to their own fancies and interests, getting them confirmed by the civil magistrate; according unto which confessions, all catechisms are and have been framed without any regard to the Scripture.' What * councils' Mr. Biddle intends, he informs us not, nor what it is that in them he chiefly complains of. If he intend some only, such as the apostatizing times of the church saw, he knows he is not opposed by them with whom he hath to do; nor yet if he charge them all for some miscarriages in them, or about them.

If all, as that of the apostles themselves,^ Acts xv. together with the rest that for some ages followed after, and that

^ Quicunque si lileras assidua nianu versat, quantumvis nescio quos catechismos, vel locos communes et commentaries quani famiiiarissimos sibi rcddiderit, is statini cura nostroriini libros vel semcl inspexerit, infelliget quantum distant aDra lupinis. Val. Smal. Res. Orat. Vogel. ct Peuschel. Rac. An. 1617. p. 34. Scripta ha;c, Dei glo-riam et Christi Domini nostri lionorem, ac ipsani nostram salutem, ab omni traditio-num humanaruin labe, ipsa divina veritate literis sacris comprehensa repurgare ni-tuntur, et rxpeditissinia ex()licanda; Dei glorias, honoris Christo Domino nostro asse-rendi, ct salutis consequenda; ratione cxccrpta, ac omnibus proposita eam ipsissinia sacrarum literarum autboritatc sancire et stabilire conantur Hieron. jMoscorov. Ep. Dedic. Cat. Rac. ad Jacob. M. B. R. nomine et jussu Ecciesise. Polon. Neque porro qaeniquam esse arbitror, qui in tot ac tantis Christiana; religionis placitis, a reiiquis hominibus dissentiat, in quot quantisque ego dissentio. Socin. Epist. ad Squarclalup. An. 1381.

as to the doctrine by them delivered, fall under his censure, we have nothing but the testimony of Mr. B. to induce us to a belief of this insinuation ;'' his testimony in things of this nature, will be received only by them who receive his doctrine.

What I have to offer on this account, I have spoken otherwhere. That the confessions of faith which the first general councils, as they are called, during the space of four hundred years and upward, composed and put forth, were framed according to the fancies and interests of men, besides the word, is Mr. B.'s fancy and his interest to have it so esteemed. The faith he professeth, or rather the infidelity he is fallen into, was condemned in them all, and that upon the occasion of its then first coming into the world : ' Hinc illae lachrimse :' if they stand, he must fall. ' That the catechisms of latter days (I suppose he intends those in use amongst the reformed churches) did wholly omit the Scripture, or brought it in only for a shew, not one quotation amongst many being a whit to the purpose,' you have the same testimony for, as for the assertions foregoing. He that will say this, had need some other way evince that he makes conscience of what he says ; or that he dare not say any thing, so it serve his turn. Only Mr. Biddle hath quoted Scripture to the purpose. To prove God to be 'finite, limited, included in heaven, of a visible shape, ignorant of things future, obnoxious to turbulent passions and affections,' are some of his quotations produced ; for the like end and purpose are the most of the rest alleged. Never, it seems, was the Scripture alleged to any purpose before. And these things, through the righteous hand of God taking vengeance on an unthankful generation, not delighting in the light and truth which he hath sent forth, do we hear and read. Of those who have made bold aKivr}Ta kivhv, and to shake the fundamentals of gospel truths or the mystery of grace, we have daily many examples. The number is far more scarce of them who have attempted to blot out those kolvoI ivoiai, or ingrafted notions of mankind, concerning the perfections of God which Mr. B. opposeth. ' Fabulas vulgaris nequitia non invenit.' An opposition to the first principles of rational beings must needs be talked of.

•* "Atowov yaf, it o airo; a-arij-TO;, l( rovrov Xo'yoi ia-oiirai Tria-roi. Arist. Rhet. lib. 3. cap. 15. «■ Caluuiniare fortiter j aliquid adhaBrebit.

Othei'catechists, besides himself, Mr. Biddle tells you, 'hnvo written with so much oscitancy and contempt of the Scripture, that a considering man will question whether they gave any heed to what they w rote themselves, but refused to make use of their reason, and presumed others would do so also.' And so you have the sum of his judgment concerning all other catechisms besides his own, that he hath either seen or heard of. 'They are all fitted to confusion of faith, com-])osed according to the fancies and interests of men, written without attending to the Scripture or quoting it to any purpose, their authors (like madmen) not knowing what they wrote, and refusing to make use of their reason that they might so do;' and this is the modest humble entrance of Mr. B.'s preface.

All that have gone before him were knaves, fools, idiots, madmen. The proof of these assertions you are to expect. When a philosopher pressed Diogenes with this sophism, 'What I am, thou art not; I am a man, therefore thou art not;' he gave him no other answer, 'but begin with me and the conclusion will be true.' Mr. B. is a Master of Arts ; and knew doubtless, that such assertions as might be easily turned upon himself, are of no use to any, but those who have not ought else to say. Perhaps Mr. B. speaks only to them of the same mind with him ; and then, indeed, as Socrates'* said, it was no hard thing to commend the Athenians before the Athenians, but to commend the-m before the Lacedemonians was difficult; no more is it any great undertaking to condemn men sound in the faith unto Socinians, before others it will not prove so easy.

It is not incumbent on me to defend any, much less all the catechisms that have been written by learned men of the reformed religion. That there are errors in some, mistakes in others, that some are more clear, plain, and scriptural, than others, 1 grant. All of them may have, have had, their use in their kind. That in any of them there is any thing taught inconsistent with communion with God, or inevitably tending to the impairing of faith and love, Mr. B. is not I presume such a (^tAoTTovoc, as to undertake to demonstrate. I shall only add, that notwithstanding the vain plea of having given

"* Ou j^aXiiroy 'A&uvawuf Iv A&nvaioic £7raivi~v, aXXi tv Aax£Sai,uoviaif- Socrnt. a()iiil Plat, in Mcnexcni. Cit. Arist. Rhetor, lib. 3. cnp. 14.

all his answers in the express words of Scripture (whereby with the foolish bird he hides his head from the fowler, but leaves his whole monstrous body visible; the teaching part of his catechism being solely in the insinuating, ensnaring, captious, questions thereof, leading the understanding of the reader, to a misapprehension and misapplication of the words of the Scripture, it being very easy to make up the grossest blasphemy imaginable out of the words of the Scripture itself) ; I never found, saw, read, or heard of any, so grossly perverting the doctrine of the Scripture, concerning God, and all his ways, as these of Mr. B. do. For in sundry particulars, they exceed those mentioned before of Socinus, Smalcius, Schlictingius, which had justly gotten the repute of the worst in the world ; and for an account of ray reason of this persuasion, I refer the reader to the ensuing considerations of them.

This then being the sad estate of Christians, so misinformed by such vile varlets, as have so foully deceived them, and misled them, as above-mentioned ; what is to be done, and what course to be taken, to bring in light into the world, and to deliver men from the sorrowful condition, whereinto they have been catechised ? For this end he tells the reader, doth "he shew himself to the world(0Eoc a-rro ^£;)(ov?jc)j to undeceive them, and to bring them out of all their wanderings unto some certainty of religion. This he discourses pp. 4, 5. The reasons he gives you of this undertaking are two; 1. To bring men to a certainty. 2. To satisfy the pious desire of some, who would fain know the truth of our religion. The way he fixes on, for the compassing of the end proposed, is, 1. By asserting nothing. 2. By introducing the plain texts of Scripture to speak for themselves. Each briefly may be considered.

1. What fluctuating persons are they, not yet come to any certainty in religion, whom Mr. B. intends to deal with-all ? Those, for the most part, of them who seem to be intended in such undertakings, are fully persuaded from the Scripture, of the truth of those things, wherein they have been instructed. Of these, some, I have heard, have been unsettled by Mr. B. but that he shall ever settle any (there

e Malta passim ab ultima vetustate villa adraissa sunt, quae nemo praeter lue in-dicabit. Scaliir.

being no consistency in error or falsehood) is impossible. Mr. B. knows there is no one of the catechists he so decries, but directs them whom he so instructs, to the Scriptures, and settles their faith on the word of God alone; though they labour to help their faith and understanding, by opening of it, whereunto also they are called. I fear Mr. B.'s certainty will at length appear to be scepticism; and his settling of men, to be the unsettling; that his '^conversions are from the faith ; and that in this very book he aims more to acquaint men with his questions, than the Scripture answers. But he says,

2. Those whom he aims to bring to this certainty, are such as would fain understand the truth of our religion. If by our religion he means the religion of himself, and his followers (or rather masters) the Socinians, I am sorry to hear that §any are so greedy of its acquaintance. Happily this is but a pretence ; such as his predecessors in this work have commonly used. For understanding the truth of it, they will find in the issue what an endless work they have undertaken. Who can make that strait, which is crooked ; or number that which is wanting? If by our religion he means the Christian religion, it may well be inquired who they are with their just and pious desires, who yet understand not the truth of Christian religion ? that is, that it is the only true religion. When we know these Turks, Jews, Pagans, which Mr. Biddle hath to deal withal, we shall be able to judge of what reason he had to labour to satisfy their just and pious desires, I would also willingly be informed how they came to so high an advancement in our religion, as to desire to be brought up in it, and to be able to instruct others, when as yet they do not understand the truth of it, or are not satisfied therein. And,

3. As these are admirable men, so the way he takes for their satisfaction is admirable also ; that is, by asserting nothing. He that asserts nothing, proves nothing, for that which any one proves, that he asserts; intending then to bring men to a certainty who yet understand not the truth

^ Hoc illis negotium est, non ethnicos convertendi, sed nostros evertendi. Tertul. de PrsBScrip. ad Hac.

B Expressere id nobis vota multoriim, multa?que etiam a remotissiniis orbis par-tibus ad nos transniissae preces. Prsefat. ad Cat. Tlac. Nam rex Seleucus rac opcrc oravit niaximo, ut sibi latrones cogereni et conscriberem. Pyrgopol. in Plaut. Mil. Glo.

of our religion, he asserts nothing, proves nothing (as is the manner of some), but leaves them to themselves. A most compendious way of teaching (for whose attainment Mr. B. needed not to have been Master of Arts) if it proves effectual. But by not asserting, it is evident Mr. B. intends not silence; he hath said too much to be so interpreted. Only what he hath spoken, he hath done it in a sceptical way of inquiry ; wherein, though the intendment of his mind be evident, and all his queries may be easily resolved into so many propositions or assertions, yet as his words lie he supposes he may speak truly, that he asserts nothing. Of the truth then of this assertion, that he doth not assert any thing, the reader will judge. And this is the path to atheism, which of all others is most trod and beaten in the days wherein we live. A liberty of judgment is pretended, and queries are proposed, until nothing certain be left, nothing unshaken. But,

4. He introduces the Scripture faithfully uttering its own assertions. If his own testimony concerning his faithful dealing, may be taken, this must pass. The express words of the Scripture, I confess are produced ; but as to Mr. B.'s faithfulness in their production, I have sundry exceptions to make.

As 1. That by his leading questions, and application of the Scripture to them, he hath utterly perverted the scope and intendment of the places urged. Whereas he pretends not to assert or explain the Scripture, he most undoubtedly restrains the signification of the places by him alleged unto the precise scope, which in his sophistical queries he hath included; and in such a way of procedure, what may not the serpentine wits of men, pretend to a confirmation of, from Scripture, or any other book, that hath been written about such things, as the inquiries are made after. It were easy to give innumerable instances of this kind ; but we fear God, and dare not to make bold with him or his word.

2. Mr. B. pretending to give an account of the chiefest things pertaining to belief and practice, doth yet propose no question at all, concerning many of the most important heads of our religion, and whereunto the Scripture speaks fully, and expressly ; or proposes his thoughts in the negative, leading on the Scriptures, from whence he makes his

objections to the grand truths he opposeth, concealing, as was said, the delivery of them in the Scripture, in other places innumerable ; so insinuating to the men of just and pious desires, with whom he hath to do, that the Scripture is silent of them. That this is the man's way of procedure, in reference to the Deity of Christ, and of the Holy Ghost, the satisfaction and merit of Christ, the corruption of nature, and efficacy of grace, with many other most important heads of Christian religion, will be fully manifest in our considerations of the several particulars, as they shall occur, in the method wherein by him they are handled.

3. What can be concluded of the mind of God, in the Scripture, by cutting off any place, or places of it, from their dependance, connexion, and tendency, catching at those words which seem to confirm what we would have them so to do (whether in the proper order, wherein of God they are set and fixed, they do in the least cast an eye towards the thesis, which they are produced to confirm or no), might easily be manifested, by innumerable instances, were not the vanity of such a course, evident to all. On the consideration of these few exceptions to Mr. B.'s way of procedure, it will easily appear, what little advantage he hath given him thereby, and how unjust his pretence is, which by this course he aims to prevail upon men withal. This he opens, p. 6. 'None,'saith he,' can fall upon the things contained in his catechism (which he confesseth to be quite contrary to the doctrine that passeth current among the generality of Christians), as they are here displayed, because the answers are transcribed out ofthe Scriptures.' But Mr. B. may be pleased to take notice, that the displaying, as he calls it, of his doctrines, is the work of his questions, and not of the words of Scripture produced to confirm them ; which have a sense cunningly and subtilely imposed on them by his queries, or are pointed and restrained to the things, which in the place of their delivery, they look not towards in any measure. We shall undoubtedly find in the process of this business, that Mr. B.'s questions being found guilty of treason against God, will not be allowed sanctuary in the answers which they labour to creep into, and that they disclaiming their protection, may be pursued, taken, and given up to the justice and severity of truth, without the least profanation

of their holiness. A murderer may be plucked from the horns of the altar.

Nor is that the only answer insisted on for the removal of Mr. B.'s sophistry, which he mentions, p. 7. and pursues it for three or four leaves onward of his preface: viz. ' That the Scriptures which he urgeth, do in the letter hold out such things, as he allegeth them to prove, but yet they must be figuratively interpreted.' For Mr. B.'s mystical sense, I know not what he intends by it, or by whom it is urged. This is applicable solely to the places he produceth for the description of God and his attributes, concerning whom, that some expressions of Scripture, are to be so interpreted, himself confesses, p. 13. and we desire to take leave to inquire whether some others beside what Mr. B. allows, may not be of the same consideration. In other things, for the most part we have nothing at all to do with so much as the interpretation of the places he mentions, but only to remove the grossly sophistical insinuations of his queries; for instance, when Mr. B. asks, * whether Christ Jesus was not a man or no,' and allegeth express Scripture affirming that he was ; we say not, that the Scripture must have a figurative interpretation, but that Mr. B. is grossly sophistical; concluding from the assertion of Christ's human nature, to the denial of his divine, and desperately injurious to the persons with whom he pretends he hath to do, who as yet understand not the truth of our religion, in undertaking to declare to them the special chief things of belief and practice, and hiding from them the things of the greatest moment to their salvation, and which the Scripture speaks most plentifully unto; by not stating any question, or making any such inquiry, as their affirmation might be suited unto. The like instance may be given in all the particulars, wherein Mr. B. is departed from the faith once delivered to the saints. His whole following discourse then, to the end of p. 13. wherein he decrys the answer to his way of procedure which himself had framed, he might have spared. It is true, we do affirm that there are figurative expressions in the Scripture (and Mr. B. dares not say the contrary) and that they are accordingly to be interpreted; not that they are to have a mystical sense put upon them, but that the literal sense is to be received, according to the direction of

VOL. VIII. H

the figure which is in the words. That those words of our Saviour, ' this is my body,' are figurative, 1 suppose Mr. B. will not deny. Interpret them according to the figurative import of them, and that interpretation gives you the literal, and not a mystical sense, if such figures belong to speech and not to sense. That sense, I confess, may be spiritually understood (then it is saving), or otherwise : but this doth not constitute different senses in the words, but only denote a difference in the iniders tan dings of men. But all this in hypothesi Mr. B. fully grants, p. 9. so that there is no danger by asserting it, to cast the least thought of uncertainty on the word of God. But, p. 10. he gives you an instance, wherein this kind of interpretation must by no means be allowed, viz. in the Scriptures attributions of a shape, similitude (that is, of eyes, ears, hands, feet), unto God, with passions and affections like unto us; which, that they are not proper but figuratively to be interpreted, he tells you pp. 10—12.' those aflirm, who are perverted by false philosophy, and make a nose of wax of the Scripture, which plainly affirms such things of God.' In what sense the expressions of Scripture intimated, concerning God, are necessarily to be reviewed and understood, the ensuing considerations will inform the reader. For the present I shall only say, that I do not know scarce a more unhappy instance, in his whole book, that he could have produced, than this; wherein he hath been blasphemously injurious unto God, and his holy word. And herein we shall deal with him from Scripture itself, right reason,** and the common consent of mankind. How remote our interpretations of the places by him quoted for his purpose are from wresting the Scripture, or turning them aside from their purpose, scope, and intendment, will also in due time be made manifest.

We say, indeed, as Mr. B. observes, that in those kids of expressions God * condescendeth to accommodate his ways and proceedings' (not his essence and being) to our apprehensions, wherein we are very far from saying, that bespeaks one thing and intends the clean contrary; but only that the thing that he ascribes to himself, for our understanding, and the accommodation of his proceedings, to

''"O yip Wttsri SoxEf, TouTo Eivct <^afj,h. 'O Je ava^MV Tavrnv tbv ttiVtic ou Tiaw ma-ron^a t;)^tr Arist. Kicom. j.

the manner of men, are to be understood in him, and of thera,' in that which they denote of perfection, and not in respect of that which is imperfect and weak. For instance, when God says, ' his eyes run to and fro to behold the sons of men,' we do not say, that he speaks one thing and understands another, but only because we have our knowledge and acquaintance with things by our eyes, looking up and down, therefore doth he, who hath not eyes of flesh as we have, nor hath any need, to look up and down, to acquaint himself with them, all whose ways are in his own hand, nor can without blasphemy le supposed to look from one thing to another, chose to express his knowledge of, and intimate acquaintance with, all things here below, in and by his own infinite understanding, in the way so suited to our apprehension. Neither are these kind of expressions in the least an occasion of idolatry, or do give advantage to any, of creating, any shape of God in their imaginations ; God having plainly and clearly in the same word of his, wherein these expressions are used, discovered that of himself, his nature, being, and properties, which will necessarily determine, in what sense those expressions are to be understood ; as in the consideration of the several particulars in the ensuing discourse, the reader will find evinced. And we are yet of the mind, that to conceive of God, as a great man, with mouth, eyes, hands, legs, &c. in a proper sense, sitting in heaven, shut up there, troubled, vexed, moved up and down with sundry passions, perplexed about the things that are to come to pass, which he knows not, which is the notion of God, that Mr. B. labours to deliver the world from their darkness withal, is gross idolatry. Whereunto the scriptural attributions unto God mentioned, give not the least countenance, as will in the progress of our discourse more fully appear. And if it be true, which Mr. B. intimates, that 'things implying imperfection (speaking of sleep, and being weary) are not properly attributed to God,' I doubt not but I shall easily evince, that the same line of refusal, is to pass over the visible shape, and turbulent affections, which are by him ascribed to him; but of these more particularly in their respective places.

But he adds, ' That this consideration is so pressino-,

• Quaedicuntur de Deo 'Av^fteito'rrct'jtooq, intelligenda sunt flwra-fEWaif.

h2

100 THE PREFACE OF MR. BTDDLE

(pp. 13,14.) thata certain learned author, in his book entitled 'ConjecturaCabalistica' affirms, that for Moses, by occasion of his writing to let the Jews entertain a conceit of God as in human shape, was not any more a way to bring them unto idolatry, than by acknowledging man to be God, as our religion doth in part;' which plea of his Mr, B. exagi-tates in the pages following. That learned gentleman, is of age and ability to speak for himself; for mine own part, I am not so clear in what he affirms, as to undertake it for him; though otherwise very ready to serve him, upon the account which I have of his worth and abilities ; though I may freely say, I suppose they might be better exercised than in such cabalistical conjectures, as the book of his, pointed unto, is full of. But who am I that judge another? we must every one give an account of himself and his labours to God ; and the fire shall try our works of what sort they are ; I shall not desire to make too much work for the fire. For the present I deny that Moses in his writings, doth give any occasion to entertain a conceit of God, as one of a human shape; neither did the Jews ever stumble into idolatry, on that account. They sometimes indeed, changed their, glory, for that which was not God. But whilst they worshipped that God that revealed himself by Moses, Jehovah, Ehejeh, it doth not appear, that ever they entertained in their thoughts any thing hutpurum numen, a most simple, spiritual, eternal being, as I shall give a farther account afterward. Though they intended to worship Jehovah both in the calf in the wilderness and in those at Bethel, yet that they ever entertained any thoughts, that God had such a shape, as that which they framed to worship him by, is madness to imagine. For though Moses sometimes speaks of God in the condescensionbefore-mentioned, expressing his power by his arm, and bow, and sword ; his knowledge and understanding, by his eye, yet he doth in so many places caution them with whom he had to do, of entertaining any thoughts of any bodily similitude of God, that by any thing delivered by him, there is not the least occasion administered, for the entertaining of such a conceit, as is intimated. Neither am I clear in the theological predication, which that learned person hath chosen to parallel with the Mosaical expressions of God's shape and similitude, concerning man

being God ; though we acknowledge him who is man, to be God, yet we do not acknowledge man to be God. Christ under this reduplication, as man, is not a person, and so not God. To say that man is God, is to say, that the humanity and Deity are the same ; whatever he is as man he is upon the account of his being man; now that he who is man, is also God, though he be not God upon the account of his being man, can give no more occasion to idolatry, than to say that God is infinite, omnipotent. For the expression itself, it being in the concrete, it may be salved by the communication of properties ; but as it lies, it may possibly be taken in the abstract, and so is simply false. Neither do I judge it safe to use such expressions, unless it be when the grounds and reasons of them are assigned. But that Mr. B. should be offended with this assertion, I see no reason. Both he and his associates affirm, that Jesus Christ, as man (being in essence and nature nothing but man), is made a God, and is the object of divine worship, or religious adoration on that account. I may therefore, let pass Mr. B.'% following harangue against men's ' philosophical speculations, deserting the Scripture in their contemplations of the nature of God ; as though they could speak more worthily of God than he hath done of himself.' For though it may easily be made appear, that never any of the Platonical philosophers spoke so unworthily of God, or vented such gross carnal conceptions of him as Mr. B. bath done, and the gentleman of whom he speaks be well able to judge of what he reads, and to free himself from being entangled in any of their notions, discrepant from the revelation that God hath made of himself in his word, yet we being resolved to try out the whole matter, and to put all the differences we have with Mr. B. to the trial and issue, upon the express testimony of God himself, in his word, are not concerned in this discourse.

Neither have I any necessity to divert to the consideration of his complaint, concerning the bringing in of new expressions into religion ; if he intends such as whose substance or matter, which they do express, is not evidently and expressly found in the Scripture ; what is the ' Babylonish language,' what are ' the horrid and intricate expressions, which he affirms to be introduced, under a colour of detect-

ing and confuting heresies, but indeed to put a baffle upon the simplicity of the Scripture,' he gives us an account of p. 19. where we shall consider it and them. In general, words are but the figures of things. It is'' not words and terms, nor expressions, but doctrines and ihinos we inquire after. Mr. B. I suppose, allows expositions of Scriptures, or else 1 am sure he condemns himself in what he practices. His book is in his own thoughts, an exposition of Scripture. That this cannot be done without varying the words and literal expressions thereof, I suppose will not be questioned. To express the same thing that is contained in any place of Scripture, with such other words as may give light unto it, in our understandings is to expound it. This are we called to; and the course of it is to continue, whilst Christ continues a church upon the earth. Paul spake nothing for the substance of the things he delivered, but what was written in the prophets. That he did not use new expressions, not to be found in any of the prophets, will not be proved. But there is a twofold evil in these expressions. That they are invented to detect and unfold heresies as is pretended. If heretics begin first to wrest Scripture expressions to a sense never received nor contained in them, it is surely lawful for them, who are willing to ' contend for the faith once delivered to the saints,' to clear the mind of God in his word, by expressions and terms suitable thereunto.' Neither have heretics carried on their cause without the invention of new words and phrases.

If any shall make use of any words, terms, phrases, and expressions, in and about religious things, requiring the embracing and receiving of those words, &c. by others, without examining either the truth of what by those words, phrases, &c. they intend to signify and express; or the propriety of those expressions themselves, as to their accommodation for the signifying of those things, I plead not for them. It is not in the power of man, to make any word or expression

^ 'Oux. eve'p^w, |uaXXov Iv Stavoia HEirat h aXh^Sio,. Greg. Naz.

'~Hv oTttv ovK nv. o/xoiova-ioi;. Homo deiflcatus, &c. dixit Ariiis. 1. vlov I* oJx ovraiv yeyevna-Qat. 2, "^Eivai wots ote oIk riv, &c. Zozom. Hist. Eccles. lib. 1. cap. 14. p. 213. Tlieodor. Hist. I. 1. c. 2- p. o. Socrat. Scholast. Hist. lib. 1. c. 3, &c. 'Ouk eXBye yap £ya)<riv tou \oyou rov &£oD •zirjoc av&jiJTrov, aXXi Juo trroTxaj'Eif i'Klye, xai iiaipio'iv. Ei ie xai ovQpwTTov, nal fieov dtsinaKli tov X^ictov, aXTva ovx. In ij hiJiUi;, ahXa Tn a-p^ij'ji, xai t5 oiXEiaia-£( HttTaTOTauTa aAAiiXoijapij-Kiiv Jia rhv VTTl^BoXnv tk; <f>iXiaf, Leont. dc Sect, do Nestorio.

not pr]Twg found in the Scripture to be canonical,"' and for its own sake, to be embraced and received. But yet if any word or phrase do expressly signify any doctrine or matter contained in the Scripture, though the word or phrase itself be not in so many letters found in the Scripture, that such words or phrases may not be used for the explication of the mind of God, I suppose will not easily be proved. And this we farther grant, that if any one shall scruple the receiving and owning of such expressions, so as to make them the way of professing that which is signified by them, and yet do receive the thing or doctrine, which is by them delivered, for my part, I shall have no contest with him. For instance; the word dfxooixnog, was made use of by the first Nicene council, to express the unity of essence and being that is in the Father and Son, the better to obviate Arius and his followers, with their ^v orav ovk fiv, and the like forms of speech, nowhere found in Scripture, and invented on set purpose to destroy the true and eternal Deity of the Son of God. If now any man should scruple the receiving of that word, but withal should profess that he believes Jesus Christ to be God equal to the Father, one with him from the beginning, and doth not explain himself by other terms, not found in the Scripture, viz. that he was made a God, and is one with the Father as to will, not essence, and the like, he is like to undergo neither trouble nor opposition from me. We know what troubles arose between the east and western churches, about the words Hypostasis and Persona, until they understood on each side, that by these different words, the same thing was intended ; and that vTroaraaig, with the Greeks, was not the same with Substantia, with the Latins; nor Persona with the Latins, the same with irpocnoTrov among the Greeks, as to their application to the thing, the one and the other expressed by those terms, that such'monstrous terms are brought into our religion, as neither they that invented them, nor they that use them do understand,' Mr. B. may be allowed to aver, from the measure he hath taken of all men's understandings, weighing them in his own ; and saying, 'thus far can they go and no farther;' this they can understand, that they cannot. A prerogative, as we shall see

'» Vide Cal. Institut. lib. 1. cap. 13. Alting. Theol. Elenct. loc. de Deo. *

104 THE PREFACE OF MR. BTDDLE

in the process of this business, that he will scarcely allow to God himself, without his taking much pains and labour about it. I profess, for my part, I have not as yet the least conviction fallen upon me, that Mr. B. is furnished with so large an understanding, whatever he insinuates of his own abilities, as to be allowed a dictator of what any man can or cannot understand. If his principle, or rather conclusion, upon which he limits the understandings of men be this, what I cannot understand that no man else can, he would be desired to consider, that he is as yet but a young man, who hath not had so many advantages and helps for the improving of his understanding, as some others have had; and besides that, there are some whose eyes are blinded by the god of this world, that they shall never see nor understand the things of God, yea, and that God himself doth thus oftentimes execute his vengeance on them, for detaining his truth in unrighteousness.

But yet upon this acquaintance, which he hath with the measure of all men's understandings, he informs his reader, that * the only way to carry on the reformation of the church, beyond what yet hath been done by Luther or Calvin, is by cashiering those many intricate terms and devised forms of speaking, which he hath observed slily to couch false doctrines, and to obtrude them on us. And by the way, that this carrying on of reformation, beyond the stint of Luther or Calvin, was never yet so much as sincerely endeavoured.' In the former passage, having given out himself as a competent judge of the understandings of all men, in this he proceeds to their hearts. 'The reformation of the church,' saith he, ' was never sincerely attempted, beyond the stint of Luther and Calvin;' attempted it hath been, but he knows all the men, and their hearts full well, who made those attempts, and that they never did it sincerely, but with guile and hypocrisy. Mr. B. knows who those are that say ; 'with our tongue we will prevail, our lips are our own.' To know the hearts of men, and their frame towards himself, Mr. B. instructs us in his catechism, that God himself is forced to make trial and experiments. But for his own part, without any great trouble he can easily pronounce of their sincerity or hypocrisy in any undertaking. Low and vile thoughts of God, will quickly usher in light, proud, and foolish thoughts

concerning ourselves. Luther and Calvin, were men whom God honoured above many in their generation ; and on that account we dare not but do so also. That all church reformation is to be measured by their line, that is, that no farther discovery of truth in, or about, or concerning the ways or works of God may be made, but what hath been made to them, and by them, was not that I know of ever yet affirmed, by any in or of any reformed church in the world. The truth is, such attempts as this of Mr. B.'s, to overthrow all the foundations of Christian religion, to accommodate the gospel to the Alcoran, and subject all divine mysteries to the judgment of that wisdom which is carnal and sensual, under the fair pretence of carrying on the work of reformation, and discovering truth from the Scripture, hath perhaps fixed some men to the measure they have received, beyond what Christian ingenuity, and the love of the truth requireth of them. A noble and free inquiry into the word of God, with attendance to all ways by him appointed, or allowed, for the revelation of his mind, with reliance on his gracious promise, of leading us into all truth by his holy and blessed Spirit, without whose aid, guidance, direction, light, and assistance, we can neither know, understand, nor receive the things that are of God, neither captivated to the traditions of our fathers, for whose labour and pains in the work of the gospel, and for his presence with them, we daily bless the name of our God, neither yet carried about with every wind of doctrine, breathed or insinuated by the 'cunning sleights of men who lie in wait to deceive,' is that which we profess. What the Lord will be pleased to do with us, by or in this frame upon these principles, how, wherein we shall serve our generation, in the revelation of his mind and will, is in his hand and disposal. About using or casting off words and phrases, formerly used to express any truth or doctrine of the Scripture, we will not contend with any ; provided the things themselves signified by them be retained. This alone makes me indeed put any value on any word, or expression, not jOijTwc found in the Scripture; namely, my observation that they are questioned and rejected by none, but such as by their rejection, intend and aim at the removal of the truth itself, which by them is expressed, and plentifully revealed in the word. The same care also was among them of old.

having the same occasion administered. Hence" when Va-lens, the Arian emperor, sent Modestus, his Praetorian Pras-fect, to persuade Basil to be an Arian, the man entreats him not to be so ri^•id, as to displease the emperor and trouble the church 8i oX/yrjv ^oj/marwv ciKpiftnav, for an over strict observance of opinions; it being but one word, indeed one syllable, that made the difference, and he thought it not prudent, to stand so much upon so small a business; the holy man replied, toIq ^eioig Xoyoig IvTtdpafXfiivoi TrpolS'at fiiv tCiv ^dwv Sojfiarwvovde fxiav avi-^nvrai avWaj^iiv: however children might be so dealt withal,' those who are bred up in the Scriptures, or nourished with the word, will not suffer one syllable of divine truth to be betrayed.' The like attempt to this of Valens and Modestus upon Basil, was made by the Arian" bishops at the council of Ariminum, who pleaded earnestly for the rejection of one or two words, not found in the Scripture, laying on that plea much weight, when it was the aversion of the Deity of Christ which they intended and attempted. And by none is there more strength and evidence given to this observation, than by him with whom I have now to do ; who exclaiming against words and expressions, intends really the subversion of all the most fundamental and substantial truths of the gospel; and therefore having, pp. 19 —21. reckoned up many expressions which he dislikes, condemns, and would have rejected, most of them relating to the chiefest heads of our religion (though to his advantage, he cast in by the way two or three gross figments), he concludes, 'that as the forms of speech by him recounted, are not used in the Scripture, no more are the things signified by them contained therein.' In the issue then, all the quarrel is fixed upon the things themselves, which, if they were found in Scripture, the expressions insisted on, might be granted to suit them well enough. What need then all this long discourse about words and expressions, when it is the things themselves signified by them, that are the abominations de-cryed? Now though most of the things here pointed unto, will fall under our ensuing considerations, yet because Mr. B. hath here cast into one heap, many of the doctrines, which

n Tlieodorot. Hist. Eccles. lili. 4. cap. 17. p. 126. Soerat. lib. 4. cap. 21, 22. Zo-zom. lib. 6. cap. !.'>—17.

• Theod. Ilibt. lib. 2. cap. 18. Zozom. lib. 1. cap. 13. Niceph. lib. 9. cap. 39.

in the Christian religion he opposeth, and would have renounced, it may not be amiss to take a short view of the most considerable instances in our passage.

His first is, of God's being infinite and incomprehensible. This he condemns, name and thing, that is, he says, ' He is finite, limited,' of us to be comprehended. For those who say he is infinite and incomprehensible, do say-only, that he is not finite, nor of us to be comprehended. What° advance is made towards the farther reformation of the church, by this new notion of Mr. B.'s is fully discovered in the consideration of the second chapter of his catechism ;P and in this, as sundry other things, Mr. B. excels his masters. The Scripture tells us expressly, that' He fills heaven and earth;' that the * heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain him,' that his presence is in heaven and hell, and that his understanding is infinite (which how the understanding of one that is finite, may be, an infinite understanding cannot comprehend), that he dwelleth in that * light which no man can approach unto, whom no man hath seen, nor can see' (which to us is the description of one incomprehensible); that he is eternal, which we cannot comprehend. The like expressions are used of him in great abundance. Besides, if God be not incomprehensible, we may search out his power, wisdom, and understanding to the utmost. For if we cannot, if it be not possible so to do, he is incomprehensible. But, * Canst thou by searching find out God ? Canst thou find out the Almighty to perfection ? There is no searching of his understanding.' If by-cur lines we suppose, we can fathom the depth of the essence, omnipotency, wisdom, and understanding, of God, I doubt not but we shall find ourselves mistaken. Were ever any since the world began before, quarrelled withal, for asserting the essence and being of God to be incomprehensible? The "iheathen who affirmed, that the more he inquired, the more he admired, and the less he understood, had a more noble reverence of the eternal "^Being, which in his mind he

" Solent quidam rairiones sedificari in ruinarn. Tertull. de Praesc. ad Hseres. P Est autem hfec magnitudo ut ex iis intelligi potest, quifi de potentia et potestate Dei, iteraque de sapientia ejus dicta sunt, iiifinita et incomprehensibilis. Crell. de Deo. seu de vera Rcl. prefix, op. Yoltel. lib. 1. cap. 37. p. ^73.

1 Siinonides apud Ciceroiiem, lib. 1. de iiat. Deorum. "■ Vide passim quae de Deo dicuritur, apud Aratum, Orpheum, Horaerum, Ascle-pium, Platoneni, Plotinum, Proclum, Pseiluni ,Porphyrium, Jamblichuni, Plinium,

108 THE PREFACE OF MR. BIDDLE

conceived, then Mr. B, will allow us to entertain of God. Farther, if God be not infinite, he is circumscribed in some certain place; if he be, is he there fixed to that place, or doth he move from it? If he be fixed there, how can he work at a distance, especially such things as necessarily require divine power to their production. If he move up and down, and journey as his occasions require, what a blessed enjoyment of himself in his own glory hath he ? But that this blasphemous figment of God's being limited and confined to a certain place, is really destructive to all the divine perfections of the nature and being of God, is afterward demonstrated. And this is the fiist instance given by Mr. B. of the corruption of our doctrine, which he rejects name and thing, viz. * that God is infinite and incomprehensible :' and now, whether this man be a mere Christian, or a mere Lucian, let the reader judge.

That God is a ' simple act,' is the next thing excepted against, and decried, name and thing. In the room whereof, that he is ' compounded of matter and form,' or the like, must be asserted. Those"^ who affirm God to be a simple act, do only deny him to be compounded of divers principles, and assert him to be always actually in being, existence, and intent operation. God says of himself, that his name is Ehejeh, and he is I am, that is, a simple being, existing in and of itself. And this is that, which is intended by the simplicity of the nature of God, and his being a simple act. The Scripture tells us he is eternal: I am, always the same, and so never what he was not ever. This is decried, and in opposition to it, his being compounded and so being obnoxious to dissolution, and his being in potentia, in a disposition, and passive capacity to be what he is not, is asserted; for it is only to deny these things that the term 'simple'is used, which he condemns and rejects. And this is the second instance that Mr. B. gives in the description of his God, by his rejecting the received expressions concerning him who

Tulliurn, Senecain, Plutarchuiii, et (jiuc ex iis omnibus exccrpsit. E\igub. de Prim. Philos.

■■ Via remotionis utendiim est, in Del coiisideralione : nam divina substantia sua immcnsitate excedit omriem formam, quaiii iiitellcctus noster intellipit, undo ipsutii non possumus cx;icle cognosciTC quid sit.scd quid lion sit. Tlioni. Con- Gctites, lib. 1. cap. 14. JMerito dictum est a vetcribus, potius in hac vita de Deo a nobis cog-nosci quid non sit, quam quid sit; ut enim cognoscamus (]uid Deus noii sit, negatione nimirutu aliijua, (jiku propria sit divina; essentia-, satis est unica negatio dc[)eudeu-tiffi, &c. Socin. ad lib. 2. cap. 1. Mctaph. Aristor. Qu. 2. Sec. 4.

is so. He is limited, and of us to be comprehended ; his essence and being consisting of several principles, whereby he is in a capacity of being what he is not. Mr. B. solus haheto. I will not be your rival in the favour of this God.

And this may suffice to this exception of Mr. Biddle, by the way, against the simplicity of the being of God: yet, because he doth not directly oppose it afterward, and the asserting of it, doth clearly evert all his following fond imaginations of the shape, corporeity, and limitedness of the essence of God (to which end also, I shall in the consideration of his several depravations of the truth, concerning the nature of God, insist upon it), I shall a little here divert to the explication of what we intend by the simplicity of the essence of God, and confirm the truth of what we so intend thereby.

As was then intimated before, though simplicity seem to be a positive term, or to denote something positively, yet indeed it is a pure* negation; and formally, immediately, and properly, denies multiplication, composition, and the like. And yet though this only it immediately denote, yet there is a most eminent perfection of the nature of God thereby signified to us, which is negatively proposed, because it is in the use of things that are proper to us, in which case we can only conceive what is not to be ascribed to God. Now not to insist on the metaphysical notions and distinctions of simplicity, by the ascribing of it to God, we do not only deny that he is compounded of divers principles really distinct, but also of such as are improper, and not of such a real distance; or that he is compounded of any thing, or can be compounded with any thing whatever.

1. Then, that this is a property of God's essence or being, is manifest, from his absolute independence and first-ness in being and operation, which God often insists upon, in the revelation of himself; Isa. xliv. 6. * I am the first, and I am the last and besides me there is no God.' Rev. i. 8. *I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is,' &c. so chap. xxi. 6, xxii. 13. which also is fully asserted, Rom. xi. 35, 36. ' who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed to him again, for of him, and through him, and to him are all things, to him be glory • Suarez. Metaph. torn. 2. disput. 30. § 3. Cajetan. de Ente et Essen, cap. 2.

110 THE PREFACE OF MR. BIDDLE

for ever. Now if God were of any causes internal or external, any principles, antecedent or superior to him, he could not be so absolutely first, and independent. Were he composed of parts, accidents, manner of being, he could not be first; for all these are before that which is of them, and therefore his essence is absolutely simple.

2. God is absolutely and perfectly one and the same, and nothing differs from his essence in it. ' The Lord is one Lord;' Deut. vi. 4. 'Thou art the same;' Psal. cii. 27. And where there is an absolute oneness, and sameness in the whole, there is no composition by an union of extremes. Thus is it with God: his name is ' I am ; I am that I am ;' Exod. iii. 14, 15. ' Which is;' Rev. i. 8. He then who is what he is, and whose all that is in him is himself, hath neither parts, accidents, principles, or any thing else, whereof his essence should be compounded.

3. The attributes of God, which alone seem to be distinct things in the essence of God, are all of them essentially the same with one another, and every one the same with the essence of God itself. For first, they are spoken one of another, as well as of God : as there is his eternal power, as well as his Godhead. And secondly, they are either infinite, and infinitely perfect, or they are not; if they are, then if they are not the same with God, there are more things infinite than one, and consequently more Gods; for that which is absolutely infinite, is absolutely perfect, and consequently God. If they are not infinite, then God knows not himself, for a finite wisdom cannot know perfectly an infinite being. And this might be farther confirmed, by the particular consideration of all kinds of composition, with a manifestation of the impossibility of their attribution unto God. Arguments to which purpose, the learned reader knows where to find in abundance.

4. Yea, that God is, and must needs be a simple act (which expression Mr. B. fixes on for the rejection of it), is evident from-this one consideration, which was mentioned before : if he be not so, there must be some potentiality in God. Whatever is, and is not a simple act, hath a possibility to be perfected by act; if this be in God he is not perfect, nor all-sufficient: every composition whatever is of power and act, which if it be, or might have been in God,

TO HIS CATECHISM EXAMINED. HI

he could not be said to be immutable, which the Scripture plentifully witnesseth, that he is.

These are some few of the grounds of this affirmation of ours, concerning the simplicity of the essence of God; which, when Mr. Biddle removes and answers, he may have more of them, which at present there is no necessity to produce.

From his being, he proceeds to his subsistence, and expressly rejects his subsisting in three persons, name and thing. That this is no new attempt, no undertaking, whose glory Mr. B. may arrogate to himself, is known. Hitherto God hath taken thought for his own glory, and eminently confounded the opposers of the subsistence of his essence in three distinct persons. Inquire of them that went before, and of the dealings of God with them of old, what is become of Ebion, Ceiinthus, Paulus Samosatenus, Theodotus By-zantinus, Photinus, Arius, Macedonius, &c. hath not God made their memory to rot, and their names to be an abomination to all generations ? How they once attempted to have taken possession of the churches of God, making slaughter and havoc of all that opposed them, hath been declared ; but their place long since knows them no more. By the siib-sisting of God in any person, no more is intended, than that person's being God. If that person be God, God subsists in that person. If you grant the Father to be a person (as the Holy Ghost expressly affirms him to be, Heb. i. 21.) and to be God, you grant God to subsist in that person; that is all which by that expression is intended. The Son is God, or is not; to say he is not God, is to beg that which cannot be proved. If he be God he is the Father, or he is another person. If he be the Father, he is not the Son. That he is the Son, and not the Son, is sufficiently contradictory. If he be not the Father, as was said, and yet be God, he may have the same nature and substance with the Father (for of our God there is but one essence, nature, or being), and yet be distinct from him. That distinction from him, is his personality ; that property, whereby, and from whence, he is the Son. The like is to be said of the Holy Ghost. The thino-then here denied, is, that the Son is God, or that the Holy Ghost is God ; for if they are so, God must subsist in three persons, of which more afterward. Now is this not to be found in the Scriptures? Is there no text affirming Christ to

be God, to be one with the Father, or that the Holy Ghost is so ? No text saying, ' there are three that bear witness in heaven, and these three are one ?' None ascribing divine perfections, divine worship, distinctly to either Son, or Spirit, and yet jointly to one God ? Are none of these things found in the Scripture, that Mr. B. thinks with one blast to demolish all these ancient foundations, and by his bare authority to deny the common faith of the present saints, and that wherein their predecessors, in the worship of God, are fallen asleep in peace ? The proper place for the consideration of these things, will farther manifest the abomination of this bold attempt, against the Son of God, and the eternal Spirit.

For the divine ' circumincession'mentioned in the next place, I shall only say that it is not at all in my intention to defend all expressions, that any men have used (who are yet sound in the main) in the unfolding of this great, tremendous mystery of the blessed Trinity, and could heartily wish, that they had some of them been less curious in their inquiries, and less bold in their expressions. It is the thing itself alone, whose faith 1 desire to own and profess; and, therefore, shall not in the least labour to retain and hold those things or words, which may be left or lost, without any prejudice thereunto.

Briefly, by the barbarous term of mutual circumincession, the schoolmen understand that, which the Greek fathers called, ifiir£pi)((vprimg, whereby they expressed that mystery, which Christ himself teachesus,' of his being in the Father, and the Father in him;' John x. 38. and of the Father's'remaining in him, and doing the works he did ;' John xiv. 10. The distinction of these persons, being not hereby taken away, but the disjunction of them, as to their nature and being.

The eternal generation of the Son, is in the next place rejected ; that he may be sure to cast down every thing, that looks towards the assertion of his Deity, whom yet the apostle affirms, to be * God blessed for evermore;' Rom. ix. 5. That the word ' which in the beginning was (and therefore is) God,' is the only begotten Son of God, the apostle affirms, John i. 14. That he is also the ' only begotten Son of God,' we have other plentiful testimonies; Psal. ii. 7. John iii. 16. Acts xiii. 33. Heb. i. 4—6. A Son, so as in compa-

rison of his Sonship, the best of sons by adoption are servants; Heb. iii. 5, 6. and so begotten, as to be an only Son; John i. 14. though begotten by grace, God hath many; James i. 18. Christ then being begotten of the Father, hath his generation of the Father; for these are the very same things, in words of a diverse sound. The only question here is, whether the Son have the generation, so often spoken of, from eternity, or in time ? Whether it be an eternal, or a temporal generation, from whence he is so said to be begotten. As Christ is a Son, so by him the * worlds were made ;' Heb. i. 2. so that surely he had his Sonship before he ' took flesh in the fulness of time ;' and when he had his Sonship he had his generation. He is such a Son, as by being partaker of that name, he is exalted above angels ; Heb. i. 5. and is the * first begotten, before he is brought into the world;' and, therefore, his goings forth are said to be from the days of eternity; Micah v. 2. and he had 'glory with the Father (as the Son) before the world was ;' John xvii. 5. Neither is he said to be begotten of the Father, in respect of his incarnation, but conceived by the Holy Ghost, or formed in the womb by him, of the substance of his mother, nor is he thence called the Son of God.

In brief. If Christ be the eternal Son of God, Mr. B. will not deny him to have had an eternal generation; if he be not, a generation must be found out for him, suitable to the Sonship which he hath; of which abomination in its proper place. This progress have we made in Mr. B.'s creed : he believes God to be finite, to be by us comprehended, compounded : he believes there is no Trinity of persons in the Godhead ; that Christ is not the eternal Son of God. The following parts of it are of the same kind. The eternal procession of the Holy Ghost, is nextly rejected. The Holy Ghost being constantly termed the Spirit of God, the Spirit of the Father, and the Spirit of the Son (being also God, as shall afterward be evinced), and so partakes of the same nature with Father and Son (the apostle granting that God hath a nature, in his rejecting of them, who by nature, are not God's), is yet distinguished from them, and that eternally (as nothing is in the Deity that is not eternal), and being moreover said tKiropivta^ai, or to ' proceed,' and*go forth' from the Father and Son, this expression of his eternal pro-

VOL. Vlll. I

cession hath been fixed on; manifesting the property whereby he is distinguished from Father and Son. The thing intended hereby is, that the Holy Ghost, who is God, and is said to be of the Father, and the Son, is by that name, of his being of them, distinguished from them ; and the denial hereof, gives you one article more of Mr. B.'s creed, viz. that the Holy Ghost is not God. To what that expression of proceeding is to be accommodated, will afterward be considered. The incarnation of Christ (the Deity and Trinity being despatched) is called into question, and rejected. By incarnation, is meant, as the word imports, a taking of flesh (this is' variously by the ancients expressed, but the same thing still intended), or being made so. The Scripture affirming, ' that the Word was made flesh ;' John i. 14. that 'God was manifest in the flesh ;' 1 Tim. iii. 16. that ' Christ took part of flesh and blood;' Heb. ii. 14. that ' he took on him the seed of Abraham;' Heb. ii. 16. that he was ' made of a woman ;' Gal. iv. 4, 5. * sent forth in the likeness of sinful flesh;' Rom. viii. 3. * made like unto us in all things;' Heb. ii. 17. We thought we might have been allowed to say so also, and that this expression might have escaped with a less censure, than an utter rejection out of Christian religion. The Son of God taking flesh, and so being made like to us, that he might be the captain of our salvation, is that which by this word, and that according to the Scripture, is affirmed, and which, to increase the heap of former abominations (or to carry on the work of reformation beyond the stint of Luther or Calvin) is here by Mr. B. decried.

Of the hypostatical union, there is the same reason : Christ, who as 'concerning the flesh,' was of the Jews, and is, 'God to be blessed for ever, over all;' Rom. xix. 5. is one person: being God to be blessed over all, that is, God by nature (for such as are not so, and yet take upon them to be gods, God will destroy), and having flesh and blood, as the children have, Heb. ii. 14. that is, the same nature of man with believers, yet being but one person, one mediator, one Christ, the Son of God, we say both these natures of God and men, are united in that one person, viz. the person of

* 'Eva-apXaJiTi;. Eva-aj^aTaxrif. EVav9pa;7rno-ic. h Jsa-ffOTiXM ivi^r^fxlct. h Trapova-U. h olMWfxla,.

the Son of God. This is that which Mr. B. rejects (now his hand is in), both name and thing. The truth is, all these things are but colourable advantages, wherewith he laboureth to amuse poor souls; grant the Deity of Christ, and he knows all these particulars will necessarily ensue ; and whilst he denies the foundation, it is to no purpose to contend about any consequences or inferences whatever. And whether we have ground for the expression under present consideration ; John i. 14. 18. XX. 28. Acts xx. 28. Rom. i. 3, 4. ix. 5. Gal. iv. 4. Phil. ii. 6—9. 1 Tim. iii. 16. 1 John i. 1, 2. Rev. V. 12—14. with innumerable other testimonies of Scripture may be considered. If the' Word, the Son of God, was made flesh, made of a woman, took our nature,' wherein he was pierced and wounded, and shed his blood, and yet continues our Lord, and our God, 'God blessed for ever,' esteeming it 'no robbery to be equal with his Father,' yet being a person distinct from him, being the ' brightness of his person,' we fear not to say, that the two natures of God and man are united in one person, which is the hypostatical union here rejected.

The "communication of properties, on which depend two or three of the following instances, mentioned by Mr, B. is a necessary consequent of the union before asserted; and the thing intended by it is no less clearly delivered in Scripture than the truths before-mentioned. It is affirmed of the man Christ Jesus, that he ' knew what was in the heart of man,' that he 'would be with his, unto the end of the world,' and Thomas putting his hand into his side, cried out to him, ' my Lord, and my God,' Sec." when Christ neither did, nor was so, as he was man. Again, it is said, 'that God redeemed his church with his own blood,' that the Son of God 'was made of a woman,' that the 'Word was made flesh,' none of which can properly be spoken of God, his Son, or eternal Word,y in respect of that nature whereby he is so ; and therefore we say, that look what properties are peculiar to either of his

" Non ut Deus csset habitator, natura humana esset habitaculum : sed ut iiaturse alteri sic misceretur altera, ut quamvis alia sit quae suscipitur, alia vero quae suscipit, in tantam tanien unitatem conveuiret utriusque diversitas, ut unus idemque sit filius, qui se, et secundum quod unus homo est, patre dicit minorem, et secundum quod unus Deus est, patri se profitelur aequalem. Leo. Serm. 3. de Nat.

" Touj f/.h TttTTEfVou? Xoyoy? TW Ik /xa(ia,<; ov&gaJTra), Toiif Ss anyfjiivovi, Hal Qtm^iTfiti; tZ Iv afx^o-ni "Koytf. Theod. Dial. Aa-uyp^.

y Tavta Tfavra. avixZoKa, «-ttj«ov rni aito yni; el'Kiifji.fJi.sviii. Irsen. Lib. 3. ad. Hasres.

I 3

116 THE PREFACE OF MR. BIDDLE

natures, as to be omniscient, omnipotent, to be the object of divine worship, to the Deity;'' to be born, to bleed and die, to the humanity; are spoken of in reference to his person, wherein both those natures are united : so that whereas the Scriptures say, that God ' redeemed his church with his own blood/ or that he was 'made flesh,' or whereas in aconsonancy thereunto, and to obviate the folly of Nestorius, who made two persons of Christ, the ancients called the blessed virgin, the Mother of God, the intendment of the one and other, is no more, but that he was truly God, who in his manhood was a Son, had a mother, did bleed and die. And such Scripture expressions, we affirm to be founded in this'communication of properties,' or the assignment of that unto the ^person of Christ, however expressly spoken of as God or man, which is proper to him in regard of either of these natures, the one or other. God on this account being said, to do what is proper to man, and man what is proper alone to God, because he who is both God and man doth both the one and the other. By what expressions and with what diligence the ancients warded the doctrine of Christ's personal union, against both ''Nestorius and Euti-ches, the one of them dividing his person into two, the other confounding his natures, by an absurd confusion, and mixture of their respective essential proprieties (Mr. B. not giving occasion), I shall not farther mention.

And this is all Mr. B. instances in, of what he rejects, as to our doctrine about the nature of God, the Trinity, person of Christ, and the Holy Ghost, of all which he hath left us no more, than what the Turks, and other "^Mahometans, will freely acknowledge. And whether this be to be a mere Christian, or none at all, the pious reader will judge.

Having dealt thus with the person of Christ, he adds the names of two abominable figments, to give countenance to his undertaking, wherein he knows those with whom he hath to do, have no communion : casting the Deity of Christ and

^ Salva proprietate utriusque iiaturaB, suscepta est a majestate humilitas, a virtute infirraitas, ab jeternitate modalitas. Leo. Epist. ad Flavi.

Thv Tr,q li(oina(rit)ii; rauTOTHTo, xai t^v eij aXknXa ainaiv Tri^iyd^tis-tv, Uanias. de Or-thod. fide. lib. 3. cap. 4.

'' 'AX»i&ai? TEXfa)j aStaipETdJc aa-oy^.i'Tiii)?. vide Evagrium lib. 1. cap. 'J, 3. Socrat. Hist, lib. 7, cap. 29. 3-2, 33. Nicuph. lib. 14. cap. 47.

the Holy Ghost, into the same bundle with transubstantia-tion and consubstantiation, to which he adds the ubiquity of the body of Christ after-mentioned self-contradicting fictions. With what sincerity, candour, and Christian ingenuity, Mr. B. hath proceeded, in rolling up together such abominations as these with the most weighty and glorious truths of the gospel, that together he might trample them under his feet in the mire, God will certainly in due time reveal to himself and all the world.

The next thing he decries is original sin. I will suppose Mr. B. knows, what those whom he professeth to oppose, intend thereby; and this he condemns, name and thing. •'That the guilt of our first father's sin, is imputed to his posterity, that they are made obnoxious to death thereby, that we are * by nature children of wrath, dead in trespasses and sins, conceived in sin,' that our'understandings are darkness,' so that we 'cannot receive the things that are of God,' that we are able to do no good of ourselves, so that unless we are *born again we cannot enter into the kingdom of God,' that we are 'alienated, enemies, have carnal minds, that are enmity against God,' and cannot be subject to him; all this and the like, is at once blown away by Mr. B. there is no such thing; 'una litura potest.' That Christ by nature is not God, that we by nature have no sin, are the two great principles of this mere Christian's belief.

Of Christ's taking our nature upon hira, which is again mentioned, we have spoken before. *'If he was made flesh, made of a woman, made under the law; if he partook of flesh and blood, because the children partook of the same; if he took on him the seed of Abraham, and was made like to us in all things, sin only excepted ; if, being in the form of God and equal to him, he took on him the form of a servant, and became like to us, he took our nature on him:' for these, and these only are the things, which by that expression are intended.

The most of what follows, is about the grace of Christ, which having destroyed, what in him lies, his person he doth also openly reject. And in the first place begins with the

d Rom. V. 12.15, 16.19. Eph. ii. 1.12. Psal. li. 3. John i. 5. Eph. iv. 18. 1 Cor. ii. 14. John iii. 5, 6. Eph. ii. 12. Col. i. 21. Rom. viii. 6—8. e John i. 14. Gal. iv. 4, 5. Heb. ii. 14. 16. ii. 18. Phil. 7, 8.

THE PREFACE OF MR. BIDDLE

foundation, his 'making satisfaction to God for our sins, all our sins, past, present, and to come ;' which also, under sundry other expressions, he doth afterward condemn. ^God is a God of'purer eyes than to behold iniquity,' and it is 'his judgment, that they which commit sin, are worthy of death :' yea it is *a righteous thing with him, to render tribulation to offenders :' and seeing we have 'all sinned, and come short of the glory of God,' doubtless it will be a righteous thing with him, to leave them to answer for their own sins, who so proudly and contemptuously reject the satisfaction which he himself hath appointed, and the ^ransom he hath found out. But Mr. B.is not the first who hath 'erred, not knowing the Scriptures,' nor the justice of God. The Holy Ghost acquainting us, that God '"made to meet upon him the iniquity of us all; that he was bruised for our sins, and wounded for our transgressions, and that the chastisement of our peace was on him, that by his stripes we are healed ; that he gave his life a ransom for us, and was made sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in him;' that he was ' for us made under the law, and underwent the curse of it, that he bare our sins in his body on the tree;' and that by his blood we are redeemed, washed, and saved: we doubt not to speak as we believe, viz. That Christ underwent the punishment due to our sins, and made satisfaction to the justice of God for them; and Mr. B. who, it seems, is otherwise persuaded, we leave to stand or fall to his own account. Most of the following instances of the doctrines he re-j ects, belong to and may be reduced to the head last mentioned, and therefore I shall but touch upon them : seeing that he, that " will enter into life, must keep the commandments/ and this of ourselves we cannot do, for in ' many things we offend all,' and he that breaks one commandment, is guilty of the breach of the whole law; God having sent forth >" his son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of children ;' and that which was impossible to us by the law, through the weakness of the flesh, 'God sending his own Son

' Hab. i. 13. Rom. i. 32. 2 Thess. i. 6. e Job. xxxiii. 21

h Isa. liii. 5, 6. 10, 11. 1 Pet. ii. 24. MaU. xx. 28. 1 Tim. ii. 6. 2 Cor. v. 21. Gal. 111. 13. 1 Pet. i. 18. Epli. i. 7. Rev. i. 5, 6, &c. ' Matt. xix. 17. 1 John i. 8. James ii. 10. k Rom. V. 9. viii. 3, 4. x. 4. 1 Cor. i. 30. Gal. iv. 4, 5. Phil. iii. 8—10.

in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us;' and so we are ' saved by his life, being justified by his blood,' he being' made unto us of God righteousness,' and we are by faith ' found in him, having on not our own righteousness, which is by the law, but that which is by Jesus Christ, the righteousness of God by faith;' we do afiirm, that Christ fulfilled the law for us, not only undergoing the penalty of it, but for us submitting to the obedience of it, and performing all that righteousness which of us it requires, that we might have a complete righteousness wherewith to appear before God. And this is that, which is intended by the active and passive righteousness of Christ, after-mentioned; all which is rejected, name and thing.

Of Christ's being punished by God, which he rejects in the next place, and to multiply his instances of our false doctrine, insists on it again under the terms of 'Christ's enduring the wrath of God, and the pains of a damned man,' the same account is to be given, as before of his satisfaction. That God ''bruised him, put him to grief,' laid the 'chastisement of our peace on him;' that for us he underwent death, the curse of the law, which enwrapped the whole punishment due to sin, and that by the "will of God, who so made him to be ' sin, who knew no sin,' and in the undergoing whereof he prayed and cried, and sweat blood, and was full of heaviness and perplexity, the Scripture is abundantly evident; and what we assert amounts not one tittle beyond what is, by, and in, them affirmed.

The false doctrine of the merit of Christ, and his purchasing for us the kingdom of heaven, is the next stone, which this master builder disallows and rejects: "That Christ hath 'bought us with a price,' that he hath 'redeemed us from our sins, the world and curse,' to be a' peculiar people zealous of good works;' so making us ' kings and priests to God for ever;' that he hath 'obtained for us eternal redemption, procuring the Spirit for us, to make us meet for the inheritance of the saints in light; God blessing us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in him, upon

' Isa. liii. 5, 6, &c. Heb. ii. 9. 14. " Heb. X. 9, 10. 2 Cor. v. 21. Luke xxii. 41—44. » 1 Cor. vi. 20. i Pet. i. 18. Gal. i. 4. iii. 13. Titus ii. 14. Eph. v. 26. Rev. i. 5, 6. Heb. ix. 12—14. Eph. i. 3. Pliii. i. 29.

the account of his making his soul an offering for sin,' performing that obedience to the law, which of us is required, is that, which by this expression of the ' merit of Christ/ we intend. The fruit of it being all the accomplishment of the promise made to him by the Father, upon his undertaking the great work of saving his people from their sins; in the bundle of doctrines by Mr. B. at once condemned, this also hath its place.

That Christ rose from the dead by his own power, seems to us to be true; not only because he affirmed, that he 'had power so to do, even to lay down his life, and to take it up again;' John x. 18. but also because he said he would do so, when he bade them ' destroy the temple,' and told them, that ' in three days he would raise it again.' It is true that this ' work of raising Christ from the dead,' is also ascribed to the Father and to the Spirit (as in the work of his oblation, his Father ' made his soul an offering for sin,' and he * offered up himself through the eternal Spirit'), yet this hinders not, but that he was raised by his own power, his Father and he being one, and what work his Father doth, he doing the same.

And this is the account which this mere Christian giveth us, concerning his faith in Christ, his person and his grace. He is a mere man, that neither satisfied for our sins, nor procured grace or heaven for us. And how much this tends to the honour of Christ, and the good of souls, all that love him in sincerity, will judge and determine.

His next attempt is upon the way, whereby the Scripture affirms that we come to be made partakers of the good things which Christ hath done and wrought for us; and in the first place, falls foul upon that, of ' apprehending and applying Christ's righteousness to ourselves by faith;' that so there may no weighty point of the doctrine of the cross remain not condemned (by this wise man) of folly. This, then, goes also, name and thing : Christ is ' of God made unto us righteousness ;' (that is, * to them that believe on him,' or receive or apprehend him; John i. 12.) God "' having set him forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the forgiveness of sins,' and declaring that every one who * believes in him is justified from

» Rom. iii. 25. Acts xiii. 38, 39. Rom. iv. 5. 7. v. 1. Phil. Hi. 9, 10. Rora. x. 3, 4.

all things, from which he could not be justified by the law;* God imputing righteousness to them that so '^^believe, those who are so justified by faith, having peace with God, it being the great thing we have to aim at, namely, that *we may know Jesus Christ and the fellowship of his sufferings, and the power of his resurrection, and to be found not having our own righteousness, which is by the law, but the righteousness which is by the faith of Christ, Christ being the end of the law to every one that believeth.' We say it is the duty of every one, who is called, to apprehend Christ by faith, and apply his righteousness to him; that is, believe on him, as made * righteousness of God to him,' unto justification and peace. And if Mr. Biddle reject this doctrine, name and thing; I pray God give him repentance, before it be too late, to the acknowledgment of the truth.

Of Christ's 'being our surety, of Christ's paying our debt, of our sins imputed to Christ, of Christ's righteousness imputed to us, of Christ's dying to appease the wrath of God and reconcile him to us,' enough hath been spoken already, to clear the meaning of them who use these expressions, and to manifest the truth of that which they intend by them : so that I shall not need again to consider them, as they lie in this disorderly confused heap, which we have here gathered together.

Our justification by Christ being cashiered, he falls upon our sanctification in the next place, that he may leave us as little of Christians, as he hath done our Saviour of the true Messiah. ' Infused grace' is first assaulted. The various acceptations of the word * grace' in the Scripture, this is no place to insist upon. By * grace infused/ we mean grace really bestowed upon us, and abiding in us, from the Spirit of God. That a new? spiritual life or principles, enabling men to live to God; that new, gracious, heavenly, qualities and endowments, as light, love, joy, faith, &c. bestowed on men, are called grace and graces of the Spirit, I suppose will not be denied. These we call infused grace, and graces ; that is, we say God works these things in us, by his Spirit, giving us a 'i' new heart' and a * new spirit, putting his law into our hearts, quickening us who were dead in trespasses

p Eph. ii. 1, 2. Ga!. v. 25, 26. 1 Phil. i. 6. ii. 13. Jer. xxxi. 33. xxxii. .')9. Ezek. xi. 19. xxxvi. 26. Heb.yiii. 9,10.

and sins/ making us light, who were darkness, filling us with the fruits of the Spirit in joy, meekness, faith, which are not of ourselves, but the gifts of God. Mr. Biddle having before disclaimed all original sin, or the depravation of our nature by sin in deadness, darkness, obstinacy, &c. thought it also incumbent on him to disown and disallow all reparation of it by grace; and all this under the name of a mere Christian, not knowing that he discovereth a frame of spirit utterly unacquainted with the main things of Christianity.

Free grace is next doomed to rejection. That all the grace, mercy, goodness of God, in our election, redemption, calling, sanctification, pardon, and salvation, is free, not deserved, not merited, nor by us any way procured, that God doth all that he doth for us bountifully, fully, freely, of his own love, and grace, is affirmed in this expression, and intended thereby. And is this found neither name nor thing in the Scriptures? Is there no mention of God's loving us freely, of his " blotting out our sins for his own sake, for his name's sake,' of his * giving his Son for us from his own love,' of 'faith being not of ourselves, being the gift of God, of his saving us not according to the works of righteousness, which we have done, but of his own mercy, of his justifying us by his grace, begetting us of his own will, having mercy on whom he will have mercy,' of a covenant not like the old, wherein he hath promised to be 'merciful to our sins and our iniquities,' &.c. or is it possible that a man assuming to himself the name of a Christian, should be ignorant of the doctrine of the free grace of God, or oppose it, and yet profess not to reject the gospel as a fable? But this was, and ever will be the condemnation of some, * that light is come into the world, and men love darkness more than light.'

About the next expression, of the ' world of the elect,' I shall not contend. That by the name of the world (which term is used in the Scriptures, in great variety of significations), the elect, as being in and of this visible world, and by nature no better than the rest of the inhabitants thereof, are sometimes peculiarly intended, is proved ^elsewhere, beyond whatever Mr. B. is able to oppose thereunto.

' Eph. i. 4. John iii. 16. 1 John iv. 8. 10. Rom. v. 8. Eph. ii. 8. Tit. iii. 3—7. James i. 18. Rom. ix. 18. Ileh. viii. 10—12.

• Salus electorem sanguis Jesu, or the Death of Death, &c.

Of the irresistible working of the Spirit,'in bringing men to believe, the condition is otherwise; about the term 'irresistible/ I know none that care much to strive. That* 'faith is the gift of God, not of ourselves,' that itjs wrought in us, by the ' exceeding greatness of the power of God ;' that in bestowing it upon us by his Spirit (that is, in our conversion) God effectually creates a new heart in us, makes us new creatures, quickens us, raises us from the dead, 'working in us to will and to do of his own good pleasure,' as he 'commanded light to shine out of darkness, so shining into our hearts, to give us the knowledge of his glory,' begetting us anew of his own will, so irresistibly causing us to believe because he effectually works faith in us, is the sum of what Mr. Biddle here rejecteth, that he might be sure, as before, to leave nothing of weight in Christian religion uncon-demned. But these trifles and falsities being renounced, he complains of the abuse of his darling, that it is called carnal reason : which being the only interpreter of Scripture which he allows of, he cannot but take it amiss, that it should be so grossly slandered, as to be called carnal. The Scripture indeed tells us of a" ' natural man, that cannot discern the things which are of God,' and that they are ' foolishness to him;' of a' carnal mind that is enmity to God,' and not like to have any reasons, or reasonings, but what are carnal; of a wisdom that is carnal, sensual, and devilish; of a wisdom that God will destroy and confound, and that such is the best of the wisdom and reason of all unregene-rate persons ; but why the reason of a man in such a state, with such a mind, about the things of God should be called carnal, Mr. B. can see no reason ; and some men perhaps will be apt to think, that it is because all his reason is still carnal. When a man is renewed ' after the image of him that creates him,' he is made spiritual ' light in the Lord,' every thought and imagination that sets up itself in his heart, in opposition to God, being led captive to the obedience of the gospel; we acknowledge a sanctified reason in such a one, of that use in the dijudication of the things of God, as shall afterward be declared.

* Spiritual desertions' arenextly decried. Some poor souls

' Eph. ii. 8. xviii. 19. 2 Cor. v. 17, &c. iv. 6. " 1 Cor. ii. 14. Rom. viii. 7. James iii. 15.

would thank him to make good this discovery. They find mention in the Scripture of God's" 'hiciing his face, withdrawing himself, forsaking though but for a moment/ as of them that on this account * walk in darkness and see no light,' that 'seek him, and find him not,' but are filled with troubles, terrors, arrows from him, &c. And this in some measure they find to be the condition of their own souls ; they have not the life, light, power, joy, consolation, sense of God's love as formerly; and therefore, they think there are spiritual desertions, and that in respect of their souls, these dispensations of God are signally and significantly so termed; and they fear that those who deny all desertions, never had any enjoyments from or of God.

Of' spiritual incomes,' there is the same reason. It is not the phrase of speech, but the thing itself we contend about. That God who is the Father of mercy, and God of all consolation, gives mercy, grace, joy, peace, consolation, as to whom, so in what manner, or in what degree he pleas-eth. The receiving of these from God, is by some (and that perhaps not inaptly) termed spiritual incomes ; with regard to God's gracious distributions of his kindness, love, goodwill, and the receiving of them. So that it be acknowledged that we do receive grace, mercy, joy, consolation, and peace, from God, variously as he pleaseth, we shall not much labour about the significancy of that, or any other expression of the like kind. The Scriptures, mentioning the ' goings^ forth of God,' leave no just cause to Mr. B. of condemning them, who sometimes call any of his works, or dispensations, his outgoings. His rehearsal of all these particular instances, in doctrines that are found neither name nor thing in Scriptures, Mr. B. closeth with an 8cc. which might be interpreted to comprise as many more, but that there remain not as many more important heads in Christian religion. The nature of God being abased, the Deity and grace of Christ denied, the sin of our natures, and their renovation by grace in Christ rejected ; Mr. B.'s remaining religion, will be found scarce worth the inquiry after, by those whom he undertakes to instruct; there being scarcely

" Job xiii. 24. Psal. xiii, 1. x. 1. xxvii. 9. xllv. 24. xxx. 7. Iv. 1. Ixix. 17. cii. 2. Isa. xlv. 15. viii. 17. xlix. 14. liv. 6, 7. Ix. 13. J. 10, &c. y Micah. V. 2.

any thing left by him, from whence we are peculiarly denominated Christians ; nor any thing that should support the weight of a sinful soul^ which approacheth to God for life and salvation.

To prevent the entertainment of such doctrines as these Mr. B. commends the advice of Paul; 2 Tim. i. 13. * Hold fast the form of sound words,' &,c. than which we know none more wholesome, nor more useful, for the safeguarding and defence of those holy and heavenly principles of our religion, which Mr. B. rejects and tramples on ; nor are we at all concerned in his following discourse, of leaving Scripture terms, and using phrases, and expressions coined by men; for if we use any word or phrase in the things of God, and his worship, and cannot make good the thing signified thereby, to be founded on, and found in the Scriptures, we will instantly renounce it. But if indeed the words and expressions used by any of the ancients, for the explication and confirmation of the faith of the gospel, especially of the doctrine concerning the person of Christ, in the vindication of it from the heretics, which in sundry ages bestirred themselves (as Mr. B. now doth) in opposition thereunto, be found consonant to Scripture, and to signify nothing but what is written therein with the beams of the sun, perhaps we see more cause to retain them, from the opposition here made to them by Mr. B. than formerly we did; considering, that his opposition to words and phrases is not for their own sake, but of the things intended by them.

The similitude of the ship, ' that lost its first matter and substance, by the addition of new pieces, in way of supplement to the old decays,' having been used by some of our divines to illustrate the Roman apostacy, and traditional additionals to the doctrines of the gospel, will not stand Mr. B. in the least stead; unless he be able to prove, that we have lost in the religion we profess, any one material part of what it was, when given over to the churches by Christ and his apostles, or have added any one particular to what they have provided, and furnished us withal in the Scriptures ; which until he hath done, by these and the like insinuations, he doth but beg the thing in question ; which being a matter of so great consequence and importance as it is, will scarce be granted him on any such terms. I doubt

126 THE PREFACE OF MR. BIDDLE

not, but it will appear to every person whatsoever, in the process of this business, who hath his senses any thing exercised in the word to discern between good and evil, and whose eyes the God of this world hath not blinded, that the glorious light of the gospel of God, should not shine into their hearts, that Mr. B. as wise as he deems it, and reports himself to be, is indeed like the foolish woman, that puts down her house with both her hands, labouring to destroy the house of God with all his strength, pretending that this and that part of it doth not originally belong thereto (or like AjaxV in his madness, who killed sheep, and supposed they had been his enemies), upon the account of that enmity which he finds in his own mind unto them.

The close of Mr. B.'s preface contains an exhortation to the study of the word, with an account of the success he himself hath obtained in the search thereof, both in the detection of errors, and the discovery of sundry truths ; some things I shall remark upon that discourse, and shut up these considerations of his preface.

1. For his own success he tells us, 'thatbeino- otherwise of no great abilities, yet searching the Scriptures impartially, he hath detected many errors, and hath presented the reader with a body of religion from the Scriptures, which whoso shall well ruminate and digest, will be enabled,' &,c. For Mr. B.'s abilities, I have not any thing to do, to call them into question ; whether small or great, he will one day find, that he hath scarce used them to the end for which he is intrusted with them; and when the Lord of his talents, shall call for an account, it will scarce be comfortable to him, that he hath engaged them so much to his dishonour, as it will undoubtedly appear he hath done. I have heard by those of Mr. B.'s time and acquaintance in the university, that what ability he had then obtained, were it more or less, he still delighted to be exercising of it, in opposition to received truths in philosophy; and whether an itching desire of novelty, and emerging thereby, lie not at the bottom of the course he hath since steered, he may do well to examine himself.

What errors he hath detected (though but pretended such, which honour in the next place he assumes to himself) I

'■ Sophoc. in Ajace. (jiaa-Tfyo<p,

know not. The error of the Deity of Christ was detected in the apostles' days by Ebion/ Cerinthus and others; not long after by Paulus Samosatenus,'' by Photinus by Arius, and others ; the error of the purity, simplicity, and spirituality of the essence of God, by Audseus, and the Anthro-pomorphites. The error of the Deity of the Holy Ghost, was long since detected by Macedonius, and his companions 5 the error of original sin, or the corruption of our nature, by Pelagius ; the error of the satisfaction and merit of Christ, by Abailardus; all of them by Socinus, Sraalcius, Crellius, &.C. What new discoveries Mr. B. hath made, I know not; nor is there any thing that he presents us with, in his whole body of religion, as stated in his questions, but what he hath found prepared, digested, and modelled to his hand, by his masters the Socinians ; unless it be some few gross notions about the Deity ; nor is so much as the language, which here he useth of himself and his discoveries his own, but borrowed of Socinus, Epist. ad Squarcialupum.

We have not then the least reason in the world, to suppose that Mr. B. was led into these glorious discoveries, by reading of the Scriptures, much less impartial reading of them ; but that they are all the fruits of a deluded heart, given up righteously of God to believe a lie, for the neglect of his word, and contempt of reliance upon his Spirit and grace for a right understanding thereof, by the cunning sleights of the forementioned persons, in some of whose writings Satan lies in wait to deceive. And for the body of religion which he hath collected, which lies not in the answers which are set down in the words of the Scripture, but in the interpretations and conclusions couched in his questions, I may safely say, it is one of the most corrupt and abominable, that ever issued from the endeavours of one who called himself a Christian; for a proof of which assertion I refer the reader to the ensuing considerations of it. So that whatever promises of success Mr. B. is pleased to make unto him who shall ruminate and digest in his mind, this body of his composure (it being indeed stark poison, that will never be digested, but fill and swell the heart with

* Euseb. Hist. lib. 3. cap. 21. Irsen. ad Haer. lib. 1. cap. 26. Epiphan. Haer. 1. torn. 2. lib. 1. RufF. cap. 27.

b Euseb. lib. 7. c. 22—24. August. Haeres. 44. Epiphan. Haeres. 1. lib. 2. So-crab. Hist. I. 2. cap. 24, &c.

128 THE PREFACE OF MR. BIDDLE

pride and venom, until it utterly destroy the whole person), it may justly be feared, that he hath given too great an advantage to a sort of men in the world, not behind Mr, B. for abilities and reason (the only guide allowed by him in affairs of his nature), to decry the use and reading of the Scripture, which they see unstable and unlearned men fearfully to wrest to their own destructions. But let God be true, and all men liars. Let the gospel run and prosper; and if it be hid to any, it is to them whom the God of this world hath blinded, that the glorious light thereof, should not shine into their hearts. What may farther be drawn forth of the same kind with what is in these catechisms delivered, with an imposition of it upon the Scripture, as though any occasion were thence administered thereunto, I know not; but yet do suppose, that Satan himself is scarce able to furnish the thoughts of men with many more abominations of the like length, and breadth, with those here endeavoured to be imposed on simple, unstable souls, unless he should engage them into downright atheism, and professed contempt of God. Of what tendency these doctrines of Mr. B. are unto godliness, which he nextly men-tioneth, will in its proper place fall under consideration. It is true, the gospel is a doctrine according to godliness, and aims at the promotion of it in the hearts and lives of men, in order to the exaltation of the glory of God. And hence it is, that so soon as any poor deluded soul falls into the snare of Satan, and is taken captive under the power of any error whatever, the first sleight he puts in practice for the promotion of it, is to declaim about its excellency and usefulness for the furtherance of godliness ; though himself in the meantime, be under the power of darkness, and know not in the least what belongs to the godliness, which he professeth to promote. As to v/hat Mr. B. here draws forth to that purpose, I shall be bold to tell him, that to the accomplishment of a godliness amongst men (since the fall of Adam), that hath not its rise and foundation in the effectual, powerful, changing of the whole man from death to life, darkness to light, &,c. in the washing of the pollutions of nature by the blood of Christ, that is not wrought in us, and carried on by the efficacy of the Spirit of grace, taking away the heart of stone, and giving a new heart, circumcised

to fear the Lord, that is not purchased and procured for us, by the oblation and intercession of the Lord Jesus, a godliness that is not promoted by the consideration of the vici-ousness, and corruption of our hearts by nature, and their alienation from God, and that doth not in a good part of it consist in the mortifying, killing, slaying, of the sin of nature, that dwelleth in us, and an opposition to all the actings and workings of it. A godliness that is performed by our own strength, in yielding obedience to the precepts of the word, that by that obedience we may be justified before God, and for it accepted, &:c. there is not one tittle, letter, nor iota in the whole book of God tending. Mr. B. closeth his preface with a commendation of the Scriptures, their excellency, and divinity, with the eminent success that they shall find who yield obedience to them, in that they shall be even in this life equal unto angels. His expressions at first view seem to separate him from his companions in his body of divinity, which he pretends to collect from the Scriptures, whose low thoughts, bold expressions, concerning the contradictions in them, shall afterward be pointed unto. But I fear

latet unguis in herba.

And in this kiss of the Scripture with hail unto it, there is vile treachery intended, and the betraying of them to the hands of men, to be dealt withal at their pleasure. I desire not to entertain evil surmises of any (what just occasion soever be given on any other account), concerning things that have not their evidence and conviction in themselves. The bleating of that expression, * the Scriptures are the ex-actest rule of a holy life,' evidently allowing other rules of a holy life, though they be the exactest, and admitting other things, or books, into a compartnership with them, in that their use and service, though the pre-eminence be given to them, sounds as much to their dishonour, as any thing-spoken of them by any, who ever owned them to have proceeded from God. It is the glory of the Scriptures, not only to be the rule, but the only one of walking with God. If you take any other into comparison with it, and allow them in the trial to be rules indeed, though not so exact as the Scripture, you do no less cast down the Scripture from

VOL. VIII. K

130 MR. biddle's preface examined.

its excellency, than if you denied it to be any rule at all. It will not lie as one of the many, though you say never so often that it is the best. What issues there will be of the endeavour, to give reason the absolute sovereignty in judging of rules of holiness, allowing others, but preferring the Scriptures, and therein without other assistance, determining of all the contents of it, in order to its utmost end, God in due time will manifest. We confess (to close with Mr. B.) that true obedience to the Scriptures, makes men even in this life, equal in some sense unto angels : not upon the account of their performance of that obedience merely, as though there could be an equality between the obedience yielded by us, whilst we are yet sinners, and continue so, (' for if we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves'), and the exact obedience of them who never sinned, but abide in doing the will of God ; but the principal, and main work of God required in them, and which is the root of all other obedience whatever, being to ' believe on him whom he hath sent,' to as many as so believe on him, and so receive him, 'power is given to become the sons of God;' who being so adopted into the great family of heaven and earth, which is called after God's name, and invested with all the privileges thereof; having fellowship with the Father and the Son, they are in that regard, even in this life, equal to angels. Having thus briefly as I could, washed off the paint, that was put upon the porch of Mr. B.'s fabric, and discovered it to be a composure of rotten posts and dead men's bones, whose pargeting being removed, their abomination lies naked to all; I shall enter the building or heap itself, to consider what entertainment he hath provided therein, for those, whom in the entrance he doth so subtilely and earnestly invite to turn in, and partake of his provisions.

CHAP. I.

Mr. B.'s first chapter examined. Of the Scriptures.

Mr. Biddle having imposed upon himself the task of insinuating his abominations, by applying the express words of Scripture, in way of answer to his captious and sophistical queries, was much straitened in the very entrance, in that he could not find any text or tittle in them, that is capable of being wrested to give the least colour to those imperfections, which the residue of men, with whom he is in the whole system of his doctrine in compliance and communion, do charge them withal. As that there are contradictions in them, though in things of less importance ;=» that many things are or may be changed and altered in them ; that some of the books of the Old Testament are lost, and that those that remain, are not of any necessity to Christians, although they may be read with profit; their subjecting them also, and all their assertions to the last judgment of reason, is of the same nature with the other. But it being not my purpose, to pursue his opinions, through all the secret v.'indings and turnings of them, so to drive them to their proper issue, but only to discover the sophistry and falseness of those insinuations, which grossly and palpably overthrow the foundations of Christianity; I shall not force him to speak to any thing, beyond what he hath expressly delivered himself unto.

This first chapter then, concerning the Scriptures, both in the greater and less catechisms, without farther trouble, I shall pass over ; seeing that the stating of the questions and answer in them may be sound, and according to the common faith of the saints, in those who partake not with Mr. B.'s companions, in their low thoughts of them, which here he doth not profess. Only I dare not join with him in his last assertion, that such and such passages are the most affectionate in the book of God ; seeing we know but in part, and are not enabled, nor warranted, to make such peremp-

a Socin. de Authorit. Sa.Scrip, cap. 1. Racov. An. 1611. p. 13. Socin. Lect. Sacr. p. 18. Episcop. disput.de Author. Script, thes. 3. Volkel. de vera Relig. lib. v. cap. V. p. 37r>. Socinus autem videtur rectius de SS. opinari, Epist. ad Radec. 3. p. 110. Ego quidem sentio, nihil in Scriptis, quae comiiiuuiter ab iis, qui Christian^ sunt ■dicti, recepta, et pro divinis habita sunt, constanter legi, quod non sit verissinium : hocque ad divinam providentiam pertinere prorsus arbitror, ut ejusmodi scripta, nun-quam depraventur aut corrunipantur, neque ex toto, neque ex parte.

K 2

tory determinations, concerning the several passages of Scripture set in comparison and competition for affectionateness by ourselves.

CHAP. II.

Of the nature of God.

His second chapter, which is concerning God, his essence, nature, and properties, is second to none in his whole book, for blasphemies and reproaches of God and his word.

The description of God, which he labours to insinuate, is. that he is one person, of a visible shape and similitude, finite, limited to a certain place, mutable, comprehensible, and obnoxious to turbulentpassions, not knowing the things that are future, and which shall be done by the sons of men, whom none can love with all his heart, if he believe him to be one in three distinct persons.

That this is punctually the apprehension, and notion concerning God and his being, which he labours to beget, by his suiting Scripture expressions to the blasphemous insinuations of his questions, will appear in the consideration of both questions and answers, as they lie in the second chapter of the greater catechism.

His first question is, 'How many Gods of Christians are there?' And his answer is,'One God;'Eph.iv. 6. Whereunto he subjoins, secondly, ' Who is this one God V And answers, 'The Father of whom are all things;' 1 Cor. viii. 6.

That the intendment of the connexion of these queries, and the suiting of words of Scripture to them, is to insinuate some thoughts against the doctrine of the Trinity, is not questionable; especially being the work of him, that makes it his business to oppose it, and laugh it to scorn. With what success this attempt is managed, a little consideration of what is offered will evince. It is true, Paul says to us, ' there is one God:' treating of the vanity and nothingness of the idols of the heathen, whom God hath threatened to deprive of all worship, and to starve out of the world. The question as here proposed, 'How many Gods of Christians are there,' having no such occasion administered unto it as that expression of Paul, being no parcel of such a dis-

course as he insists upon, sounds pleasantly towards the allowance of many gods, though Christians have but one. Neither is Mr. B. so averse to polytheism, as not to give occasion (on other accounts) to this supposal. Jesus Christ he allows to be a God. All his companions, in the undertaking against his truly eternal divine nature, still affirm him to be'' * Homo Deificatus,' and' Deus Factus,' and plead' pro vera Deitate Jesu Christi,' denying yet with him that by nature he is God, of the same essence with the Father: so indeed grossly and palpably falling into, and closing with that abomination, which they pretend above all men to avoid, in their opposition to the thrice holy and blessed Trinity. Of those monstrous figments in Christian religion which on this occasion they have introduced, of making a man to be an eternal God, of worshipping a mere creature, with the worship due only to the infinitely blessed God, we shall speak afterward.

2. We confess that to us there is one God, but one God, and let all other be accursed. The gods that have not made heaven and the earth, let them be'^ destroyed, according to the word of the Lord from under these heavens. Yet we say, moreover, that ' there are"^ three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, Word, and Spirit, and these three are one.' And in that very place, whence Mr. B. cuts off his first answer, as it is asserted, that there is one God; so one Lord, and one Spirit, the fountain of all spiritual distributions are mentioned, which, whether they are not also that one God, we shall have farther occasion to consider.

To the next query, concerning this one God, who he is, the words are, * the Father from whom are all things ;' in themselves most true. The Father is the one God, whom we worship in spirit, and in truth; and yet the Son also is our ' Lord, and our God ;' John xx. 28. even ' God over all blessed for ever ;' Rom. ix. 5. The Spirit also is the God 'which works all in all;' 1 Cor. xii. 6. 11. And in the name of that one God, who is the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,

•> Smalcius de divinit. Jes. Christ, edit. Racov. An. 1608. per Jacob. Sienienskia. Volkel. de vera Relig. lib. v. cap. 10. p. 425. 468. et antea. p. 206. Catech. Rac. cap. 1. de cognit. Christ, queest. 3. confession de foi, des Chrestiens.qui crojent en iinseulDieu lePerc, Sec. p. 18, 19. Jonas Schlichtingius, ad Meisncr. Artie, de Fiiio Dei p. 387. Socin. Res. ad Wickuni p. 8. el passim reliqui.

« Jer. X. 11. '^1 John v. 7,

are* we baptized, whom we serve, who to us is the one God over all. Neither is that assertion, of the Father's being the one and only true God, any more prejudicial to the Son's being so also, than that testimony given to the everlasting Deity of the Son, is to that of the Father, notwithstanding that to us there is but one God. The intendment of our author in these questions, is to answer what he found in the great exemplar of his catechism, the Racovian ;^ two of whose questions are comprehensive of all that is here delivered, and intended by Mr. Biddle. But of these things more afterward.

His next inquiry is after the nature of this one God, which he answers, with that of our Saviour, in John iv. 24. * God is a Spirit;' in this he is somewhat more modest, though not so wary as his great master, Faustus Socinus, and his disciple (as to his notions about the nature of God) Vorstius. His acknowledgment of God to be a Spirit, frees him from sharing in impudence in this particular, with his master, who will not allow any such thing to be asserted, in these words of our Saviour. His words are, (Fragment Disput de Adorat. Christi cum Christiano Francken, p. 60.) ' Non est fortasse eorum verborum ea sententia, quam plerique omnes arbitrantur : Deum scilicet esse spiritum, neque enim subaudiendum esse dicit aliquis verbum ifrri, quasi vox 7rvfi>-/uo, recto casu accipienda sit, sed airb koivov repetendum verbum ^rjrfi, quod paulo ante praecessit, et Trvev/xa quarto casu accipiendum, ita ut sententia sit, Deum quserere et pos-tulare spiritum.' Vorstius also follows him. Not. ad Disput. 3. p. 200. because the verb substantive ' is' is not in the original expressed (than the omission whereof, nothing being more frequent though I have heard of one, who from the like omission, 2 Cor. v. 17. thought to have proved Christ to be the new creature there intended), contrary to the context, and coherence of the words design of the argument in hand, insisted on by our Saviour (as he was a bold man),

« Matt, xxviii. 18. fExposuisti quae cognitu <-»d saliitcm de essentia Dei sunt prorsus necessaria, expone qu« ad earn rem vchementer iitilia esse ccnseas. R. Id quidein est ut cog-iioscanius in essentia Dei uiiam tiinluni personam esse. Demonstra lioc ipsuin. R. Hoc sane vel hitic patere potest, (piod essentia Dei sit una nuniero ; qiiapropter plu-res nuiuero ])ersona\ in ca esse nuilo pacto possunt. (^ua^nam est liajc una persona divina? R. Est iileDeusunus, Domini nostri.Tesu Cluisli Pater. 1 Cor. viii.6. Calecli. Racov. cap. I. do cognit. Dei. dc Dei essentia.

and emphaticalness of significancy in the expression as it lies, he will needs thrust in the word ' seeketh,' and render the intention of Christ to be, that God seeks a spirit, that is, the spirit of men to worship him. Herein, I say, is Mr. B. more modest than his master (as it seems following^ Crel-lius, who in the exposition of that place of Scripture is of another mind), though in craft and foresight he be outgone by him; for if God be a Spirit indeed, one of a pure spiritual essence and substance, the image, shape, and similitude, which he afterward ascribes to him, his corporeal postures, which he asserts (Qu. 4.) will scarcely be found suitable unto him. It is incumbent on some kind of men, to be very wary in what they say, and mindful of what they have said ; falsehood hath no consistency in itself, no more than with the truth. Smalcius, in the Racovian catechism, is utterly silent as to this question and answer. But the consideration of this also, will in its due place succeed.

To his fourth query, about a farther description of God, by some of his attributes, I shall not need to subjoin any thing in way of animadversion ; for however the texts he cites come short of delivering that of God, which the import of the question, to which they are annexed, doth require, yet being not wrested to give countenance to any perverse apprehension of his nature, I shall not need to insist upon the consideration of them.

Qu. 5. He falls closely to his work in these words,' Is not God, according to the current of the Scriptures, in a certain place, namely, in heaven V Whereunto he answers by many places of Scripture, that make mention of God in heaven.

That we may not mistake his mind and intention in this query, some light may be taken from some other passages in his book. In the preface he tells you,' that God hath a similitude and shape' (of which afterward), and hath his place in the heavens. That' God is in no certain place,' he reckons amongst those errors he opposes in the same preface. Of

e Significat enim Christus id, quod ratio ipsa dictat, Deum, cum Spiritus sit, non nisi spirituaiibus revera delectari. Crell. de Deo : seu de vera Rel. lib. J. cap. 15. p. 108. Spiritus est Deus : aniraadvertcruiit ibi omnes prope S. literarum interpretes, Dei nonien, quod articulo est in Grajco notatuni, subject! locum tenere : vocem, spiritus, quae articulo caret, praedicati : et spiritualem significare substantiam. Ita perinde est, ac si dictum fuisset, Deus est spiritus, seu spiritualis substantia. Idem ibid. p. 107.

the same kind he asserteth the belief to be, of God's ' being infinite and incomprehensible :' et Cat. les. p. 6. * that God glisteneth with glory, and is resident in a certain place of the heavens, so that one may distinguish between his right and left hand by bodily sight.' This is the doctrine of the man, with whom we have to do, concerning the presence of God. ' He is,' saith he,' in heaven, as in a certain place.' That which is in a certain place, is finite and limited; as from the nature of a place, and the manner of any thing's being in a place, shall be instantly evinced. God, then, is finite and limited, be it so (that he is infinite and incomprehensible is yetScripture expression); yea, he is so limited as not to be extended to the whole compass and limit of the heavens ; but he is in a certain place of the heavens, yea, so circumscribed, as that a man may see from his right hand to his left; wherein Mr. B. comes short of Mahomet, who afiirms, that when he was taken into heaven to the sight of God, he found three days journey between his eye-brows ; which if so, it will be somewhat hard for any one to see from his right hand to his left, being supposed at an answerable distance to that of his eye-brows. Let us see then on what testimony, by what authority, Mr. B. doth here limit the Almighty, and confine him to a certain place, shutting up his essence and being in some certain part of the heavens, cutting him thereby short, as we shall see in the issue, in all those eternal perfections, whereby hitherto he hath been known to the sons of men.

The proof of that lies in the places of Scripture which, making mention of God, say, 'He is in heaven, and that he looketh down from heaven,' &c. Of which out of some concordance, some twenty or thirty are by him repeated. Not to make long work of a short business, the Scriptures say, *God is in heaven.' Who ever denied it? but do the Scriptures say he is nowhere else ? Do the Scriptures say he is confined to heaven, so that he is so there, as not to be in all other places ? If Mr. B. thinks this any argument, God is in heaven, therefore his essence is not infinite and innnense, therefore he is not everywhere, we are not of his mind. He tells you in his preface, that he asserts nothing himself; I presume his reason was, lest any should call upon liim for a proof of his assertions. What lie intends to insinuate.

and what conceptions of God he labours to ensnare the minds of unlearned and unstable souls withal, in this question under consideration, hath been from the evidence of his intendment therein, and the concurrent testimony of other expressions of his to the same purpose, demonstrated. To propose any thing directly, in way of proof of the truth of that which he labours insensibly to draw the minds of men unto, he was, doubtless, conscious to himself of so much disability for its performance, as to wave that kind of procedure. And therefore his whole endeavour is, having filled, animated, and spirited, the understandings of men with the notion couched in his question, to cast in some Scripture expressions, that as they lie, may seem fitted to the fixing of the notion before begotten in them. As to any attempt of direct proof of what he would have confirmed, the man of reason is utterly silent.

2. None of those texts of Scripture, where mention is made of God's being in heaven, are in the coherence and dependance of speech, wherein they lie, suited or intended at all, to give answer to this question or any like it, concerning the presence of God, or his actual existence in any place, but only in respect of some dispensations of God and works of his, whose fountain and original he would have us to consider in himself, and to come forth from him there, where in an eminent manner he manifests his glory. God is, I say, in none of the places by him urged, said to be in heaven, in respect of his essence or being, nor is it the intention of the Holy Ghost, in any of them, to declare the manner of God's essential presence and existence, in reference to all or any places; but only by the way of emi-nency, in respect of manifestions of himself, and operations from his glorious presence, doth he so speak of him. And indeed in those expressions, heaven doth not so much signify a place, as a thing; or at least a place, in reference to the things there done, or the peculiar manifestations of the glory of God there ; so that if these places should be made use of, as to the proof of the figment insinuated, the argument from them would be, a non causa pro causa. The reason why God is said to be in heaven, is not because his essence is included in a certain place, so called, but because of the more eminent manifestation of his glory there, and the regard

which he requires to be had of him, manifesting his glory, as the first cause, and author of all the works, which outwardly are of him.

3. God is said to be in heaven in an especial manner, because he hath assigned that as the place of the saints' expectation of that enjoyment and eternal fruition of himself, which he hath promised to bless them withal. But for the limiting of his essence to a certain place in heaven, the Scriptures, as we shall see, know nothing ; yea, expressly and positively afiirm the contrary.

Let us all then supply our catechumens, in the room of Mr. B.'s with this question, expressly leading to the things inquired after.

' What says the Scripture concerning the essence and presence of God, is it confined and limited to a certain place or is he infinitely and equally present every where V

Ans. 'The Lord your God, he is God in heaven above, and in earth beneath;' Jos. ii. 11.

'But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold the heavens, and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less the house that I have builded?' 1 Kings viii. 27.

'Whither shall I go from thy Spirit, or whither shall I flee from thy presence ? If I ascend up into heaven thou art there, if I make my bed in hell, behold thou art there,' &c. Psal. cxxxix. 7—10. ' The heaven is my throne, and the earth my footstool;' Isaiah Ixvi. 1. Acts vii. 47,48.

' Am I a God at hand, saith the Lord, and not a God afar off? Can any hide himself in secret places, that I shall not see him? saith the Lord. Do not 1 fill heaven and earth? saith the Lord ;' Jer. xxiii. 23, 24.

It is of the ubiquity and omnipresence of God, that these places expressly treat; and whereas it was manifested before that the expression of God being in heaven, doth not at all speak to the abomination which Mr. B. would insinuate thereby, the naked rehearsal of those testimonies, so directly asserting, and ascribing to the Almighty, an infinite, unlimited presence, and that in direct opposition to the gross apprehension of his being confined to a certain place in heaven, is abundantly suflicient to deliver the thouglits and minds of men from any entanglements that Mr. B.'s questions and answers (for though it be the word of the

Scripture he insists upon, yet, male dum recitas incipit esse tiium) might lead them into. On that account no more need be added; but yet this occasion being administered, that truth itself, concerning the omnipresence or ubiquity of God, may be farther cleared, and confirmed.

Through the prejudices and ignorances of men, it is inquired, whether God be so present in any certain place, as not to be also equally elsewhere, every where.

Place has been commonly defined to be, 'superficies corporis ambientis.' Because of sundry inextricable difficulties and impossibility, of suiting it to every place, this definition is now generally decried. That now commonly received is more natural, suited to the natures of things, and obvious to the understanding. A place, is, ' spatium corporis suscep-tivum ;' any space wherein a body may be received, and contained. The first consideration of it is, as to its fitness and aptness, so to receive any body : so it is in the imagination only. The second, as to its actual existence, being filled with that body, which it is apt to receive. So may we imagine innumerable spaces in heaven, which are apt and able to receive the bodies of the saints ; and which actually shall be filled with them, when they shall be translated thereunto, by the power of God.

Presence in a place, is the actual existence of a person in its place; or as logicians speak, in its ubi; that is, answering the inquiry after him, where he is. Though all bodies are in certain places, yet persons only, are said to be present in them; other things have not properly a presence to be ascribed to them. They are in their proper places, but we do not say, they are present in, or to their places. This being the general description of a place, and the presence of any therein, it is evident, that properly it cannot be spoken at all of God, that he is in one place or other; for he is not a body, that should fill up the space of its receipt; nor yet in all places, taking the word properly, for so one essence can be but in one place ; and if the word should properly be ascribed to God in any sense, it would deprive him of all his infinite perfections.

It is farther said, that there be three ways of the presence of any, in reference to a place, or places; some are so in a place, as to be circumscribed therein, in respect of their parts.

and dimensions, such is their length, breadth, and depth; so doth one part of them fit one part of the place wherein they are, and the whole the whole, so are all solid bodies in a place : so is a man, his whole body in his whole place, his head in one part of it, his arms in another: some are so conceived to be in a place, as that in relation to it, it may be said of them, that they are there in it, so as not to be anywhere else, though they have not parts and dimensions filling the place wherein they are, nor are punctually circumscribed with a local space; such is the presence of angels and spirits, to the places wherein they are, being not infinite or immense. These are so in some certain place, as not to be at the same time wherein they are so, without it, or elsewhere, or in any other place. And this is proper to all finite, immaterial substances, that are so in a place, as not to occupy and fill up that space wherein they are. In respect of place, God is immense, and indistant to all things and places, absent from nothing, no place, contained in none ; present to all, by and in his infinite essence and being, exerting his power variously, in any or all places as he pleaseth, revealing and manifesting his glory, more or less, as it seemeth good to him.

Of this omnipresence of God, two things are usually inquired after, 1. The thing itself, or the demonstration, that he is so omnipresent. 2. The manner of it, or the manifestation and declaring how he is so present. Of this latter perhaps sundry things have been over curiously and nicely, by some disputed : though upon a thorough search, their disputes may not appear altogether useless. The schoolmen's distinctions of God's being in a place, replelive, immen-sive, imp/etive, superexcedenter, conservative, attinctive, maiii-festative, &cc. have, some of them at least, foundation in the Scriptures and right reason. That which seems most obnoxious to exception, is their assertion of God to be every where present, instar puncti: but the sense of that and its intendment, is to express how God is not in a place, rather than how he is. He is not in a place as quantitive bodies, that have the dimensions attending them. Neither could his presence in heaven, by those who shut him up there, be any otherwise conceived, until they were relieved by the rare notions of Mr. 13. concerning the distinct places of his right

hand and left. But it is not at all about the manner of God's presence that I am occasioned to speak, but only of the thing itself. They who say, he is in heaven only, speak as to the thing, and not as to the manner of it. When we say, he is every where, our assertion is also to be interpreted, as to that only; the manner of his presence being purely of a philosophical consideration, his presence itself divinely revealed, and necessarily attending his divine perfections. Yea, it is an essential property of God. The properties of God are either absolute, or relative. The absolute properties of God are such, as may be considered, without the supposition of any thing else whatever, towards which their energy and efficacy should be exerted. His relative are such as in their egress and exercise, respect some things in the creatures, though they naturally and eternally reside in God. Of the first sort is God's immensity; it is an absolute property of his nature and being; for God to be immense, infinite, unbounded, unlimited, is as necessary to him, as to be God; that is, it is of his essential perfection, so to be. The ubiquity of God, or his presence to all things and persons, is a relative property of God; for to say that God is present in, and to all things, supposes those things to be. Indeed the ubiquity of God, is the habitude of his immensity to the creation; supposing the creatures, the world that is, God is by reason of his immensity indistant to them all: or if more worlds be supposed (as all things possible to the power of God, without any absurdity may be supposed), on the same account as he is omnipresent, in reference to the present world, he would be so to them and all that is in them.

Of that which we affirm in this matter, this is the sum ; God, who in his own being and essence is infinite and immense, is by reason thereof, present in, and to the whole creation, equally, not by a diffusion of his substance, or mixture with other things, heaven or earth, in or upon them, but by an inconceivable indistancy of essence to all things, though he exert his power, and manifest his glory, in one place more than another: as in heaven, in Sion, at the ark, &,c.

That this is the doctrine of the Scriptures, in the places before-mentioned, needs no great pains to evince. In that.

1 Kings viii. 27. the design of Solomon in tlie words gives light to the substance of what he asserted; he had newly with labour, cost, charge, and wisdom, none of them to be paralleled in the world, built a temple for the worship of God. The house being large and exceedingly glorious, the apprehensions of all the nations round about (that looked on, and considered the work he had in hand) concerning the nature and being of God being gross, carnal, and superstitious, themselves answerably worshipping those who by nature were not God, and his own people of Israel, exceedingly prone to the same abominations; lest any should suppose, that he had thoughts of including the essence of God in the house that he had built, he clears himself in this confession of his faith, from all such imaginations; affirming that though indeed God would dwell on the earth, yet he was so far from being limited unto, or circumscribed in the house that he had built, that the heavens, even the heaven of heavens, any space whatever that could be imagined, the highest heavens could not, cannot contain him, so far is he from having a certain place in heaven, where he should reside, in distinction from other places, where he is not; 'He is God in heaven, and in earth;' Josh. ii. 11. That which the temple of God was built unto, that the heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain. Now the temple was built to the being of God, to God, as God; so Acts vii. 47. ' But Solomon built him a house;' Him ver. 48. that is, the Most High, who dwelleth not (is not circumscribed) in temples made with hands.'

That of Psal. cxxxix. is no less evident; the presence or face of God, is expressly affirmed to be every where : 'Whither shalll go from thy face? If I ascend up into heaven thou art there ; if I go into hell, behold thou art there.' As God is affirmed to be in heaven, so every where else ; now that he is in heaven, in respect of his essence and being is not questioned.

Neither can that of the prophet, Isa. Ixvi. 1. be otherwise understood, but as an ascribing an ubiquity to God, and a presence in heaven and earth : ' Heaven is my throne and the earth is my footstool;' the words are metaphorical, and in that way expressive of the presence of a person ; and so God is present in heaven and earth. That the earth should

be his footstool, and yet himself be so inconceivably distant from it, as the heaven is from the earth (an expression chosen by himself, to set out the greatest distance imaginable), is not readily to be apprehended. ' He is not far from any one of us, for in him we live, and move, and have our being;' Acts xvii. 27, 28.

The testimony which God gives to this his perfection in Jer. xxiii. 23, 24. is not to be avoided ; more than what is here spoken by God himself, as to his omnipresence, we cannot, we desire not, to speak; ' can any one lie hid from me? do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the Lord.' Still where mention is made of the presence of God, thus heaven and earth (which two are comprehensive of, and usually put for, the whole creation) are mentioned; and herein he is neither to be thought afar off, or near, being equally present every where, in the hidden places, as in heaven ; that is, he is not distant from any thing or place ; though he take up no place, but is nigh all things, by the infiniteness and existence of his being.

From what is also known of the nature of God, his attributes, and perfections ; the truth delivered may be farther argued, and confirmed. As,

1. God is absolutely perfect; whatever is of perfection, is to be ascribed to him; otherwise he could neither be absolutely self-sufficient, all-sufficient, nor eternally blessed in himself. He is absolutely perfect, inasmuch as no perfection is wanting to him ; and comparatively above all that we can conceive, or apprehend of perfection. If then ubiquity or omnipresence be a perfection, it no less necessarily belongs to God, than it does to be perfectly good and blessed. That this is a perfection, is evident from its contrary. To be limited, to be circumscribed, is an imperfection and argues weakness. We commonly say, we would do such a thing in such a place, could we be present unto it; and are grieved and troubled that we cannot be so; that it should be so, is an imperfection attending the limitedness of our natures. Unless we will ascribe the like to God, his omnipresence is to be acknowledged. If every perfection then be in God (and if every perfection be not in any, he is not God) this is not to be denied by him.

2. Again : If God be now in a certain place in heaven.

I ask where he was before these heavens were made? These heavens have not always been ; God was then where there was nothing but God ; no heaven, no earth, no place. In what place was God, when there was no place ? When the heavens were made, did he cease this manner of being in himself, existing in his own infinite essence, and remove into the new place made for him? Or is not God's removal out of his existence in himself into a certain place, a blasphemous imagination ? ' Ante omnia Deus erat, solus ipse sibi, et locus, et mundus, et omnia.' Tertul. Is this change of place and posture to be ascribed to God ? Moreover, if God be now only in a certain place of the heavens, if he should destroy the heavens, and that place, where would he then be ? In what place ? Should he cease to be in the place wherein he is, and begin to be in, to take up, and possess another? And are such apprehensions suited to the infinite perfections of God ? Yea, may we not suppose, that he may create another heaven ? Can he not do it? How should he be present there ? Or must it stand empty? Or must he move himself thither? Or make himself bigger than he was, to fill that heaven also ?

3. The omnipresence of God is grounded on the infinite-ness of his essence. If God be infinite, he is omnipresent; suppose him infinite, and then suppose there is any thing besides himself, and his presence with that thing, wherever it be, doth necessarily follow ; for if he be so bounded, as to be in his essence distant from any thing, he is not infinite. To say God is not infinite in his essence, denies him to be infinite or unlimited in any of his perfections or properties; and therefore, indeed, upon the matter Socinus denies God's power to be infinite, because he will not grant his essence to be. Catech. chap. 11. part 1. That which is absolutely infinite, cannot have its residence in that which is finite and limited ; so that if the essence of God be not immense and infinite, his power, goodness, &c. are also bounded and limited ; so that there are, or may be many things, which in their own natures are capable of existence, which yet God cannot do, for want of power. How suitable to the Scriptures, and common notions of mankind, concerning the nature of God, this is, will be easily known. It is yet the common faith of Christians,that Godis uTrEplypa(pog,KaX inrtipog.

4. Let reason (which the author of these catechisms, pretends to advance and lionour, as some think above its its due, and therefore cannot decline its dictates) judge of the consequences of this gross apprehension concerning the confinement of God to the heavens, yea, a certain place in tlie heavens, though he glisten never so much in glory, there where he is. For first, he must be extended as a body is, that so he may fill the place, and have parts as we have, if he be circun^scribed in a certain place; which, though our author think no absurdity, yet, as we shall afterward manifest, it is as bold an attempt to make an idol of the living God as ever any of the sons of men engaged into. 2. Then God's greatness and ours as to essence and substance, differ only gradually, but are still of the same kind. God is bigger than a man it is true, but yet with the same kind of greatness, differing from us as one man differs from another. A man is in a certain place of the earth, which he fills and takes up ; and God is in a certain place of the heavens, which he fills and takes up; only some gradual difference there is; but how great or little that difference is, as yet we are not tauo'ht, 3. I desire to know of Mr. B. what the throne is made of that God sits on in tlie heavens and how far the glistening of his glory doth extend, and whether that glistening of glory doth naturally attend his person, as beams do the sun, or shining doth fire, or can he make it more or less as he pleaseth. 4. Doth God fill the whole heavens, or only some part of them ? If the whole, being of such substance as is imagined, what room will there be in heaven for any body else ? Can a lesser place hold him ? Or could he fill a greater ; if not, how came the heavens so fit for him ? Or could he not have made them of other dimensions less or greater ? If he be only in a'' part of heaven, as is more than insinuated in the expression, that he is in a certain place in the heavens, I ask why he dwells in one part of the heavens rather than another? Or whether he ever removes, or takes a journey, as Elijah speaks of Baal, 1 Kings xviii. or is eternally, as limited in, so confined unto, the cer tain place wherein he is ? Again how doth he work out those

h Si spatium vacat super caput Creatoris, etsi Deus ipse in loco est, erit jam locus ille major et Deo et muudo; nihil enim non niajus est id quodcapit, illo quod capitur. Tertul. ad Max. lib. 1. cap. l;").

VOL. VIII. L

effects of almighty power, which are at so great a distance from him as the earth is from the heavens, which cannot be effected by the intervenience of any created powder : as the resurrection of the dead, &.c. The power of God doubtless follows his essence; and what this extends not to, that cannot reach. But of that which might be spoken to vindicate the infinitely glorious being,of God from the reproach which his own word is wrested to cast upon him, this that hath been spoken is somewhat, that to my present thoughts doth occur.

I suppose that Mr. B. knows, that in this his circumscription of God to a certain place, he transgresses against the common consent of mankind ; if not, a few instances of several sorts may, I hope, sufHce for his conviction : I shall promiscuously propose them, as they lie at hand, or occur to my remembrance. For the Jews, Philo'gives their judgment. Hear, saith he, of the wise God, that which is most true, that God is in no place ; for he is not contained, but containeth all. That which is made, is in a place ; for it must be contained, and not contain. And it is the observation of' another of them, that so often as DipD a place, is said of God, the exaltation of his immense, and incomparable essence (as to its manifestation) is to be imderstood. And the learned' Buxtorf tells us, that when that word is used of God, it is by an antiphrasis, to signify that he is infinite, illocal, received in no place, giving place to all. That known saying of Empedocles passed among the heathen, ' Deus est circulus, cujus centrum ubique, circumferentia nusquam.' And of Seneca :'^ ' Turn which way thou wilt, thou shalt see God meeting thee ; nothing is empty of him, he fills his own work.' ' All things are full of God,' says the" poet: and another of them,

Estque Dei sedes nisi terrse, et pontus, et aer,

Est coelum.et versus superos, quid quaerimus ultra:

Jupiter est quodcunque vides, quocunque raoveris.

^ "AxoufTov Wttfa roZ iTtia-rai^ivov 0£oiJ '^na-iv a\n&ta-ra,Tnv, oi; o 9eocoi;^i ttov ov yk^ m-{(Ep^ETfli, aXAa ni^iix^t TO Trav to li yevofxivov Iv roTTCfi ■ 7re^iix_i<r9ai yk^ aWo, aXKk ov WEfilp^^Eiv avayxa~ov. Pliilo. lib. 2. Alieg. I^eg.

^ Maimon. Mor. Nevoch p. 1. cap. 8. ' Buxtorf. in Lexic : verbo Dipa. " Quocunque tc flexeris, ibi ilium (Deum) videbis occurrentem tibi, nihil ab illo vacat.opus suum ipse implel. Senec. de benef. lib. 4. cap. 8.

» JoTis omnia plena. Virg. Eel. iii. 60. » Lucan lib. 3.

Of this presence of God, I say, with and unto all things, of the infinity of his essence, the very heathens themselves, by the light of nature ^which Mr. B. herein opposes) had a knowledge: hence did some of them term him KorrfxoTroibg vovQ, ' a mind framing the universe :' and affirmed him to be infinite. ' Primus omnium rerum descriptionem et modum, mentis Infinitae in ratione designari et confici voluit,' says Cicero, of Anaxagoras: Tull. de nat Deor. lib. 1. all things are disposed of, by the virtue of one infinite mind : and Plutarch, expressing the same thing, says he is, vovg Ka^apbg, Koi aKparog t^ujuEjUiy/ilvoc iraai : a ' pure and sincere mind, mixing itself, and mixed' (so they expressed the presence of the infinite mind) 'with all things :* so Virgil; ' Jovis omnia plena:" all things are full of God :' (for God they intended by that name. Acts xvii. 25. 28, 29. and says Lactantius, * Convicti de uno Deo, cum id negare non possunt, ipsum se colere, aflTirmant, verum hoc sibi placere, ut Jupiter nomi-netur;' lib. i. c. 2.) which, as Servius on the place observes, he had taken from Aratus, whose words are: 'Ek ^ibg ao-vw-fXEO^a, TOP ovce ttot avcpeg Icv/jLiv a.ppr]TOv' /neGTai Se Sibg iraaai filv ayviai, iraaat 8' dv^pioTrojv ayopai, ^earrj St ^aXaacra, koI \iniveg. Travrrj Se ^ibg Ke-)(piyxs^a iravreg, giving a full description, in his way, of the omnipresence and ubiquity of God. The same Virgil, from the Platonics, tells us in another place:

Spiritus intus alit, totamque infusa per artus Mens agitat raolem. ^n. vi. 726.

And much more of this kind "might easily be added. The learned know where to find more for their satisfaction; and for those that are otherwise, the clear texts of Scripture, cited before, may suffice.

Of those on the other hand, who have no less grossly, and carnally, than he of whom we speak, imagined a? diffusion of the substance of God through the whole creation, and a mixture of it with the creatures, so as to^ animate, and enliven them in their several forms, making God an essential part of each creature, or dream of an assumption of creatures, into an unity of essence with God, I am not now to speak.

P Vide Beza, Epist. ad Philip, Mamix.

<> Vide Virg. JEn. lib. 6. Principio caelum &c. ex Platonicii.

L 2

CHAP. III.

Of the shape and bodily visible figure of God.

Mr. Biddle's question.

' Is God in the Scripture said to have any likeness,—similitude,—person,—shape V

The proposition which he would have to be the conclusion of the answers to these questions, is this; That according to the doctrine of the Scriptures, God is a person shaped like a man. A conclusion so grossly absurd, that it is refused as ridiculous, by Tully, a heathen, in the person of Cotta (de Nat. Deorum), against Velleius, the Epicurean; the Epicureans only amongst the philosophers, being so sottish, as to admit that conceit. And Mr. B. charging that upon the Scripture, which hath been renounced by all the heathens," who set themselves studiously to follow the light of nature, and by a strict inquiry to search out the nature and attributes of God, principally attending that safe rule of ascribing nothing to him, that eminently included imperfection, hath manifested his pretext of mere Christianity, to be little better than a cover for downright atheism, or at best, of most vile, and unworthy thoughts of the divine Being. And here also doth Mr. B. forsake his masters.'' Some of them have had more reverence of the Deity, and express themselves accordingly, in express opposition to this gross figment.

According to the method 1 proceeded in, in consideration of the precedent questions, shall I deal with this ; and first, consider briefly the Scriptures produced to make good this monstrous horrid assertion. The places urged and insisted on of old, by the Anthropomorphites,"^ were such as partly ascribed a shape in general to God • partly such as mention the parts and members of God, in that shape; hi&

^ Sine corpore ullo Deuin esse vult, ut Graeci dicunt a.(7clifji.a.Tov. TuU. de Nat. Deor. lib. 1. de Platone. Meiissolutaet libera, segregata ab omni concretione mortal!. Id.

•' E\ his autem intclligitur, membra humaiii corporis, qufe Deo in sacris Uteris ascribuntur, uti et partes qiifEdaiii aiiarum animaiitiuiii, tjuaies sunt ala?, noii nisiira-proprie Deo tribui. Siquidera a spiritus natura jirorsus abliorrent. Tribuuntiir autem Deo per metaphoram cum nietonymia conjunctam. Ncmpe quia facultales v«l actioncs Deo convcniunt, illarum similes, quaj niembris illis, aut insuiit, aut per ea exerccntur. Crellius de Deo; sive de vera Relig. lib. 1. cap. 15. p. 107. « Epipban. toni. 1. lib. 3. Ha;res. 70. Theodorct, lib. 4. cap. 10.

«yes, his arms, his liands, &c. from all which they looked ■on him, as an old man, sitting in heaven on a throne. A conception that Mr. B. is no stranger to. The places of tKe first sort are here only insisted on by Mr. B. and the attributionof a likeness, image, similitude, person, and shape, unto God, is his warrant to conclude, that he hath avisible, corporeal image and shape, like that of a man, which is the plain intendment of his question. Now if the image, likeness, or similitude, attributed to God as above, do no way, neither in the sum of the words themselves, nor by the intendment of the places where they are used, in the least ascribe or intimate, that there is any such corporeal, visible shape in God, as he would insinuate, but are properly expressive of some other thing, that properly belongs to him ; I suppose it will not be questioned, but that a little matter will prevail with a person, desiring to emerge in the world by novelties, and on that account casting off that reverence of God, which the first and most common notions of mankind w^ould instruct him into, to make bold with God and the Scripture, for his own ends and purposes.

1 say then first in general. If the Scripture may be allowed to expound itself, it gives us a fair and clear account of its own intendment, in mentioning the image and shape of God, which man was created in; and owns it to be his righteousness and holiness, in a state v/hereof, agreeable to t!ie condition of such a creature, man being created, is said to be created in the image and likeness of God ; in a kind of resemblance unto that holiness and righteousness which is in him; Eph iv. 23, 24, 8cc. what can hence be concluded, for a corporeal image, or shape, to be ascribed unto God, is too easily discernable. From a likeness in some virtue or property, to conclude to a likeness in a bodily shape, may well befit a man that cares not what he says, so he may speak to the derogation of the glory of God.

2. For the particular places by Mr. B. insisted on, and the words used in them, which he lays the stress of this proposition upon. The two first words, are mm and d"?!^ both of which are used in Gen. i. the word niDT is used Gen. v. 1. and ti2b]i Gen. ix. 6. but neither of these words, do in their o-enuine signiftcalion, imply any corporeity or figure. The most learned of all the rabbins, and most critically skilful

in their language, hath observed and proved, that the proper Hebrew word, for that kind of outward form or similitude is nsn ; and if these be ever so used, it is in a metaphorical and borrowed sense, or at least, there is an amphiboly in the words; the Scripture sometimes using them in such subjects, where this gross corporeal sense cannot possibly be admitted. i:;n3 moiD ' like the serpent,' Psal.lviii. 4. Here is indeed some imaginable, or rather rational resemblance in the properties there mentioned, but no corporeal similitude; vide Ezek. i. 28- and xxiii. 15. To which may be added many more places, where if rniDT shall be interpreted of a bodily similitude, it will aiford no tolerable sense. The same likewise may be said of D^Jf; it is used in the Hebrew for the essential form, rather than the figure or shape; and being spoken of men, signifies rather their souls, than body; so it is used, Psal.lxxiii. 20. which is better translated, 'Thou shalt despise their soul,' than their 'image ;' so where it is said, Psal. xxxix. 6. ' Every man walketh in a vain shew (the same word again), however it ought so to be interpreted, it cannot be understood of a corporeal similitude; so that these testimonies are not at all to his purpose. What indeed is the image of God, or that likeness to him, wherein man was made, I have partly mentioned already, and shall farther manifest, chap. ii. and if this be not a bodily shape, it will be confessed, that nothing can here be concluded for the attribution of a shape to God; and hereof an account will be given in its proper place.

The sura of Mr. B.'s reasoning from these places is, God in the creation of the lower world, and the inhabitancy thereof, making man, enduing him with a mind and soul capable of knowing him, serving him, yielding him voluntary and rational obedience, creating him in a condition of holiness and righteousness, in a resemblance to those blessed perfections in himself, requiring still of him to be holy as he is holy, to continue and abide in that likeness of his, giving him in that estate, dominion over the rest of his works here below, is said to create him in his own image and likeness, he being the sovereign lord over all his creatures, infinitely wise, knowing, just, and holy ; therefore, he hath a bodily shape and image, and is therein like unto a man; ' quod erat demonstandum.'

The next quotation is from Numb. xii. 7, 8. where it is said of Moses, that he shall behold the 'similitude of the Lord:' the word is Themiinah, which, as it is sometimes taken for[a corporeal similitude, so it is at other times for that idea, whereby things are intellectually represented ; in the former sense is it frequently denied of God, as Deut. iv. 16. ' you saw no similitude,' &c. But it is frequently taken in the other sense, for that object, or rather impression, whereby our intellectual apprehension is made, as in Job iv. 16. * an image was before mine eyes,' viz. in his dream; which is not any corporeal shape, but that idea, or objective representation, whereby the mind of man understands its object; that which is in the schools commonly called phantasm, or else an intellectual species, about the notion of which it is here improper to contend. It is manifest, that in the place here alleged, it is put to signify the clear manifestation of God's presence to Moses, with some such glorious appearance thereof, as he was pleased to represent unto him; therefore/doubtless, God hath a bodily shape.

His next quotation is taken from James iii. 9, 'made after the similitude of God.' Tovg Ka0' biioiwaiv ^tov y^yovo rag. Certainly Mr. B. cannot be so ignorant, as to think the word ofxoiuxng, to include in its signification a corporeal similitude ; the word is of as large an extent as similitude in Latin ; and takes in as well those abstracted analogies, which the understanding of man finds out, in comparing several objects together, as those other outward conformities of figure and shape, which are the objects of our carnal eyes. It is the word by which the Septuagint use to render the word mm of which we have spoken before. And the examples are innumerable in the Septuagint translation, and in authors of all sorts, written in the Greek language, where that word is taken at large, and cannot signify a corporeal similitude, so as it is vain to insist upon particulars; and this also belongs to the same head of inquiry with the former, viz. what likeness of God it was, that man was created in, whether of eyes, ears, nose &,c. or of holiness, &c.

His next allegation is from Job xiii. 7, 8, ' will ye accept his person,' V3Dn irpoaayirov avroii. An allegation so frivolous, that to standto answer it studiously would be ridiculous. 1. It is an interrogation, and doth not assert any

thing. 2. The thing spoken against is TrpomoirXTj-^iu, which hath in it no regard to shape or corporeal personality, but to the partiality, which is used in preferring one before another in justice. 3. The word mentioned, with its derivatives, is used in as great, or greater variety of metaphorical translations, than any oilier Hebrew word ; and is by no means determined to be a signification of that bulky substance, which with the soul concurs to make up the person of man. It is so used. Gen. xxxiii. 18. >3D—^^^ 'Jacob pitched his tent before (or in the face of) the city.' It is confessed that it is very frequentlv translated irpomoTrov by the Seventy, as it is very variously translated by them ; sometimes o o^0oA/ioc, see Jer. xxxviii. 26. Neh. ii 13. Job xvi. 16. Deut. ii. 36. Prov. xxvii. 23. Besides that, it is used in many other places for avri, kvavrX, amvavTl, Ittuvco' ivwTTtov, and in many more senses; so that to draw an argument concerning the nature of God, from a word so amphibological, or of such frequent translation in metaphorical speech, is very unreasonable.

Of what may be hence deduced, this is the sum ; in every plea or contestabout the ways, dispensations, and judgments of God, that which is right, exact, and according to the thing itself, is to be spoken. His glory not standing in the least need of our flattery or lying ; therefore God is such a person, as hath a bodily shape and similitude, for there is no other person, but what hath so.

His last argument is from John v. 37. 'Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape,' ovra ii^og avTov iwpaKart. But it argues a very great ignorance in all philosophical, and accurate writings, to appropriate cTSoc to a corporeal shape, it being very seldom used, either in Scripture, or elsewhere, in that notion. The Scripture having used it, when that sense cannot be fastened on it, as in 1 Thess. v. 22, 'Atto TravTog e'/^crovc Trovt]pov airiytaOi, which may be rendered, 'abstain from every kind, or every apearance,' but not from every shape of evil ; and all otlier Greek authors, who have spoken accurately, and not figuratively of things, use it perpetually almost in one of those two senses, and very seldom, if at all, in the other.

How improperly, and with what little reason, these places are interpretedof a corporeal similitude or shape, hatli been

shewed. Wherein the image of God consists, the'' apostle shews, as was declared, determining it to be in the intellectual part, not in the bodily ; Col. iii. 10. 'Ev^uaufiivoi rov viov {av9p(i)7Tov) Tov avaKaivovfxevov dg ETTiyvioaiv, kut UKova Tov KTicfcn'Togav-ov. The word here used hkwv, is of a grosser signification than d^og, which hath its original from the intellectual operation of the mind, yet this the apostle determines to rehite to the mind, and spiritual excellencies, so that it cannot from the places he hath mentioned, with the least colour of reason be concluded, that God hath a corporeal^ similitude, likeness, person, or shape.

What hath already been delivered concerning the nature of God, and is yet necessarily to be added, will not permit that much be peculiarly spoken to this head, for the removal of those imperfections from him, which necessarily attend that assignation of a bodily shape to him, which is here aimed at. That the Ancient of Days is not really one in the shape of an old man, sitting in heaven on a throne, glistening with a corporeal glory, his hair being white, and his raiment beautiful, is sufficiently evinced, from every property and perfection, which in the Scripture is assigned to him.

The Holy Ghost, speaking in the Scripture concerning God, doth not without indignation suppose any thing to be likened or compared to him. Maimonides hath observed, that these words Aph Ira, &c. are never attributed to God, but in the case of idolatry ; that never any *^idolater was so silly, as to think that an idol of wood, stone, or metal, was a god that made the heavens and earth, but that through them, all idolaters intend to worship God. Now to fancy a corporeity in God, or that he is like a creature, is greater and more irrational dishonour to him, than idolatry. ' To whom will ye liken God, or what likeness will ye compare

d Plato said the same, thing expressly, apud Stobaium, Eclogfe Ethicse, lib. 2. cap. 3. p. 163.

« ©Eo? I«-Tt "TTVsyy.a vospcv, ovu 6;)^ov fji.of<phv. Posidonius apud vStobiBiini. Eclog« Physicffl. lib. 1. cap. 1. p. '2. I confess Epicurus said, Avfl^a'TrosiSstV ei'vai toI; Bsovi;. Stobasus ibidem, cap. 3. p. 5- And possibly Mr. B. might borrow his misshapen divinity from him, and the Antliropomorphites : and then we have the pedigree of his wild positions. But the more sober pliilospliers (as Stobfeus there tells us) held otherwise, ©sov ovy a/mlv oiSe opaiov, ciSa /wetjutov, oi.j£ Stas-Tarov, ov^t aXXoj tivj <riiy.aTi ofxoiov, &c. which Guil. Canterus renders thus; ' Quod nee tangi, nee cerni potest Deus, neque submensuram, vel terminum caditaut alicui estcorpori simile.

f VidesisRab. M. ftlaimonid. de Idolat. sect. 2, 3, &c. et Notas Uionysii Vossii ibidem.

to him ?' Isa.xl. 18. 'Have ye not known, have ye not heard hath it not been told you from the beginning, have ye not understood from the foundation of the earth T ver. 22, 'it is he that sitteth Sec. to whom then will he liken me, or shall

1 be equal saith the holy one V Because the Scripture speaks of the eyes and ears, nostrils and arms, of the Lord, and of man being made after his likeness, if any one shall§ conclude, that he sees, hears, smells, and hath the shape of a man ; he must upon the same reason conclude that he hath the shape of a lion, of an eagle, and is 'like a drunken man, because in Scripture he is compared to them, and so of necessity make a monster of him, and worship a chimera.

Nay, the Scripture plainly interprets itself, as to these attributions unto God : ' his arm is not an arm of flesh ;'

2 Chron. xxxii. 8. 'Neither are his eyes of flesh, neither seeth he as man seeth ;' Job x. 4. Nay, the highest we can pretend to (which is our way of understanding), though it hath some resemblance of him, yet falls it infinitely short of a likeness, or equality with him. And the Holy Ghost himself gives a plain interpretation of his own intendment in such expressions. For whereas, Luke xi. 20. our Saviour says, that he with the finger of God cast out devils. Matt, xii. 28. he affirms, that he did it by the Spirit of God, intending the same thing. It neither is, nor can righteously be required, that we should produce any place of Scripture, expressly affirniing, that God hath no shape, nor hands, nor eyes, as we have, no more than it is, that he is no lion or eagle: it is enough that there is that delivered of him abundantly, which is altogether inconsistent with any such shape as by Mr. B. is fancied ; and that so eminent a difference, as that now mentioned, is put between his arms, and eyes, and ours, as manifests them to agree in some analogy of the thing signified by them, and not in an answerableness in the same kind ; wherefore I say, that

The Scripture speaking of God, though it condescends to the nature and capacities of men, and speaks for the most part to the imagination (farther than which, few among the sons of men were ever able to raise their cogitations), yet

K QujB de Deo dicuntur in sacro codicc oySjajwo'/ra&oif, tnierpretanda sunt

hath it clearly delivered to us such attributes of God, as will not consist with that gross notion which this man would put upon the Godhead, The infinity, and immutability of God, do manifestly ''overthrow the conceit of a shape and form of God. Were it not a contradiction that a body should be actually infinite, yet such a body could not have a shape, such a one as he imagines. The shape of any thing is the figuration of it; the figuration is the determination of its extension towards several parts, consisting in a determined proportion of them to each other; that determination is a bounding and limiting of them; so that if it have a shape, that will be limited which was supposed to be infinite; which is a manifest contradiction. But the Scripture doth plainly shew that God is infinite and immense, not in magnitude (that were a contradiction, as will appear anon) but in essence : speaking to our fancy, it saith,'that he is higher than heaven, deeper then hell;' Job xi. 8. that 'he fills heaven and earth ;' Jer. xxiii. 24. ' Thatthe heaven of heavens cannot contain God ;' 1 Kings viii. 27. and hath many expressions to shadow out the immensity of God, as was manifest in our consideration of the last query. But not content to have yielded thus to our infirmity, it delivers likewise in plain and literal terms, the infiniteness of God. ' His imder-standing is infinite ;' Psal. cxlvii. 5. And therefore his essence is necessarily so : this is a consequence that none can deny, who will consider it, till he understands the terms of it, as hath been declared. Yet, lest any should hastily apprehend that the essence of God were not therefore necessarily infinite, the Holy Ghost saith, Psal. cxxxv. 3. ' That his greatness hath no end,' or is inconceivable, which is infinite. For seeing we can carry on our thoughts, by calculation, potentially in injinitum, that is, whatever measure be assigned, we can continually multiply it by greater and greater numbers, as they say, in injinitum; it is evident, that there is no greatness, either of magnitude or essence, which is unsearchable or inconceivable, beside that which is actually infinite : such therefore is the greatness of God, in the strict and literal meaning of the Scripture : and therefore, that he should have a shape, implies a contradiction.

•• Vid. D. Barnes in 1. partem Aquinatis. Quaest. 3. Art. 1. et Scholasticos Passim.

But of this, so much before, as I presume we may now take it for granted.

Now this attribute of infinity, doth immediately and demonstratively overthrow that gross conception of a human shape we are in the consideration of, and so it doth by consequence overthrow the conceit of any other, though a spherical shape. Again,

Whatever is incorporeal, is destitute of shape ; whatever is infinite is incorporeal, therefore what is infinite, is destitute of shape.

All the question is of the minor proposition. Let us therefore suppose an infinite body, or line, and let it be bisected ; either then each half is equal to the whole, or less. if equal, the whole is equal to the part; if less, then that half is limited within certain bounds, and consequently is finite, and so is the other half also : therefore two things which are finite shall make up an infinite ; which is a contradiction.

Having therefore proved out of Scripture that God is infinite, it follows also, that he is incorporeal, and that he is without shape.

The former argument proved him to be without such a shape, as this catechist would insinuate : this, that he is without any shape at all. The same will be proved from the immutability or impassibility of God's essence, which the Scripture assigns to him. Mai. iii. 6. 'I am the Lord, I change not.'' The heavens are the work of thy hands. They shall perish, but thou endurest; they shall be changed, but thou art the same ;' Psal.cii. 25, 20.

If he be immutable, then he is also incorporeal, and consequently without shape.

The former conseqence is manifest, for every body is extended, and consequently is capable of division, which is mutation ;~ wherefore being immutable he hath no shape.

Mr. Biddle's great plea for the considering his catechism, and insisting upon the same way of inquiry with himself, is from the success which himself hath found in the discovery of sundry truths, of which he gives an account in his book to the reader. That among the glorious discoveries made by him, the particular now insisted on is not to be reckoned, I presume Mr. B. knoweth. For this discovery, the world is

beholding to one Audaeus, a monk, of whom you have a large account in Epiphanius, torn. 1. lib. 3. Hseres. 70. as also in Theodoret, lib. 4. Eccles. Hist. cap. 10. who also gives us an account of the man, and his conversation, with those that followed him. Austin also acquaints us with this worthy predecessor of our author, de Hseres cap. 50. He that thinks it worth while to know, that we are not beholden to Mr. B. but to this Audteus for all the arguments, whether taken from the creation of man in the image of God, or the attribution of the parts and members of a man unto God in the Scripture, to prove him to have a visible shape, may at his leisure consult the authors above-mentioned, who will not suffer him to ascribe the praise of this discovery to Mr. B.'s ingenious inquiries. How the same figment was also entertained by a company of stupid monks in Egypt, who in pursuit of their opinion came in a great drove to Alexandria, to knock Theophilus the bishop on the head, who had spoken against them, and how that crafty companion deluded them with an ambiguity' of expression, with what learned stirs ensued thereon, we have a full relation in Socrat. Eccles. Hist, lib. 6. cap. 7.

As this madness of brain-sickmen, was always rejected by all'' persons of sobriety, professing the religion of Jesus Christ, so was it never embraced by the Jews, or the wiser sort of heathens, who retained any impression of those common notions of God, which remain in the hearts of men. The Jews to this day do solemnly confess in their public worship, that God is not corporeal, that he hath no corporeal propriety, and therefore can nothing be compared with him. So one of the most learned of them of old. "Ours yap av^p(i>Tr6fxop(j)og 6 ^wg, ovte ^eoeicig av^pwTrivov awfxa, Phil, de opificio mundi. ' Neither hath God a human form, nor does a human body resemble him.' And in Sacrifi. Abel. ovSt TO. oaa av^pwiroig, IttI S'fou KvpioXoyeiTaL, KaT(i\pr]aig St 6vofiaT(i)vlaTl7rapr]yopov(TaTriv rjfieTipav acr^ivdav. ' Neitherare those things which are in us spoken properly of God, but there is an abuse of names therein relieving our weakness.' Likewise the heathens, who termed God vovv, and -{pv-

• OvTOjq vfAaq u^ov a;; QboZ •nrgo<riW7rov. Zozom. Hist. Ec. lib. 8. cap. 11. '' Minut. Fffilix. in Octav. Lactan. de vera sap. Mutius pansa Pianensis de osculo ethnicse et Christianse Tlieol. c. 25. Origen. in Gen. Horn. 3. August. 1.83. Qurest. 22.

\h)(iiv, and TTvtvixa and ^wufioiroiov or ^vvafiiv, had the same apprehensions of him. Thus discourses Mercurius ad Tatium, in Stobaeus : serm. 78. Qtbv /xtv vof/crat ^aXtirov, (ppaaai St dcvvarov' to yap aatojuarov aojfxari ar]p.r}vai ciSvvaTov' Kai to te-Xeiov t(o ttTiXeX KOToXaftia^ai ov Swutov. koi to aiSiov Tto 6\7jo-Xpovii^) avyjEvta^ai, SvctkoXov. 6filvyapati laTi,TbSl7rapip-)(^tTai. KOL TO filv aXri^tia IcttX, to, Se virb (pavTaaiag (TKta^Erai. to Se a(T^svi(TT£pov tov laj^vpoTepov, koi to tAarrov tou KpsiTTOvog ciiaTrjue totovtox', oaov to ^vtjTov tov ^eiov. tjSe yutarj tovto)v cuicTTCKnt;, ajxavpol Tr)v tov koXov ^iav. b<^'^aXpoXg fxlv yap to. awfxaTa 3"fara, y\il>TT\j St to. opara, Xeicra, to 8f liawpaTov kuX a(pavtg, Kal aay^y]paTi(TTOv, Ka\ p{]TZ tE, vXrjg inroiceiiuLEvov, virb Tiov rifMeTepojv ala^i]aeo)v icaTaXrj^Srfjvaj ov ^vvaTai. ^Evvoovpai a» Tar' Ivvoovfxai, o tE,enrtiv ov SvvaTov, tovto igtiv b 0£oc' And Ca-licratides apud Stob. serm. 83. To St tv Igtiv lipiaTov avTog, oirep i(TTi KaTTav evvoiav, t^wov ovpaviov, acp^apTOv, ap-)(^aTe koI aWia Tag twv oXtov EiaKoaiiacnog'

Of the like import is that distich of Xenophones in Clemens Alexan. Strom. 5.

Eic Qiot; h TE dcoXa-i Kal av&fouTroiJ-i ixiyis-rai;

©yTE Sifji.a(; SniTt/Tiriv ofxoito;, olSk vohfAa.

There is one great God, among gods and men,

Wlio is like lo mortals neither as to body nor mind.

Whereunto answers that in Cato,

Si Deus est animus nobis ut carmina dicunt, &c.

And ^schylus, in the same place of Clemens, Strom. 5.

XoujiTS 5v»t2v tov &£ov xat jUn SJxEi Ofxoiov auTtii ca^KiKov Kabeirrayai.

' Separate God from mortals, and think not thyself of flesh, like him.'

And Posidonius plainly in Stobajus as above, 6 ^tbg ecttl TTvtvpa vofpbv Kal irvpiodeg, ovk e'xoi' p-opcpriv,' God is an intelligent fiery Spirit, not having any shape.' And the same apprehension is evident in that of Seneca, 'Quid est Deus? Mens universi. Quid est Deus? Quod vides totum, et quod non vides totum. Sic demum magnitude sua illi redditur, qua nihil majus excogitari potest. Si solus est omnia, opus suum extra et intra tenet. Quid ergo interest inter naturam Dei etnostram ? Nostri melior pars animus est, in illo nulla pars extra animum. Natural. Qua-st. lib. 1. Praefat. It would be burdensome, if not endless, to insist on the testimonies, that to this purpose might be produced, out of Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Epictetus, Julius Firmicus, and others of the

same order. I shall close with one of Alcinous de Doctrina Platon. cap. 10. 'Atottov St Troy ^eov e^ vXrig dymi kcu ii^ovg. ov yap larai airXovg ovSl apy^iKog' ' It is absurd to say that God is of matter and form : for if so, he could neither be simple, nor the principal cause.'

The thing is so clear, and the contrary even by the heathen pilosophers accounted so absurd, that I shall not stand to pursue the arguments flowing from the other attributes of God, but proceed to what follows.

CHAP. IV.

Of the attribution of passions, and affections, anger, fear, repentance ■unto God: in v-liat sense it is done in the Scripture.

His next inquiry about the nature of God, respects the attribution of several affections and passions unto him in the Scriptures, of whose sense and meaning he thus expresseth his apprehension.

Quest. ' Are there not according to the perpetual tenor of the Scriptures, affections and passions in God; as anger, fury, zeal, wrath, love, hatred, mercy, grace, jealousy, repentance, grief, joy, fear?' Concerning which he labours to make the Scriptures determine in the affirmative.

The main of Mr. B.'s design in his questions about the nature of God, being to deprive the Deity of its distinct persons, its omnipresence, prescience, and therein all other infinite perfections, he endeavours to make him some recompense for all that loss, by ascribing to him in the foregoing query, a human visible shape, and in this, human, turbulent affections, and passions. Commonly where men will not ascribe to the Lord that which is his due, *he gives them up to assign that unto him which he doth abhor. Neither is it easily determinable, whether be the greater abomination. By the first, the dependance of men upon the true God is taken off"; by the latter, their hope fixed on a false. This, on both sides at present, is Mr. B.'s sad employment. The Lord lay it not to his charge, but deliver him from the snare of Satan, wherein he is *" taken alive at his pleasure.'

» Jer. iliv. 15, 16. ''2 Tim. ii. 26.

2. The things here assioned to God are ill associated, if to be understood after the same manner. INIercy and grace we acknovvledgeto be attributes of God ; the rest mentioned, are by none of Mr. B,'s '' companions, esteemed any other, than acts of his will 5 and those metaphorically assigned to him.

3. To the whole I ask, whether these things are in the Scriptures ascribed properly unto God, denoting such affections and passions in him, as those in us are, which are so termed, or whether they are assigned to him, and spoken of him metaphorically, only in reference to his outward works and dispensations, correspondent and answering to the actings of men, in whom such affections are, and under the power whereof they are in those actings. If the latter be affirmed, then as such an attribution of them unto God, is eminently consistent with all his infinite perfections and blessedness, so there can be no difference about this question, and the answers given thereunto ; all men readily acknowledging, that in this sense the Scripture doth ascribe all the affections mentioned unto God ; of which we say as he of old, ravTci av^pwwoTra^iog jmlv Xiyovrai, ^eoirgeirwg Sc voovvrai. But this, 1 fear, will not serve IMr. B.'s turn : the very phrase and manner of expression used in this question ; the plain intimation that is in the forehead thereof, of its author's going off from the common received interjjretation of these attributions unto God, do abundantly manifest, tiiat it is their proper significancy which he contends to fasten on God, and that the affections mentioned are really and properly in him, as theyareinus. This being evident to be his mind and intendment, as we think his Anthropopathismin this query, not to come short in folly and madness of his Anthropomorphism in that foregoing; so I shall ])roceed to the removal of this insinuation in the way and method formerly insisted on.

Mr. Biddle's masters tell us, that "^ these affections are ' vehement commotions of the will of God, whereby he is carried out earnestly to the object of his desires, or earnestly declines and abhors what falls not out gratefully, or acceptably to him.' I shall first speak of them in general,

<^ Crellius de Deo : sen vera Ilelig. cap. 29. p. 295. '• Voluntatis divinaj coniniotiones, prKScrtiin velieiiieiitiores, scu actus ejusraodi, quibus voluntas vcliementius vel in objectum suuni fertiir, vol ab co rcfugit, afquc ab-liorret, &c. Crell. de Deo : seu vera Relig. cap. 29. p. 295. Vid. etiain cap. 30,31.

and then to the particulars (some or all) mentioned by Mr. Biddle.

First, In general, that God is perfect and perfectly blessed, *I suppose will not be denied; it cannot be, but by denying that he is God. He that is not perfect in himself, and perfectly blessed, is not God. To that which is perfect in any kind, nothing is wanting in that kind. To that which is absolutely perfect, nothing is wanting at all. He who is blessed, is perfectly satisfied and filled, and hath no farther desire for supply. He who is blessed in himself, is all-sufficient for himself. If God want or desire any thing for himself, he is neither perfect nor blessed. To ascribe, then, affections to God properly (such as before-mentioned), is to deprive him of his perfection and blessedness. The consideration of the nature of these, and the like affections, will make this evident.

1. Affections considered in themselves, have always an incomplete, imperfect act of the will, or volition joined with them. They are 'souiething that lies between tiie firm purpose of the soul, and the execution of that purpose. The proper actings of affections lie between these two; that is, in an incomplete tumultuary volition. That God is not obnoxious to such volitions and incomplete actings of the will, besides the general consideration of his perfections and blessedness premised, is evident from that manner of procedure which is ascribed to him. His purposes and his works comprise all his actings. As the Lord s hath purposed so hath he done. * He worketh all things according to the counsel of his will. Who hath known his mind, and who hath been his counsellor? Of him, and from him, are all things.' 2. They have their dependance on that, wherewith he, in whom they are, is affected; that is, they owe their rise and continuance to something without him, in whom they are. A man's fear ariseth from that or them, of whom he is afraid ; by them it is occasioned, on them it depends ; whatever affects any man (that is the stirring of a suitable affection), in all that frame of mind and soul, in all the volitions and commotions of will, which so arise from thence,

« Deut. xxxii. 4. Job xxxvii. 16. Rom. i. 25. ix. 5. 1 Tim. i. 11. vi. 15. f Crellius de Deo ubi supra. 8 Isa. xiv. 24. Eph. i. 11. Rom. xi. 33—35. Isa. xl. 13. VOL. Vlll. M

he depends on something without him. Yea, our being affected with something without, lies at the bottom of most of our purposes and resolves. Is it thus with God? with him who is '' I am ? Is he iu' dependance upon any thing without him? Is it not a most eminent contradiction to speak of God in dependance on any other thing? Must not that thing either be God, or reduced to some other, without and besides him who is God? As the causes of all our affections are. * God' is one mind, and who can turn him ; whatever he pleaseth that he doth.'

3. Affections are necessarily accompanied with change and mutability. Yea, he who is affected properly, is really changed : yea, there is no more unworthy change or alteration than that which is accompanied with passion, as is the change that is wrought by the affections ascribed to God. A ^ sedate, quiet, considerate alteration, is far less inglorious and unworthy than that which is done in and with passion. Hitherto we have taken God upon his testimony, that he is the ^'Lord, and he changeth not;' that with him * there is neither change nor shadow of turning;' it seems like the worms of the earth, he varieth every day.

4. Many of the affections here ascribed to God, do eminently denote impotence, which, indeed, on this account, both by Socinians and Arminians, is directly ascribed to the Almighty. They make him affectionately, and with commotion of will, to desire many things in their own nature not impossible, which yet he cannot accomplish nor bring about; of which I have elsewhere spoken. Yea, it will appear, that the most of the affections ascribed to God by Mr. Biddle, taken in a proper sense, are such as are actually ineffectual, or commotions through disappointments, upon the account of impotency, or defect of power.

Corol. To ascribe affections properly to God is to make him weak, imperfect, dependant, changeable and impotent.

Secondly, Let a short view be taken of the particulars, some or all of them, that Mr. Biddle chooseth to instance in; 'anger, fury, wrath, zeal' (the same in kind, only differing in degree and circumstances), are the first he instances in; and the

^ Exod. iii. 14. • Job. xxiii. 13.

•> Ti ay aa-$^nfA,a fxtTl^im yiyotro rov i/voXa/nSavny re drfivrTOY r^iiriff'^ai, Pliilo.

> Mai. iii. 6.

places produced to make good this attribution to God, are. Numb. XXV. 3,4. Ezek.v. 13. Exod. xxxii. 11, 12. Rom. i. 18. 1. That mention is made of the anger, wrath, and fury of God in the Scripture, is not questioned; Numb. xxv. 4. Deut.xiii.il. Josh. i. 26. Psal.xviii. 29. Isa. xiii. 9. Deut. xxix. 24. Judg. ii. 14. Psal. xiv. 1. Ixix. 24. Isa. xxx. 30. Lament, ii. 6. Ezek. 5. 15. Psal. xviii. 49. Isa. xxxiv. 2. 2 Chron. xxviii. 11. Ezra x. 14. Hab. iii. 8. 12. are farther testimonies thereof. The words also in the original, in all the places mentioned, express or intimate perturbation of mind, commotion of spirit, corporeal mutation of the parts of the body, and the like distempers of men acting under the power of that passion. The whole difference is about the intendment of the Holy Ghost in these attributions, and whether they are properly spoken of God, asserting this passion to be in him, in the proper significancy of the words, or whether these things be not taken av^pwTroTra^ojg, and to be understood ^eoTrpeTrwg, in such a sense, as may answer the meaning of the figurative expression, assigning them their truth to the utmost, and yet be interpreted in a suitableness to divine perfection and blessedness.

2. The anger then which in the Scripture is assigned to God we say denotes two things.

1. His"" vindictive justice, or constant and immutable will of rendering vengeance for sin : so God's purpose of the demonstration of his justice, is called his being 'willing to shew his wrath or anger;' Rom. ix. 22. so God's anger and his judgments are placed together, Psal. i. 6. and in that anger he judgeth, ver. 8. and in this sense is the wrath of God said to be revealed from heaven, Rom. i. 18. that is, the vindictive justice of God against sin, to be manifested in the effects of it, or the judgments sent, and punishments inflicted on and throughout the world.

2. By anger, wrath, zeal, fury, the effects of anger are denoted ; Rom. iii. 5. * Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance V The words are, 6 Int^ipayv Tr)v opyrjv, who inflicteth or bringeth anger on man ; that is, sore punishments, such as proceed from anger; that is, God's vindictive justice. And

™ Vid. Andr. Rivetuni in Psal. 2. p. 11. et in Exod. 4. p. 14. et Aquinat. 1. part. Q. 3. Art. 2. ad secundum. Ira dicitur de Deo secundum siinilitudinem efFectus, quia propriuiu est irati punire, ejus ira punitio inetaphorice vocatur.

M 2

Eph. V. 6. ' For this cause cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.' Is it the passion or affection of anger in God, that Mr. Biddle talks of, that comes upon the children of disobedience ? Or is it indeed the ""effect of his justice for this sin ? Thus the day of judgment is called the 'day of wrath,' and of'anger,'because it is the day of the ' revelation of the righteous judgment of God ;' Rom. ii. 5. After thy hardiness, &.c. In the place of Ezekiel, chap. v. 13. mentioned by Mr. B. the Lord tells them, he will ' cause his fury to rest upon men :' and accomplish it upon them. I ask whether he intends this of any passion in him (and if so, how a passion in God can rest upon a man), or the judgments which for their iniquities he did inflict? We say then, anger is not properly ascribed to God, but metaphorically, denoting partly his vindictive justice whence all punishments flow, partly the effects of it in the punishments themselves, either threatened or inflicted, in their terror and bitterness, upon the account of v.hatis analooous therein to our proceeding, under the power of that passion; and so is to be taken in all the places mentioned by Mr. Biddle. For,

3. Properly, in the sense by him pointed to, anger, wrath, &c.are not in God. Anger is defined by the philosopher to be, Ofjt^ig fitra XvirriQ Tifiwpiag (paivojuivi^g, Sta (paivoiuivr}v 6\iy(i)-piav, ' Desire joined with grief of that which appears to be revenge, for an appearing neglect or contempt.' To this "grief he tells you there is a kind of pleasure annexed, arising from the vehement fancy which an angry person hath of the re-venose he apprehends as future; which, saith he,' is "like the fancy of them that dream;' and ascribes this passion mostly to weak impotent persons: ascribe this to God, and you leave him nothing else. There is not one property of his nature wherewith it is consistent. If he be properly and literally angry, and furious, and wrathful, he is moved, troubled, perplexed, desires revenge, and is neither blessed nor perfect; but of these things in our general reasons against the property of these attributions afterward.

4. Mr. Biddle hath given us a rule in his preface, that when any thing is ascribed to God in one place, which is

n> "h opyn -rov fltou, Divina ultio, Rom. i. 18. Col. iii. 6. Grotius in lociiin. " 'H oZv tote lyyiyofxivr) •^aynatrla hiov hv Tfotst,ais-in^ h tSv ln/TrviW. Aristot. I. 2. cap. 2. " Aio xa/(xvovT£f, TTEfOjuevoi, IfivTEf, ii^amei, oXax; i7ribv/A.ovvre(, x<t( f^h xaTo^^oDvTEf, op>'>Xoi tla-t. Id. ubi sup.

denied of him in another, then it is not properly ascribed to him. Now God says expressly, that ' fury or anger is not in him;' Isa. xxvii. 4. and therefore it is not properly ascribed to him.

5. Of all the places where mention is made of God's re-pentings or his repentance, there is the same reason. Exod. xxxii. 14. Gen. vi. 6, 7. Judg. x. 16. Deut. xxx. 9. are produced by Mr. B. That one place of the 1 Sam. xv. 29. where God affirms, that he 'knoweth no repentance,' casts all the rest under a necessity of an interpretation suitable unto it. Of all the affections or passions which we are ol)noxious to, there is none that more eminently proclaims imperfection, weakness, and want in sundry kinds, than this of repentance. If not sins, mistakes, and miscarriages (as for the most part they are), yet disappointment, grief, and trouble, are always included in it. So is it in that expression, Gen. vi. 6. ' ^It repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at the heart.' What but his mistake and great disappointment, by a failing of wisdom, foresight, and power, can give propriety to these attributions unto God ? The change God was going then to work in his providence on the earth, was such, or like that, which men do, when they repent of a thing, being ' grieved at the heart' for what t';ey had formerly done. So are these things spoken of God, to denote the kind of the things which he doth, not the nature of God himself; otherwise such expressions as these would suit him, whose frame of spirit and heart is so described : • Had I seen what would have been the issue of making man, I would never have done it. Would I had never been so overseen, as to have engaged in such a business. What have I now got by my rashness? nothing but sorrow and grief of heart redounds to me.' And do these become the infinitely blessed God?

6. Fear is added, from Deut. xxxii. 26,27. Fear, saitii the

P Theodore! upon on this place tells us, oJ fxhv, i? tivs? <paa-iv. &c. Non autein ut fuerunt f)uidam (so that Mr. 13. is not the first that held this opinion), ita quadaiu et pceniteiitia ductus Deus haec egit: Tavra, ya^ toi av^^ooviva. Tra&i h Si Sriia. <^uiri- eXeu-&Epa Tra&aJv. And then he adds, ti SnTroTE toiviv, &c. Quwuiudo ergo po?iiitenti;i ta-dat ill Deum? His answer is, ovx oZv ivl &eou /xCTa/xi'Ktia.. ike. Quare pffiiiitentia Dei nihil aliud est, quain niutatio di^peusationis eju?. Poeiiitet nie (inquit) quod con-stituerim Saul regem, pro eo quod est, statu! ilium depoiiere. Sic in hoc loco (Gen. vi .6.) poenitet fecisse me liominem; hoc est, decrevi perdere humaiiuni genus. Theod. in Gen. Quaest. 50. Tom. 1. p. 41, 42.

wise man, is a ' betrayinoj of those succours which reason of-fereth:' nature's avoidance of an impendent evil. ''Its contrivance to fly and prevent what it abhors, being in a probability of coming upon it: a turbulent weakness. This God forbids in us, upon the account of his being our God, Isa. XXXV. 4. ' Fear not, O worm Jacob,' &c. Every where he asserts fear to be unfit for them, who depend on him, and his help, who is able, in a moment to dissipate, scatter, and reduce to nothing, all the causes of their fear. And if there ought to be no fear, where such succour is ready at hand, sure there is none in him who gives it. Doubtless it were much better to exclude the providence of God out of the world, than to assert him afraid properly and directly of future events. The schools say truly 'Quod res sunt futurai, a voluntate Dei est (efFectiva vel permissiva).' How then can God be afraid of v.hat he knows will, and purposeth shall come to pass? He doth, he will do things in some likeness to what we do, for the prevention of what we are afraid of. He will not scatter his people, that their adversaries may not have advantage to trample over them. When we so act as to prevent any thing, that (unless we did so act) would befall us, it is because we are afraid of the coming of that thing upon us : hence is the reason of that attribution unto God ; that properly he should be afraid of what comes to pass, who' knows from eternity what will so do, who can with the breath of his mouth destroy all the objects of his dislike, who is infinitely wise, blessed, all-sufficient, and the sovereign disposer of the lives, breath, and ways of all the sons of men, is fit for Mr. B. and no man else to affirm. All the nations are before him, as the drop of the bucket, and the dust of the balance, as vanity, as nothing; he upholds them by the word of his power, ' in him all men live, and move, and have their being,' and can neither live, nor act, nor be without him: their life and breath, and all their ways are in his hands; he brings them to destruction, and says, 'return ye children of men;' and must he needs be properly afraid of what they will do to him, and against him ?

t 'Eittm si ipoSoi;, Xi;7rnTif ii ra^a^h Ik (patraam; /xiWovro; KaKou fi tpZaprixeZ, n XiiTrijpoi/. Arist. Rhetor, lib. 2. cap. 6.

•■ Acts XV. 18. 2 Sam. xxii. 16. .Tob iv. 9. Psal. xviii. 15. Rom. i. 21. Gen. xvii. 1. Rom. ix. 16—18, &c. xi.34—36. Isa. xl. 15. Heb. i 3. Psal. xxxiii. '.'. Acts xvii. 25. i8. Psal. I. 8. Dan. vi. 23. Psal. xc. .3. .Tob xxxiv. 19.

7. Of God's jealousy and hatred, mentioned from Psal. V. 4, 5. Exod. XX. 5. Deut. xxxii, 21. there is the same reason. Such effects as these things in us produce, shall they meet withal, who provoke him by their blasphemies and abominations. Of love, mercy, and grace, the condition is something otherwise; principally they denote God's essential goodness and kindness, which is eminent amongst his infinite perfections; and secondarily, the effects thereof, in and through Jesus Christ, are denoted by these expressions. To manifest that neither they nor any thing else, as they properly intend any affections or passions of the mind, any communions of will, are properly attributed to God, unto what hath been spoken already, these ensuing considerations may be subjoined.

1. Where no cause of stirring up affections or passions can have place, or be admitted, there no affections are to be admitted. For to what end should we suppose that, whereof there can be no use to eternity. If it be impossible any affection in God should be stirred up, or acted, is it not impossible any such should be in him ? The causes stirring up all affections, are the access of some good desired ; whence joy, hope, desire, &c. have their spring; or the approach of some evil to be avoided, which occasions fear, sorrow, anger, repentance, and the like. Now if no good can be added to God, whence should joy, and desire be stirred up in him? if no evil can befall him, in himself, or any of his concernments, whence should he have fear, sorrow, or repentance? *Our goodness extends not to him ; he hath no need of us or our sacrifices. ' Can a man be profitable to God, as he that is wise may be profitable to himself? Is it any pleasure to the Almighty that thou art righteous, or is it gain to him that thou makest thy ways perfect V

2. The apostle tells us, that God is blessed for ever, Rom. ix. 5. 'He is the blessed and only potentate;' 1 Tim. vi. 15. God all-sufficient; Gen. xvii. 1. That which is inconsistent with absolute blessedness and all-sufficiency, is not to be ascribed to God ; to do so casts him down from his excellency. But can he be blessed, is heall-sufficient, who is tossed up and down with hope, joy, fear, sorrow, repentance, anger, and the like? Doth not fear take off from absolute blessedness?

» Psal. xvi. 2. 1. 8—10. Job xxxv. 6—8. xxii. 2,3.

Grant that God's fear doth not long abide, yet whilst it doth so, he is less blessed than he was before, and than he is after his fear ceaseth. When he hopes, is he not short in happiness of that condition, which he attains in the enjoyment of what he hoped for ? And is he not lower, when he is disappointed, and falls short of his expectation? Did ever the heatliens speak with more contempt of what they worshipped? Formerly the pride of some men heightened them to fancy themselves to be like God, without passions or affections ;' being not able to abide in their attempt against their own sense and experience; it is now endeavoured to make God like to us, in having such passions and affections. My aim is brevity, having many heads to speak unto. Those who have written on the attributes of God, his self sufficiency and blessedness, simplicity, inmiutability, &c. are ready to tender farther satisfaction to them who shall desire it.

CHAP. V.

Of God's prescience or foreknowledge.

His next attempt is to overthrow and remove the prescience or foreknowledge of God ; with what success, the f.irther consideration of the way whereby he endeavours it, will manifest. His question (the engine whereby he works) is thus framed:

'As for our free actions, which are neither past, nor present, but may afterward either be or not !)e, what are the chief passages of Scripture from whence it is wont to be gathered, that God knoweth not such actions until they come to pass, yea that there are such actions V

That we might have had a clearer acquaintance with the intendment of this interrogation, it is desirable Mr. B. had given us his sense on some particulars, which at first view present themselves, to the trouble of every ordinary reader. As,

1. How we may reconcile the words of Scripture given in answer to his preceding query, with the design of this. There

'Psal. 1. 21.

it is asserted, that God understands our thoughts (which certainly are of our free actions, if any such there are) afar off. Here, that he knows not our free actions that are future, and not yet wrought or performed.

2. By whom is it wont to be gathered from the following Scri)3tures, that God knoweth not our free actions until they come to pass ? Why doth not this mere Christian, that is of no sect, name his companions and associates in these learned collections from Scripture ? Would not his so doing discover him to be so far from a mere Christian, engaged in none of the sects that are now amongst Christians, as to be of that sect, which the residue of men so called, will scarce allow the name of a Christian unto ?

3. What he intends by the close of his query,' yea' that there are such actions,' an advance is evident in the words towards a farther negation of the knowledge of God, than what was before expressed. Before he says, * God knows not our actions that are future contingent:' here, he knows not that there are such actions. The sense of this must be, either that God knows not that there are any such actions, as may or may not be, which would render him less knowing than Mr. B. who hath already told us, that such there be; or else that he knows not such actions when they are, at least without farther inquiring after them, and knowledge . obtained, beyond what from his own infinite perfections and eternal purpose he is furnished withal. In Mr. Biddle's next book or caiechism, I desire he would answer these questions also.

Now in this endeavour of his, Mr. B. doth but follow his leaders.'' Socinus, in his prelections, where the main of his design is to vindicate man's free-will into that latitude and absoluteness, as none before him had once aimed at, in his ti^'ith chapter, objects to himself this fore-knowledge ofGod, as that which seems to abridge, and cut short the liberty

" Stfgman. Photin. Refiit. Di-ipiit l.q. 2. An Photiniani ulloniodo Christiani dici queaiit. Nfg. Wartiu. Siuisilec. Jes. Nova munstra, novi Ariaiii. cap. 1. Ariaiius null" mcido ChiistiaiiDS dici |)()s>e.

* Ut ad rationein istaii) iioii iiiiiiiis plene quam plane respondeamus, animadverfen-duni est, iiifallibileii) islam l)e\ prjenotionem, quiiii pio re coiicessa adver>a. li ^d-niunt, a ni)bis noii adniitii Sociii Pra-lec. c. 8 p. 25. Cum igitur nulla ratio, n'lllus Sacraruin literaruin Incus sit, ex cpio a|)crtecoHigi pussil.lJt urn niun a (jua-fiiint. scivisse aiitequam ficrent, concludcnciuiu est, miiiime asserendam esse a noiiis istaiii Dei prae-scientiam : prxsertiro, cum ct ratioiies non paucae, et sacra testimunia nun desint, undc earn plane negandam esse spparet. Idem, cap, 11. p. 38.

contended for. He answers, that he grants not the foreknowledge pretended, and proceeds, in that and the two following chapters, labouring to answer all the testimonies and arguments which are insisted on for the proof and demonstration of it; giving his own arguments against it, chap.xi. *=Grellius is something more candid, as he pretends, but indeed infected with the same venom with the other; for after he hath disputed for sundry pages, to prove the fore-knowledge of God, he concludes at last, that for those things that are future contingent, he knows only that they are so, and that possibly they may come to pass, possibly they may not. Of the rest of their associates few have spoken expressly to this thing. •^Smalcius once and again manifests himself to consent with his masters, in his disputations against Franzius, expressly consenting to what Socinus had written in his prelections, and affirming the same thing himself, yea disputing eagerly for the same opinion with him.

For the vindication of God's fore-knowledge, I shall proceed in the same order as before, in reference to the other attributes of God, insisted on, viz. 1. What Mr, B. hath done, how he hath disposed of sundry places of Scripture for the proof of his assertion, with the sense of the places by him so produced, is to be considered. 2. Another question and answer is to be supplied in the room of his. 3. The truth vindicated, to be farther confirmed.

For the first.

In the proof of the assertion proposed, Mr. B. finds himself entangled more than ordinarily; though I confess his task in general be such, as no man not made desperate by the loss of all, in a shipwreck of faith, would once have undertaken. To have made good his proceeding according to his engagement, he was at least to have given us texts of Scripture, express in the letter, as by him cut off from the state, condition, and coherence, wherein by the Holy Ghost they are placed, for the countenancing of his assertion. But

<= Itaque in considerate illi faciunt, qui futura contingentia Deum determinate scire aiunt, quia alias non esset omniscius : cum potius, ideo ilia determinate futura non concipiaf, quia est omniscius. CreJlius de Vera Relig. lib. l.cap. 24. p. SJOl.

^ Nam si omnia futura qualiacunqne sunt, Deo ab onini aiternitate determinate cognita fuisse conlendas; necesse est statucre omnia necessario fieri, ac futura esse. Unde sequitur, nullani esse, ant fuisse uiuniam, humanse voluntatis libertatem, ac porro ncc rcligioneni. Idem ibid. p. '202. Smalcius Refutat. Tiies. Franz, disput. 1, de Trinitat. p. 3. disput. 1'2. de caus. peccat. p. 4'j8, 429, &c. 433.

here, being not able to make any work in his method proposed and boasted in, as signal and uncontrollable ; no apex or tittle in the Scripture being pointed towards the denial of God's knowing any thing, or all things, past, present, and to come ; he moulds his question into a peculiar fashion, and asks, whence or from what place of Scripture may such a thing as he there avers, be gathered ? At once plainly declining the trial he had put himself upon, of insisting upon express texts of Scripture only ; not one of the many quoted by him, speaking one word expressly to the business in hand, and laying himself naked to all consequences, rightly deduced from the Scripture, and expositions given to the latter of some places suitable to the ''proportion of faith. That then which he would have, he tells you, is gathered from the places of Scripture subjoined ; but how, by whom, by what consequence, with what evidence of reason, it is so gathered, he tells you not. An understanding, indeed, informed with such gross conceptions of the nature of the Deity, as Mr. B. hath laboured to insinuate into the minds of men, might gather from his collection of places of Scripture for his purpose in hand, that God is afraid, troubled, grieved, that he re-penteth, altereth, and changeth his mind to and fro; but of his knowledge, or foreknowledge of things, whether he have any such thing or not, there is not the least intimation, unless it be in this, that if he had any such fore-knowledge, he need not put himself to so much trouble and vexation, nor so change and alter his mind, as he doth. And with such figments as these (through the infinite, wise, and good providence of God, punishing the wantonness of the minds and lives of men, by '^^giving them up to strong delusions' and vain imaginations, in the darkness of their foolish hearts, so far ^as to change ' the glory of the incorruptible God,' into the likeness of a corruptible, weak, ignorant, sinful man) are we now to deal.

But let the places themselves be considered. To these heads they may be referred: 1. such as ascribe unto God, fear, and being afraid; Deut. xxxii. 26,27. Exod. xiii. 17. Gen. iii. 22, 23. are of this sort. 2. Repentance; 1 Sam. xv. 10, 11. ult. 3. Change, or alteration of mind ; Numb. xiv. 27. 30. 1 Sam. ii. 30. 4. Expectation, whether a thing will answer

» Rom. xii. 6. ' 2 Tliess. ii. 10—12. S Rom. i. 23.

his desire or no ; Isa. v. 4. Conjecturing; Jer. xxxvi. 1—3. Ezek. xii. 1, 2. 5. Trying of experiments; Judg. iii. 1. 4. Dan. viii. 2. 2 Chron. xxxii. 31. From all which and the like, it may, by Mr. B.'s direction and help, be thus gathered: ' If God be afraid of what is to come to pass, and repenteth him of what he hath done, when he finds it not to answer his expectation, if he sits divining, and conjecturing at events, being often deceived therein, and therefore tries and makes experiments, that he may be informed of the true state of things, then certainly he knows not the free actions of men, that are not yet come to pass.' The antecedent Mr. B. hath proved undeniably from ten texts of Scripture ; and doubtless the consequent is easily to be gathered by any of his disciples. Doubtless it is high time that the old musty catechisms of prejudicate persons, who scarce so much as once consulted with the Scriptures in their composures, as being more engaged into factions, were removed out of the way and burned, that this mere Christian may have liberty to bless the growing generation with such notions of God, as the idolatrous pagans of old would have scorned to have received.

But do not the Scriptures ascribe all the particulars mentioned unto God ? Can you blame Mr. Biddle without reflection on them? If only what the Scriptuie affirms in the letter, and not the sense wherein and the manner how it affirms it (which considerations are allowed to all the writings and speakings of the sons of men), is to be considered, the end seeming to be aimed at in such undertakings as this of Mr. B. namely, to induce the atheistical spirits of the sons of men to a contempt and scorn of them, and their autlioiity, will probably be sooner attained, than by the efficacy of any one engine raised against them in the world besides.

As to the matter under consideration, I have some few things in general to propose to Mr. Biddle, and then I shall descend to the particulars insisted on.

1. Then, I desire to know whether the things mentioned, as fear, grief, repentance'', trouble, conjecturings, making

'• Poenitentia infert igiiorantiarii practcriti, pra-scntis, ct fiitiiri, mutationem voluntatis, et eiTorern in coiisiliis, quorum nihil in Deuni cadere potest: dicitur tanirn ille nu'iH(iliorice ptuniteiilia duci.quoiiiadmiidum nos, quando alicujus rci (loenitet, aboie-luus id quod antea feceranius : quod fieri potest sine tali inulaiione voluntatis, qua nunc homo aliquid facit, quod post mutato animo, dcstruit. Manassch Ben. Israel.

trials of men for his own information, are ascribed properly to God as they are unto men, or tropically and figuratively, with a condescention to us, to express the things spoken of, and not to describe the nature of God ? If the first be said, namely, that these things are ascribed properly to God, and really signify of him the things in us intended in them ; then to what hath been spoken in the consideration taken of the foregoing query, I shall freely add, for mine own part, 1 will not own nor worship him for my God, who is truly and properly afraid what all the men in the world either will or can do ; who doth, can do, or hath done any thing, or suffered any thing to be done, of which he doth, or can truly and properly repent himself, with sorrow and grief for his mistake; or that sits in heaven divining and conjecturing at what men will do here below : and do know, that he whom I serve in my spirit, will famish and staive all such gods out of the world. But of this before. If these things are ascribed to God figuratively and improperly, discovering the kind of his works and dispensations, not his own nature or property; I would fain know what inference can be made, or conclusion be drawn from such expressions, directly calling for a figurative interpretation? For instance; If God be said to repent that he had done such a thing, because such and such things are come to pass thereupon, if this repentance in God be not properly ascribed to him (as by Mr. B.'s own rule it is not), but denotes only an alteration and change in the works that outwardly are of him, in an orderly subserviency to the immutable purpose of his will; what can thence be gathered to prove, that God foreseeth not the free actions of men ? And this is the issue of Mr. Biddle's confirmation of the thesis, couched in his query insisted on from the Scriptures.

2. I must crave leave once more to mind him of the rule he hath given us in his preface, viz. That where 'a thing is improperly ascribed to God, in some other place it is denied of him ;' as he instances in that of his being weary ; so that whatever is denied of him in any one place, is not properly ascribed to him in any other. Now, though God be

conciliat. in Gen. vi. q. 23. Poenitentia, cum mutabilitatem iraporlet, non potest esse in Deo, dicitur tamen poenitere, eo quod admodura pcenitenlis se habet, quando de struit quod fecerat. L^ra ad 1 Sam. xv. 35.

said in some of the places by him produced, to repent; yet it is in another expressly said, that he doth not so, and that upon such a general ground and reason as is equally exclusive of all those other passions and affections, upon whose assignment unto God the whole strength of Mr. Biddle's plea against the prescience of God doth depend. 1 Sam. xv. 29. * Also the strength of Israel will not lie, nor repent, for he is not a man that he should repent.' The immutability of his nature, and unlikeness to men in obnoxiousness to alterations, is asserted as the reason of his not repenting ; which will equally extend its force and efficacy to the removal from him of all the other human affections mentioned. And this second general consideration of the foundation of Mr. . B.'s plea, is sufficient for the removal of the whole.

3. I desire to know whether indeed it is only the free actions of men that are not yet done, that Mr. B. denies to be known of God ? Or whether he exclude him not also from the knowledge of the present state, frame, and actings of the hearts of men, and how they stand affected towards him: being therein like other rulers among men, who may judge of the good and evil actions of men, so far as they are manifest and evident, but how men in their hearts stand affected to them, their rule, government, and authority, they know not. To make this inquiry, I have not only the observation premised from the words of the close of Mr. Biddle's query, being of a negative importance (yea, that there are such actions), but also from some of the proofs by him produced, of his former assertion, being interpreted according to the literal significancy of the words, as exclusive of any figure, which he insisteth on. Of this sort is that of Gen. xxii. 1, 2. 10— 12. 'where God is said to tempt Abraham, and upon the issue of that trial says to him (which words Mr. B. by putting them in a different character, points to, as comprehensive of what he intends to gather, and conclude from them), ' Now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.' The collection which Mr. B. guides unto from hence, is, that God knew not that which he inquired after, and therefore tempted Abraham that he

* Ex hac actione propter quamab omnibus Deum timens vocaberis, cognosceiit om-nes, quantus inte sit timor Dei, et quosque pcrtingat. R. Mos. BenMaiiiion. more Nevoch. p. 3. cap. 24.

might so do, and upon the issue of that trial says, * now I know.' But what was it that God affirms that now he knew? Not any thing future ; not any free action, that was not as yet done ; but something of the present condition and frame of his heart towards God: viz. His fear of God; not whether he would fear him, but whether he did fear him then. If this then be properly spoken of God, and really, as to the nature of the thing itself, then is he ignorant no less of things present, than of those that are for to come. He knows not who fears him, nor who hates him, unless he have opportunity to try them, in some such way as he did Abraham: and then what a God hath this man delineated to us ? How like the dunghill deities of the heathen who speak after this rate.'' Doubtless the description that Elijah gave of Baal would better suit him, than any of those divine perfections, which the living, all-seeing God, hath described himself by. But now if Mr. B. will confess that God knows all the things that are present, and that this inquiry after the present frame of the heart and spirit of a man, is improperly ascribed to him, from the analogy of his proceedings in his dealings with him, to that which we insist upon when we would really find out what we do not know ; then I would only ask of him, why those other expressions which he mentions, looking to what is to come, being of the same nature and kind with this, do not admit of, yea, call for the same kind of exposition and interpretation.

Neither is this the only place insisted on by Mr. B. where the inquiries ascribed unto God, and the trial that he makes, is not in reference to things to come, but punctually to what is present. Deut. viii. 2.xiii.3. ' The Lord your God proveth you, to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul.' 2 Chron. xxxii. 31. 'God left him to try him, that he might know what was in his heart;' and Phil. iv. 6. ' In every thing let your request be made known to God.' Let Mr. Biddle tell us now plainly, whether he suppose all these things to be spoken properly of God, and that indeed God knows not our hearts, the frame of them, nor what in them we desire and aim at, without some eminent trial and inquiry, or until we ourselves do

'' Contigerat nostras infamia temporis aures: Quam cupiens faisarn sumruo delabor Olympo, Et Deus huraana lustro sub imagine terras. Ovid, Met. i. 211.

make known what is in them unto him. If this be the man's mind (;is it must he. if he be at any agreement with himself in his priuciphs, concerning these scriptural attributions unto God), for my ptirt, I shall be so far from esteemin": him eminent as a mere Christian, that I shall scarcely judge him comparal)le, as to his a|)prehensions of God, unto many that lived and died mere p igans. To tliis sense also is applied that j)roperty of God, that he trieth the hear's, as it is urged by lAIr. Biddlefrom 1 Thess. ii. 4. that is, he luaketh inquiry after what is in them, which but upon search and trial, he knoweth not. By what ways and means God accomplisheth this search, and whether hereupon he comes to a perfect un-deistanding of our hearts or no, is not expressed. John tells us, that ' God is greater than our hearts, and knoweth all things ;' and we have thought on that acccount(with that of such farther discoveries as he hath made of himself, and his perfections unto us) that he had been said to search our hearts, not that himself, for his own information, needs any such formal process byway of trial and inquiry; but because really and indeed he doth that in himself, whiih men aim at in the accomplishment of their most diligent searches and exactest trials.

And we may by the way see a little of this man's consistency with himself. Christ he denies to be God. A great part of his religion consists in that negative. Yet of Christ it is said, ' that he knew all men, and needed not that any should testify of man, for he knew what was in man;' John ii. 24, 25. and this is spoken in reference to that very thing in the hearts of men, which he would persuade us that God knows not without inquiry. That is, upon the account of his not committino- himself to those, as true believers, whom yet upon the account of the profession they made, the Scripture calls so, and says, * they believed in his name when they saw the miracles that he did,' ver. 23. Though they had such a veil of profession upon them, that the Holy Ghost would have us esteem them as believers, yet Christ could look through it into their hearts, and discover and know their frame, and whether in sincerity they loved him and believed in his name or no; but this God cannot do, without inquiry; and yet Christ (if we believe Mr. B.) was but a mere man, as he is a mere Christian. Farther, it seems

by this gentleman, that unless * we make known our requests to God,' he knows not what we will ask. Yet we ask nothing but what is in our thoughts ; and in the last query he instructs us, that God knows our thoughts, and doubtless knows Mr. Biddle's to be but folly. Farther yet, if God must be concluded ignorant of our desires, because we are bid to make our requests known to him, he may be as well concluded forgetful of what himself hath spoken, because he bids us put him in remembrance, and appoints some to be his remembrancers. But to return;

This is the aspect of almost one half of the places produced by Mr. Biddle, towards the business in hand. If they are properly spoken of God, in the same sense as they are of man, they conclude him not to know things present, the frame of the heart of any man in the world towards himself and his fear, nay the outward, open, notorious actions of men. So it is in that place of Gen. xviii. 21. insisted on by ' Crellius, one of Mr. B.'s great masters. ' I will go down and see (or know) whether they have done altogether according to the cry that is come up unto me.' Yea, the places which in their letter and outward appearance seem to ascribe that ignorance of things present unto God, are far more express and numerous, than those that in the least look forward to what is yet for to come, or was so, at their delivery. This progress then have we made under our catechist, if we may believe him, as he insinuates his notions concerning God; God sits in heaven (glistening on a throne), whereunto he is limited; yea, to a certain place therein, so as not to be elsewhere; being grieved, troubled, and perplexed, at the affairs done below which he doth not know, making inquiry afterwhathe doth not know, and many things (things future), he knoweth not at all.

Before I proceed to the farther consideration of that which is eminently and expressly denied by Mr. Biddle, viz. 'God's foreknowledgeof our free actions that are future,' because many of his proofs, in the sense by him urged, seem

'Nirais longe a propria verborum significatione recedendum est, et sententiarum vis enervanda, si eas cum definita ilia faturoriira contingentlum prajscientia conciliare veiis, ut Gen. xviii. 21. xxii. 12. Quicquid eniin alias de utriusque; loci sententia statuas, illud taiiien facile est cernere, Deum novum quoddam, et insigne experi-mentum, illic quidera iuipietatis Sodomiticae et Gomorrliajae, videre voluisse, hie vero pietatis Abrahaiuicaj vidisse, quod anteqnam fieret, plane certum et exploratu non esset. Crellius de vera Relig. cap. 24. p. 209.

VOL. Vlll. N

to exclude him from an acquaintance with many things present, as in particular, the frame and condition of the hearts of men towards himself, as was observed ; it may not be amiss, a little to confirm that perfection of the knowledge of God as to those things from the Scripture, which will abundantly also manifest that the "expressions insisted on by our catechist are metaphorical, and improperly ascribed to God. Of the eminent predictions in the Scripture which relate unto things future, I shall speak afterward. He knew, for he foretold the flood, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, the famine in Egypt, the selling and exaltation of Joseph, the reign of David, the division of his kingdom, the Babylonish captivity, the kingdom of Cyrus, the return of his people, the state and ruin of the four great empires of the world, the wars, plagues, famines, earthquakes, divisions, which he manifestly foretold. But farther, he knows the frame of the hearts of men. He knew that the Keilites would deliver up David to Saul if he stayed amongst them, which probably they knew not themselves ; 1 Sam. xxiii. He knew that Hazael would murder women and infants, which he knew not himself. He knew that the Egyptians would afflict his people, though at first they entertained them with honour ; Gen. xv. 13. He knew Abraham, that he would instruct his household ; Gen. xviii. 19. He knew that some were obstinate, their neck an iron sinew, and their brow brass; Isa. xlviii. 4. He knew the imagination, or figment of the heart of his people; Deut. xxxi. 21. That the church of Laodicea (notwithstanding her profession) was lukewarm, neither hot nor cold ; Rev. iii. 15. ' Man looketh on the outward appearance, God looketh on the heart;' 1 Sam. xvi. 7. 'He only knows the hearts of all the children of men ;' 1 Kings viii. 39. ' Hell and destruction are before the Lord, how much more then the hearts of the sons of men ;' Prov. xv. 11. so also Prov. xxiv. 12. Jerem. xvii. 9, 10. Ezek. xi. 5. Psal. xxxviii. 9. xciv. 11. Job. xxxi. 4. Matt. vi. 4. 6. 8. Luke xvi. 15. Acts i. 24, &c. Innumerable other places to this purpose may be insisted on; though it is a surprisal to be put to prove that God knows the hearts of the sons of men. But to proceed to that which is more directly under consideration.

3. The sole foundation of Mr. Biddle's insinuation, that

God knows not our free actions that are future, being laid (as was observed), on the assignation of fear, repentance, expectation, and conjecturing- unto God, the consideration which hath already been had of those attributions in the Scripture, and the causes of them is abundantly sufficient to remove it out of the way, and to let his inference sink thither, whence it came. Doubtless never was painter so injurious to the Deity (who limned out the shape of an old man on a cloth or board, and after some disputes with himself, whether he should sell it for an emblem of winter, set it out as a representation of God the Father) as this man is in snatching God's own pencil out of his hand, and by it presenting him to the world in a gross, carnal, deformed shape. Plato would not suffer Homer in his Commonwealth, for entrenching upon the imaginary blessedness of their dunghill deities ; making "Jupiter to grieve for the death of Sarpedon, Mars to be wounded by Diomedes, and to roar thereupon with disputes and conjectures in heaven among themselves about the issue of the Trojan war; though he endeavours to salve all his heavenly solecisms, by many noble expressions, concerning purposes not unmeet for a deity; telling us in the close and issue of a most contingent affair, Aibg dl IreXedeTo /3ovXr^ Let that man think of how much sorer punishment he shall be thought worthy (I speak of the great account he is one day to make) who shall persist in wresting the Scripture to his own destruction, to represent the living and incomprehensible God unto the world, trembling with fear, pale with anger, sordid with grief and repentance, perplexed with conjectures and various expectations of events, and making a diligent inquiry after the things he knows not, that is altogether such a one as himself; let all who have the least reverence of, and ac-

»" Horn. Iliad. Rhapsod. «r. ver. 431, &c.

ToL; Si iJiv Ixe»o-e Kfiivov iraXf ayKvXofxnren).

"Hpuv Ja wpocTEEtwe

'il |W0( lyav, oTi /uo( SapwiSo'va, <^i'Krartiv ai/JpaJv,

• Horn. Iliad. Rhapsod. a. ver. 859, &c.

oS' tBpa^i ^a^Ktoi; "Apoj,

'Oa-a-ov T IvvEap^iXoi iTrictj^ov, h icKa^l'Koi

- 'AvIpEj Iv 'rtoKky.tf xaQk^no, Svfjiir isv}(tiv,

AeT^Ev J' d'y-B^orov aTftct

Kai f oXo<fu{o/(*£Vof.

* Horn. Iliad. Rhapsod. }. iu princip.

N 2

quaintance with, that Majesty with whom we have to do, judge and determine. But of these things before.

4. The proposure of a question to succeed in the room of that removed, with a scriptural resolution thereof, in order to a discovery of what God himself hath revealed, concerning his knowledge of all things, is the next part of our employment. Thus then it may be framed :

Q. Doth not God know all things, whether past, present, or to come, all the ways and actions of men, even before their accomplishment, or is any thing hid from him? What says the Scripture properly and directly hereunto ?

Ans. ' God is greater than our hearts, and knoweth all things ;' 1 John iii. 20. ' Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight; but all things are naked and open to the eyes of him, with whom we have to do;' Heb. iv. 12. 'He is a God of knowledge;' 1 Sam. ii. 3, 'Thou knowest mydownsittingandmine uprising, thou understand-est my thought a far oft. Thou compassest my path and my lying down, and art acquainted with all my ways. For there is not a word in my tongue, but lo, O Lord, thou knowest it altogether ;' Psal. cxxxix. 2—5. ' Great is our Lord, and of great power, his understanding is infinite;' Psal. cxli. 5, 'Who hath directed the Spiritof the Lord, or being his counsellor hath taught him ? With whom took he counsel, or who instrucfted him, and taught him in the paths of judo--raent, and taught him knowledge and shewed to him the way of understanding ?' Isa. xl. 13, 14. 'There is no searching of his understanding;' ver. 28. Rom. xi. 34—36. ' Of him are all things ;' and ' known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world;' Acts xv. 18, &c.

Of the undeniable evidence and conviction of God's prescience or foreknowledge of future contingents, from his predictions of their coming to pass, with other demonstrations of the truth under consideration, attended with their several testimonies from Scrripture, the close of this discourse will give a farther account.

It remains only, that according to the way and method formerly insisted on, I give some farther account of the perfection of God pleaded for, with the arguments wherewith it is farther evidenced to us, and so to proceed to what folio weth.

1. That knowledge is proper to God, the testimony of the Scripture unto the excellency and perfection of the thing itself, doth sufficiently evince.p * I cannot tell (says the apostle), God knoweth;' 2 Cor. xii. 2, 3. It is'the general voice of nature, upon relation of any thing that to us is hid and unknown, that the apostle there makes mention of; * God knoweth.' That he knoweth the things that are past, Mr. B. doth not question. That at least also some things that are present, yea some thoughts of our hearts are known to him, he doth not deny. It is not my intendment to engage in any curious scholastical discourse about the understanding, science, knowledge, or wisdom of God ; nor of the way of God's knowing things, in and by his own essence through simple intuition. That which directly is opposed, is his knowledge of our free actions, which in respect of their second and immediate causes, may, or may not be. This, therefore, I shall briefly explain, and confirm the truth of it by Scripture testimonies, and arguments from right reason, not to be evaded, without making head against all God's infinite perfections : having already demonstrated, that all that which is insisted on by Mr. B. to oppose it, is spoken metaphorically, and improperly of God.

That God doth foresee all future things was amongst^ mere pagans so acknowledged, as to be looked on as a common notion of mankind. So"" Zenophon tells us ; 'That both

P Intellectio secundum se ejus est, quod secundum se optimum est. Julius Pe-tronellus. lib. 3. cap. 4. ex Arist. Metaph.lib. 12. cap. 7. Sed et intellectum dupiicem video ; alter enim inteliigere potest, quamvis non intelligat, alter etiam intelligit qui tamen nonduni est perfectus, nisi et semper intelligat, et omnia; et ille demum absolutissimus futurus sit, qui et semper, et onmia, et simul intelligat. Maxim. Ty-rius. dissertat. 1. Uno mentis cernit in ictu quas siut, quaj fueririt, veniantque. Boeth.

<1 Ti? Je (UeXXei <|)fEva Ji'av xa&o^Sv, o^-iv dBvcrirov: j^scliyl. AoxEii is [xoi o KaXeofACv ^t^fxov, adavaTov te iWai xai voeTv Ttavra, nal o^ay, x.a.\ anovuv, aai EiJavai, Ta oVra, xai to, (/.iWovra. eVeo-^oi. Hippoc. de Princip. To the same purpose is that of Epicharmus, oiiSev iK'piijyit TO biiov, auToj l(r&' a/xZv I'DroTrraj, &c. And the anonymous author in Sto-bseus(vid. Excerpta Stobaei, p. 117.) speaking of God adds,— "Ov olii eTi; XiXnbiv oiSs EV rroiZv, ouJ av TTOiiio-arv, ovSi Tri'Jloinx.iii; 'rraKa.v i Si Trapuv aTTuvra^ov, navT e^ avdyxti; oTJe, &c. In short, the pagans generally received custom of consulting oracles, of using their olcuvo^KOTila, their Auguria, and Auspicia, &c. by which they expected answers from their god's, and significations of their will concerning future things, are evident demonstrations that they believed their gods knew future contingents.

r OVX.0VV <w? jtcEV xai EXXiVEC, xal BafBafOi Seoi/j hyavvrai TtaMra EiJivai, rk te oWa xai TO, /xiXXovTa eCSdXov TTatrai yovv a\ ttoXei; xai 'TTarra ra, eAvw Sii ywavrtx^; tTttpanSxri ToLf Seoi;? Tt TE ■xjfh xai Ti ov ■)(jih "nrciErv xai /xh on vofxi^Ofxh te iuvaff&ai avTohi;, xai eZ xal xaxaji ijioiiiV, xai tovto (ra<peg- Wovte; yoZv alrovvrai Touf S'Eou?, Ta ^ev (pauXa anoT^t'mnv rayaSk Si SiSovaj. oL'toi toi'vuv o TravTa EiSote; - -- Xia Si tj TTjoEfSivai xai 6 tj if 'ixae-Ttu avoffna-trai, Sac. Zcnoph, ZYMnoz.

Grecians and barbarians consented in this, that the god's knew all things present, and to come.' And it may be worth our observation, that whereas' Crellius, one of the most learned of this gentleman's masters, distinguisheth between iCTOfieva and jutXXovra, affirming, that God knows ra Hffo/xeva, which though future are necessarily so, yet he knows not Ta fxiXXovra, which are only, says he, likely so to be. Zeno-phon plainly affirms, that all nations consent, that he knows Ta fjiiXXovTa. And this knowledge of his (saith that great philosopher) is the foundation of the prayers and supplications of men, for the obtaining of good, or the avoiding of evil. Now that one calling himself a mere Christian, should oppose a perfection of God, that a mere pagan affirms all the world to acknowledge to be in him, would seem somewhat strange, but that we know all things do not answer, or make good, the names whereby they are called.

For the clearer handlino- of the matter under considera-tion, the terms wherein it is proposed are a little to be explained.

1. That prescience, or foreknowledge is attributed to God, the Scripture testifieth: Acts ii. 23. Rom.viii.29. xi. 2, 1 Pet. i. 2. are proofs hereof. The term indeed (foreknowing) rather relates to the things known, and the order wherein they stand one to another and among themselves, than is properly expressive of God's knowledge. God knows all things as they are ; and in that order wherein they stand. Things' that are past, as to the order of the creatures, which he hath appointed to them, and the works of providence, which outwardly are of him, he knows as past: not by remembrance as we do, but by the same act of knowledge, wherewith he knew them from all eternity, even before they

• Cum ergo Deus omnia prout reipsa se habent cognoscat, Itrifxeva sen certo fu-tura cognoscit ut talia, similiter et /xiWovra ut jWEXXovTa, seu verisimiliter eventura, pro ratione causarum unde pendent, Crellius de Vera Relig. lib. 1. cap. 24. p. 201.

* Sciendum, quod omnino aliter se habct antiqua ve! ajterna scientia ad ea quas fiunt et facta sunt, et aliter recens scientia : esse namque rei entis est causa scirutiienostras, scientia vero aeterna est causa ut ipsa res sit. Si vero quando res est postquara non erat, contingeret noviter in ipsa scientia antiqua, scientia superaddita, quemad-inodum contingit hoc in scientia nova, sequeretur utique quod ipsa scientia antiqua esset causata ab ipso ente : et non esset causa ipsius. oportet ergo quod non contin-gat ibi mutatio, scilicet in antiqua scientia, quemadmodum contingit in nova : sciendum autera, quod hie error idcirco accidit, quia scientia antiqua mensuraturab impe-ritis cum scientia nova,cujus mensuralionis modus vitiosissimus est: projicitquippe quandoque hominem in barathrum, undenunquam est egrcssurus. Rab. Aben. Rosf. Interpret. Raymund. Martin. Pugi. Fidci. P. P. cap. 25. sect. 4, b- p. 201.

were. Their existence in time, and being cast by the successive motion of things, into the number of the things that are past, denote an alteration in them, but not at all in the knowledge of God. So it is also in respect of things future. God knows them in that esse inteUigibile which they have, as they may be known and understood; and how that is, shall afterward be declared. He sees and knows them as they are, when they have that respect upon them of being future : when they lose this respect by their actual existence, he knows them still as before. They are altered, his knowledge his understanding is infinite, and changethnot.

2. God's "knowledge of things is either of simple intelligence (as usually it is phrased) or of vision. The first is his knowledge of all possible things; that is, of all that he himself can do. That God knows himself, I suppose will not be denied. An infinite understanding knows throughly all infinite perfections. God then knows his own power or omnipotency, and thereby knows all that he can do. Infinite science must know (as I said) what infinite power can extend unto. Now whatever God can do is possible to be done; that is, whatever hath not in itself a repugnancy to being. Now that many things may be done by the power of God that yet are not, nor ever shall be done, I suppose is not denied. Might he not make a new world? Hence ariseth the attribution of the knowledge of simple intelligence, before-mentioned, unto God. In his own infinite understanding he sees and knows all things that are possible to be done by his power, would his good pleasure concur to their production.

Of the world of things possible which God can do, some things, even all that he pleaseth, are" future. The creation itself, and all things that have had a being since, were so future before their creation. Had they not sometimes been future, they had never been. Whatever is, was to be, before it was. All things that shall be to the end of the world are now future. How things which were only possible in relation to the power of God come to be future, and in what respect, shall be briefly mentioned. These things God

" In Deo simplex est intuitus, quo simpliciter videntur (jure coniposita sunt, inva-riabiliter quae variabilia sunt, et sirau! quas successiva.

* Ad banc legem animus noster aptandus est, banc sequatur, huic pareaf, et quje-cunque, fiunt debuisse fieri putet. Senec. Epist. 108.

knoweth also. His science of them is called, of vision. He sees them, as things which in their proper order shall exist. In a word, ' Scientia visionis,' and ' Simplicis intelligentiae/ may be considered in a threefold relation ; that is, in 'ordine ad objectum, mensuram, modum.' 1. ' Scientia visionis' hath for its object things past, present, and to come, whatsoever had, hath, or will have, actual being. 2. The measure of this knowledge is his will: because the will, and decree of God only make those things future, which were but possible before ; therefore we say ' scientia visionis fundatur in volun-tate.' 3. For the manner of it, it is called 'scientia libera, quia fundatur in voluntate,'as necessarily presupposing a free act of the divine will, which makes things future, and so objects of this kind of knowledge. 2. That * scientia,' which we call * simplicis intelligentiae;' the object ef itis possible, the measure of it omnipotency; for by it he knows all he can do ; and for the manner of it, it is ' scientia necessaria, quia non fundatur in voluntate, sed potestate' (say the schoolmen); seeing by it he knows not what he will, but what he can do. Of that late figment, of a middle science in God, arising neither from the infinite perfection of his own being, as that of simple intelligence, nor yet attending his free purpose and decree, as that of vision, but from a consideration of the second causes that are to produce the things foreknown, in their kind, order, and dependance, I am not now to treat. And with the former kind of knowledge it is, or rather in the former way (the knowledge of God being simply one and the same) is it, that we affirm him to know the things that are future, of what sort soever, or all things before they come to pass.

3. The things inquired after are commonly called contingent. Contingencies^are of two sorts :

1. Such as are only so.

2. Such as are also free.

1. Such as are only so, are contingent only in their effects : such is the falling of a stone from a house, and the killing of a man thereby. The effect itself was contingent, nothing more; the cause necessary: the stone being loosed from what detained it upon the house, by its own weight necessarily falling to the ground. 2. That which is so contingent as to be also free, is contingent both in respect of

the effect, and of its causes also. Such was the soldier's piercing of the side of Christ. The effect was contingent, such a thing might have been done, or not; and the cause also ; for they chose to do it, who did it, and in respect of their own elective faculty, might not have chosen it. That a man shall write, or ride, or speak to another person tomorrow, the agent being free is contingent, both as to the cause, and to the effect. About these is our principal inquiry ; and to the knowledge of God, which he is said to have of them, is the opposition most expressly made by Mr B. Let this then be our conclusion;

God ^perfectly knows all the free actions of men, before they are wrought by them; all things that will be done, or shall be to all eternity, though in their own natures contingent, and wrought by agents free in their working, are known to him from eternity.

Some previous observations will make way for the clear proof and demonstration of this truth. Then,

1. God certainly knows every thing that is to be known; that is, every thing that is scibile. If there be in the nature of things an impossibility to be known, they cannot be known by the divine understanding. If any thing be scibile, or may be known, the not knowing of it, is his imperfection who knows it not. To God this cannot be ascribed (viz. that he should not know what is to be known) without the destruction of his perfection. He shall not be my God, who is not infinitely perfect. He who wants any thing to make him blessed in himself, can never make the fruition of himself the blessedness of others.

2. Every thing that hath a determinate cause is scibile, may be known, though future, by him that perfectly knows that cause, which doth so determine the thing to be known unto existence. Now contingent things, the free actions of men, that yet are not, but in respect of themselves may, or may not be, have such a determinate cause of their existence, as that mentioned. It is true, in respect of their immediate

y Dixit R. Juchanan : omnia videntur uno intuitu. Dixit Rab. Nachman filius Isaaci; sic etiam nos didicimus: quod scriptum est Psal. xxxiii. 15. formans simul cor eorum, intelligens omnia opera eorum, quomodo inteliigendum est? Dicendura est, dici, Deum adunare simul corda totius mundi? Ecce, videraus non ita rem se habere : sed sic dicendum est, Formans sive creator videt simul cor eorum, et intel-liget omnia opera eorum. Talmud. Rosch. haschana : interpret. Joseph, de Vo^sin.

causes, as the wills of men, they are contingent, and may be, or not be ; but that they have such a cause as before spoken of, is evident from the light of this consideration. In their own time and order they are: now whatever is at any time, was future ; before it was, it was to be. If it had not been future, it had not now been. Its present performance is sufficient demonstration of the futurition it had before. I ask, then, whence it came to be future ; that that action was rather to be, than a thousand others, that were as possible as it? For instance; that the side of Christ should be pierced with a spear, when it was as possible in the nature of the thing itself, and of all secondary causes, that his head should be cutoff. That, then, which gives any action a futurition, is that determinate cause wherein it may be known, whereof we speak. Thus it may be said of the same thing, that it is contingent, and determined, without the least appearance of contradiction, because it is not spoken with respect to the same things, or causes.

3. The determinate cause of contingent things, that is, things that are future (for^ every thing when it is, and as it is, is necessary), is the will of ^God himself concerning their existence and being, either by his efficiency and working, as all good things in every kind (that is, that are either morally or physically so, in which latter sense, all the actions of men, as actions, are so), or by his permission, which is the condition of things morally evil, or of the irregularity and obliquity attending those actions, upon the account of their relation to a law, which in themselves are entitative and physically good, as the things were which God at first created. Whether any thing come to pass besides the^ will of God, and contrary to his purpose, will not be disputed with any advantage of glory to God, or honour to them that shall assert it. That in all events the will of God is fulfilled, is a common notion of all rational

* Quicquid enimest,duni est, nccessario est. Aquinas 1. part, quaest. 19. art. 3.

* Vide Scot, in 1. lib. Sent. dist. 39.qua;st. unica. Ourand ibid. I3ist. 38. Quaest. 3. Jo. Major, in 1. Dist. 38,39. Qusst. 1. Art. 4. Alvarez, de Auxiliis. lib. 2. Dis-put. 10. p. 55, &c. et Scholasticos in Lonibarduni ibid. Dist. 38, 39. quos fuse enumerat Job. Martines de Ripalda in 1. Sent. p. 127, et 131.

^ Quid mihi scire qua: futura sunt.' quscunque ille vult, hjec futurasunt. Origen. Horn. 6. in Jesum nave. Vid. Frider. Spanhemium Dub. Evang 33. p. 272. in iliud Matb. Totuin boo factum est, I'm wXn^oiSS to fnbiv Ivi rou Hu^itw. Paul. Fcrriuin Schol. Orthodoxi. cap. 31. et in Vindiciis. cap. 5. sect. 6.

creatures. So the accomplishment of his determinate counsel, is affirmed by the apostle, in the issue of that mysterious dispensation, of the crucifying of his Son. That of James iv. 15. lav 6 Kvpiog ^i\{]ay, intimates God's will to be extended to all actions, as actions, whatever. Thus God knew, before the world was made, or any thing that is in it, that there would be such a world, and such things in it: yet, than the making of the world, nothing was'= more free or contingent. God is not a necessary agent, as to any of the works, that outwardly are of him ; whence then did God know this ? Was it not from his own decree and eternal purpose, that such a world there should be ? And if the knowledge of one contingent thing be from hence, why not of all? In brief, these future contingencies depend on something for their existence, or they come forth into the world in their own strength and upon their own account, not depending on any other. If the latter, they are God ; if the former, the will of God, or old fortune, must be the principle on which they do depend.

4. God can work with contingent causes, for the accomplishment of his own will and purposes, without the least prejudice to them, either as causes, or as free and contingent. God moves not, works not in, or with any second causes, to the producing of any effect, contrary, or not agreeable, to their own natures. Notwithstanding any predetermination or operation of God, the wills of men in the production of every one of their actions, are at as perfect liberty as a cause in dependance of another, is capable of. To say it is not in dependance, is atheism. The purpose of God, the counsel of his will concerning any thing as to its existence, gives a'^ necessity of infallibility to the event, but changes not the manner of the second cause's operation be it what it will. That God cannot accomplish and bring about his own purposes by free and contingent agents, without the destruction of the natures he hath endued them withal is a figment unworthy the thoughts of any who indeed acknowledge his sovereignty and power.

5. The reason why Mr. B.'s companions in his under-

* Vid. Aquinat. 1. Qujest. 83. Art. 1. ad 3.

* Vid. Didac. Alvarez, de Auxiliis Gratiae, lib. 3. disput. 25. Aquinat. part. 2. QuEst. 112. Art. 3. E. 1. Part. Qusest. 19. Art. 8. ad. 3.

takings, as others that went before him of the same mind, do deny this foreknowledge of God, they express on all occasions to be, that the granting of it is prejudicial to that absolute independent liberty of will, which God assigns to men : so Socinus pleads, Praelect. Theol. cap. 8.' thus far I confess more accurately than the Arminians. These pretend (some of them at least) to grant the prescience of God, but yet deny his determinate decrees and purposes, on the same pretence that the other do his prescience ; viz. of their prejudicialness to the free-will of man. Socinus discourses (which was no difficult task) that the foreknowledge of God is as inconsistent with that independent liberty of will and contingency, which he and they had fancied, as the predetermination of his will: and therefore rejects the former as well as the latter. It was*^ Augustine's complaint of old concerning Cicero, that ' ita fecit homines liberos, ut fecit etiam sacrilegos.' Cicero was a mere pagan ; and surely our complaint against any that shall close with him in this attempt, under the name of a mere Christian, will not be less just than that of Augustine. For mine own part, I am fully resolved, that all the liberty and freedom that as creatures Ave are capable of, is eminently consistent with God's absolute decrees, and infallible foreknowledge. And if I should hesitate in the apprehension thereof, I had rather ten thousand times deny our wills to be free, than God to be omniscient, the sovereign disposer of all men, their actions,

6 Crell. de Vera Relig. lib. 1. cap. 24. Smalcius ad Franz, disput. 12.

f In lias angustias Cicero coarctat aniruum rcligiosuni, ut ununi eligat aduobus: aut esse aliquid in nostra voluntate, aul esse prffiscientiani futurorura : quoniam utrumque arbitratur esse non posse, sed si alterum confirmalur, alteruni tolli. Si eligerimus praescientiain futurorum, toUi voluntatis arbitriuni. Si eligerinius voluntatis arbilrium, tolli prajscientiani futurorum. Ipse ifaque ut vir raagnus et doclus, ct vita- hunianffi pluriniuin et peritissime consulens, ex his duobus digit libcruni voluntatis arbitriuni. Quod ut coiifirmarctur, negavit pra^scientiani futurorum, atque ita dum vult facerc liberos, facit sacrilegos. Religiosus autem animus utrumque eli-git, utrumque confitetur, et fide pielatis utrumque confirmat. Quomodo inquit: Nam si est prajscientia futurorum, sequantur ilia omnia, qua? connexa .sunt, donee co perveniatur, ut nihil sit in nostra voluntate. Porro, si est ali(juid in nostra voluntate, eisdem recursis gradibus eo pervenitur, ut non sit ])ra'scientia futurorum. Nam per ilia omnia sic recurritur. Si est voluntatis arbitriuu), non omnia fato fiunt. Si non omnia fato fiunt, non est omnium certus ordo causarum. Si certus causarum ordo non est: nee rerum certus est ordo pra^scienti Deo, qua; fieri non possunt nisi praicedentibus, et eflTicienlibus causis. Si rerura ordo pra'scienti Deo certus non est, non ouniia sic veniunt, ut ea ventura pra;scivit. Porro, si non omnia sic cvcniunt ut ab illo eventura pra;scita sunt, non est, inquit in Deo praiscientia futurorum. Nos adversus istos sacrilegos ausus, et impios, et Deura dicinius omnia scire ante-(|uan) fiant; et voluntate nos facere, quic(]uid a nobi.s non nisi volentibus fieri senti-niui ctnoTimus. August, de Civit. Dei lib. b. cap. 9.

and concernments, or to say that any thing conies to pass without, against, or contrary to, the counsel of his will. But we know through the goodness of God that these things have their consistency, and that God may have preserved to him the glory of his infinite perfection, and the will of man not at all abridged of its due and proper liberty.

These things being premised, the proof and demonstration of the truth proposed lies ready at hand, in the ensuing particulars :

1. He who knows§ all things, knows the things that are future, though contingent. In saying they are things future and contingent, you grant them to be among the number of things, as you do those which you call things past; but that God knows all things, hath already been abundantly confirmed out of Scripture. Let the reader look back on some of the many texts and places, by which I gave answer to the query, about the foreknowledge of God, and he will find abundantly enough for his satisfaction, if he be of those that wovdd be satisfied, and dares not carelessly make bold to trample upon the perfections of God. Take some few of them to a review : 1 John iii. 20. ' God is greater than our hearts, and knoweth all things.' Even we know things past and present: if God knows only things of the same kind, his knowledge may be greater than ours by many degrees, but you cannot say his understanding is infinite ; there is not on that supposition an infinite distance between his knowledge and ours, but they stand in some measureable proportion. Heb. iv. 13. ' All things are open and naked before him with whom we have to do.' Not that which is to come, not the free actions of men that are future, saith Mr. Biddle. But to distinguish thus, when the Scripture doth not distinguish, and that to the great dishonour of God, is not to interpret the Word, but to deny it. Acts xv. 18. ' Known unto God are all his works from the foundation of the world.' I ask, whether God hath any thing to do in the free actions of men ? For instance ; had he any thing to do in the sending of Joseph into Egypt, his exaltation there, and the entertainment of his father's household afterward

s Causamquare Deus futura contingentia prsesciat damus banc, quod sitinfinita ipsius intellectus perfectio omnia cognoscentis. Et sicut Deus cognoscit prseterita secundum esse quod habuerunt.ita etiam cognoscit futura secundum illud esse quod habitura sunt. Dau. Ciasen. Theoi. Natural, cap. 22. p. 128.

by him in his greatness and power ? All which were brought about by innumerable contingencies, and free actions of men : if he had not, why should we any longer depend on him, or regard him in the several transactions, and concernments of our lives ?

Nullum nuraen abest, si sit prudcntia : noste, Nos facimus fortuna Deuru.*

If he had to do with it, as Joseph thought he had, when he affirmed plainly,^ * that God sent him thither, and made him a father to Pharaoh, and his house,' then the whole was known to God before; for'known unto God are all his works from the foundation of the world.' And if God may know any one free action beforehand, he may know all; for there is the same reason of them all Their contingency is given as the only cause, why they may not be known; now every action that is contingent, is equally interested therein; *a quatenus ad omne valet argumentum.' That place of the psalm before recited, Psal. cxxxix. 2—6. is express, as to the knowledge of God concerning our free actions that are yet future. If any thing in the world may be reckoned amongst our free actions, surely our thoughts may; and such a close reserved treasure are they, that Mr. B. doth more than insinuate in the application of the texts of Scripture which he mentioneth, that God knoweth them not when present without search and inquiry. But these (saith the psalmist) ' God knows afar of,' before we think them ; before they enter into our hearts. And truly I marvel, that any man, not wholly given up to a spirit of giddiness, after he had produced this text of Scripture to prove that God knows our thoughts, should instantly subjoin a question, leading men to a persuasion, that God knows not our free actions, that are future ; unless it was with a Julian design, to impair the credit of the word of God, by pretending it liable to self-contradiction ; or with Lucian, to deride God, as bearing contrary testimonies concerning himself.

2. God hath by himself and his holy prophets,'' which have been from the foundation of the world, foretold many

* Nullum Nuraen habes, si sit prudentia: sed te

Nos facimus, Fortuna, Deam, coeloque locainus. Juy. Sat. x. 365. [Editor.] t Gen. xlv. 5—8. ^ Praescientia Dei tot habet testes, quot fecit propbetas. Tertul. lib. i contra Marcionem.

of the free actions of men, what they would do, what they should do, long before they were born who were to do them. To give a little light to this argument, which of itself will easily overwhelm all that stands before it, I shall handle it under these propositions :

1. That God hath so foretold the free actions of men.

2. That so he could not do unless he knew them, and that they would be, then when he foretold them.

3. That he proves himself to be God by these his predictions.

4. That he foretels them as the means of executing many of his judgments, which he hath purposed and threatened, and the accomplishment of many mercies, which he hath promised; so that the denial of his foresight of them, so exempts them from under his providence, as to infer, that he rules not in the world by punishments and rewards.

For the first:

1. There need no great search or inquiry after witnesses to confirm the truth of it, the Scripture is full of such predictions from one end to the other. Some few instances shall suffice : Gen. xviii. 18, 19. ' Seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him ; for I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord, to do justice and judgment; that the Lord may bring upon Abraham, that which he hath spoken of him.' Scarce a word but is expressive of some future contingent thing, if the free actions of men be so, before they are wrought. That Abraham should become a mighty nation ; that the nations of the earth should be blessed in him; that he would command his children and household after him to keep the ways of the Lord ; it was all to be brought about by the free actions of Abraham, and of others; and all this I know, saith the Lord, and accordingly declares it. By the way, if the Lord knew all this before, his following trial of Abraham was not to satisfy himself whether he feared him or no, as is pretended.

So also. Gen. xv. 13, 14. ' And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not their's, and shall serve them; and they shall

afflict them four hundred years; and also that nation, which they shall serve will I judge ; and afterward shall they come out with great substance.' The Egyptians' affliction on the Israelites was by their free actions, if any be free; it was their sin to do it; they sinned in all that they did for the effecting of it. And doubtless if any, men's sinful actions are free; yet doth God here foretel they shall afflict them.

Deut. xxxi. 16—18. you have an instance beyond all possible exception: ' And the Lord said unto Moses, Behold, thou shalt sleep with thy fathers ; and this people will rise up, and go a whoring after the gods of the strangers of the land, whither they go to be among them, and will forsake me, and break my covenant which I have made with them. Then my anger shall be kindled against them in that day, and I will forsake them, and I will hide my face from them, and they shall be devoured, and many evils and troubles shall befall them; so that they will say in that day. Are not these evils come upon us, because our God is not among us V &c. The sum of a good part of what is recorded in the book of Judges, is here foretold by God. The people's going a whoring after the gods of the strangers of the land ; their forsaking of God, their breaking his covenant, the thoughts of their hearts, and their expressions, upon the consideration of the evils and afflictions that should befall them, were of their free actions; but now all these doth God here foretel; and thereby engages the honour of his truth, unto the certainty of their coming to pass.

1 Kings xiii. 2. is signal to the same purpose: 'Behold, a child shall be born unto the house of David, Josiah by name ; and upon thee shall he offer the priests of the high places, that burn incense upon thee, and men's bones shall be burnt upon thee.' This prediction is given out three hundred years before the birth of Josiah. The accomplishment of it you have in the story, 2 Kings xxiii. 17. Did Josiah act freely ? Was his proceeding at Bethel by free actions, or no ? If not, how shall we know what actions of men are free, what not ? If it was, his free actions are here foretold, and therefore, I think, foreseen.

1 Kings xxii. 28. The prophet Micaiah in the name of the Lord, having foretold a thing that was contingent, and which was accomplibhed by a man acting at a venture, lays

the credit of his prophecy, and therein his life (for if he had proved false as to the event, he was to have suffered death by the law), at stake before all the people, upon the certainty of the issue foretold. ' And Micaiah said. If thou return at all in peace, the Lord hath not spoken at all by me. And he said. Hear all ye people.'

Of these predictions the Scripture is full. The prophecies of Cyrus in Isaiah ; of the issue of the Babylonish war and kingdom, in Jeremiah ; of the several great alterations and changes in the empires of the world, in Daniel; of the kingdom of Christ in them all, are too long to be insisted on. The reader may also consult Matt. xxiv. 5. Mark xiii. 6. xiv. 30. Acts xx. 29. 2 Thess. ii. 3, 4, &c. 1 Tim. iv. 1. 2 Tim. iii. 1. 2 Pet. ii. 1. and the Revelation almost throughout. Our first proposition then is undeniably evident, that God by himself, and by his prophets, hath foretold things future, even the free actions of men.

2. The second prxjposition mentioned is manifest, and evident in its own light. What God foretelleth, that he perfectly foreknows. The honour and repute of his veracity and truth, yea of his being, depend on the certain accomplishment of what he absolutely foretels. If his predictions of things future are not bottomed on his certain prescience of them, they are all but like Satan's oracles, conjectures and guesses of what may be accomplished or not; a supposition whereof, is as high a pitch of blasphemy as any creature in this world can possibly arrive unto.

3. By this prerogative of certain predictions, in reference to things to come, God vindicates his own deity : and from the want of it convinces the vanity of the idols of the gentiles, and the falseness of the prophets that pretend to speak in his name ; Isa. xli. 21—24. ' Produce your cause, saith the Lord; bring forth your strong reasons, saith the King of Jacob. Let them bring them forth, and shew us what shall happen : let tliem shew the former things, what they be; or declare us things for to come ; shew the things which are to come hereafter, that we may know ye are gods. Behold you are of nothing.' The Lord calling forth the idols of the Gentiles, devils, stocks, and stones, to plead for themselves, before the denunciation of the solemn sentence ensuing, ver. 24. he puts them to the plea of foreknowledge

VOL. VIII. o

for the proof of their deity. If they can foretel things to come certainly and infallibly, on the account of their own knowledge of them, gods they are, and gods they shall be esteemed. If not, saithhe/youare nothing, worse than nothing, and your work is of nought, and he is an abomination that chooseth you.' And it may particularly be remarked, that the idols, of whom he speaketh, are in especial those of the Chaldeans, whose worshippers pretended above all men in the world to divination, and predictions. Now this issue doth the Lord drive things to betwixt himself and the idols of the world ; if they can foretel things to come, that is, not this or that thing (for so by conjecture, upon consideration of second causes, and the general dispositions of things, they may do, and the devil hath done), but any thing, or every thing, they shall go free; that is, is there nothing hid from you that is yet for to be ? Being not able to stand before this interrogation, they perish before the judgment mentioned. But now if it maybe replied to the living God himself, that this is a most unequal way of proceeding, to lay that burden upon the shoulders of others, which himself will not bear; bring others to that trial, which himself cannot undergo ; for he himself cannot foretel the free actions of men, because he doth not foreknow them, would not his plea render him like to the idols, whom he adjudgeth to shame and confusion ? God himself there concluding, that they are vanity and nothing, who are pretended to be gods, but are not able to foretel the things that are for to come, asserts his own Deity, upon the account of his infinite understanding and knowledge of all things, on the account whereof he can foreshew all things whatever, that are as yet future. In like manner doth he proceed to evince what is from himself, what not, in the predictions of any, from the certainty of the event. Deut. xviii. 21, 22. * If thou say in thine heart. How shall we know the word that the Lord hath not spoken? When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken presumptuously : thou shalt not be afraid of him.'

4. The fourth proposition, that God by the free actions of men (some whereof he foretelleth), doth fulfil his own counsel as to judgments and mercies, rewards and punish-

ments, needs no farther proof nor confirmation, but what will arise from a mere review of the things before-mentioned, by God so foretold, as was to be proved. They were things of the greatest import in the world, as to the good or evil of the inhabitants thereof: and in whose accomplishment as much of the wisdom, power, righteousness, and mercy of God was manifest, as in any of the works of his providence whatever. Those things which he hath disposed of, as to be subservient to so great ends, certainly he knew that they would be. The selling of Joseph, the crucifying of his Son, the destruction of antichrist, are things of greater concernment, than that God should onl'^ conjecture at their event. And indeed, the taking away of God's foreknowledge of things contingent, renders his providence useless, as to the government of the world. To what end should any rely upon him, seek unto him, commit themselves to his care through the course of their lives, when he knows not what will, or may befall them the next day? How shall he judge, or rule the world, who every moment is surprised with new emergencies, which he foresaw not, which must necessitate him to new counsels and determinations? On the consideration of this argument doth Episcopius conclude for the prescience of God, Epist.2. 'adBeverovicium determinovitae,' which he had allowed to be questioned in his'private 'Theological Disputations,'''though in his public afterward he pleads for it. The sum of the argument insisted on, amounts to this :

Those things v/hich God foretels, that they shall certainly and infallibly come to pass, before they so do, those he certainly and infallibly knoweth, whilst they are future, and that they will come to pass.

But God foretels, and hath foretold all manner of future contingencies and free actions of men, good and evil, duties

• Speciemet pondus videtur habere haec objectio; nee panci sunt, qui ejus, viadeo moventur, ut divinam futurorum contiiigentiuin prjescientiam negare, et qu» pro ea facere videntur loca, atque arguinenta, magno conatu torquere inalint, et flectere in sensus, non minus periculosos quani difficiles. Ad rae quod attinet, ego hactenus sive religione quadam aninii, sive divinaj majestatis reverentia, non potui prorsus in aniniuiu iiieuiu inducere, rationem istana allegatara tanti esse, ut propter earn Deo futuroiiim contingentium prjesdentia detraheiida sit: maxinie cum vix videam, qao-modo alioquin divinarum praedictionum Veritas salvari possit, sine aiiqua aut incerti-tudinis macula, aut falsi possibilis suspicione. Sira. Episcop. Respons. ad sccund. Epist. Juhan. Beverovi.

'' Episcop. institut. Theol. lib. 4. cap. 17, 18. Episcop. disput. de Deo Tlies. 10.

o 2

and sins, therefore he certainly and infallibly knows them whilst they are yet future.

The proposition stands and falls unto the honour of God's truth, veracity, and power.

The assumption is proved by the former, and sundry other instances that may be given.

He foretold, that the Egyptians should afflict his people four hundred years, that in so doing they would sin, and that for it he would punish them ; Gen. xv. 13—16. And surely the Egyptians sinning therein, was their own free action. The incredulity of the Jews, treachery of Judas, calling of the Gentiles, all that happened to Cirrist in the days of his flesh, the coming of antichrist, the rise of false teachers, were all foretold, and did all of them purely depend on the free actions of men, which was to be demonstrated.

3. To omit many other arguments and to close this discourse ; all perfections are to be ascribed to God; they are all jn him. To know is an excellency : he that knows any thing, is therein better than he that knows it not. The more any one knows, the more excellent is he. To know all things is an absolute perfection in the good of knowledge: to know them in and by himself who so knows them, and not from any discourses, made to him from without, is an absolute perfection in itself, and is required where there is infinite wisdom and understanding. This we ascribe to God, as worthy of him, as by himself ascribed to himself. To affirm on the other side, (1.) That God hath his knowledge from things without him, and so is taught wisdom and understanding as we are, from the events of things, for the more any one knows the wiser he is; (2.) That he hath (as we have) a successive knowledge of things, knowing that one day, which he knew not another, and that thereupon there is, (3.) A daily and hourly change and alteration in him, as from the increasing of his knowledge there must actually and formally be ; and that he (4.) sits conjecturing at events : To assert, I say, these and the like monstrous figments, concerning God and his knowledge, is as much as in them lieth, who so assert them, to shut his providence out of the world, and to divest him of all his blessedness, self-sufficiency, and infinite perfections. And, indeed, if Mr. B. believe his own principles, and would speak out, he must assert these things.

how desperate soever; for having granted the premises, it is stupidity to stick at the conclusion. And, therefore, some of those whom Mr. B. is pleased to follow in these wild vagaries, speak out and say (though with as much blasphemy as confidence), that God doth only conjecture, and guess at future contingents. For when this argument is brought. Gen. xviii. 19. 'I know/ saith God, 'Abraham will command his children after him/ &,c. therefore, future contingents may be certainly known of him ; they deny the consequence;'' and, granting that he may be said to know them, yet say it is only by guess and conjecture, as we do. And for the present vindication of the attributes of God this may suffice.

Before I close this discourse, it may not be impertinent to divert a little to that, which alone seems to be of any difficulty, lying in our way in the assertion of this prescience of God, though no occasion of its consideration be administered to us by him, with whom we have to do.

That future contingents have not in themselves a determinate truth, and therefore cannot be determinately known, is the great plea of those, who oppose God's certain foreknowledge of them; and therefore, say they, doth the 'philosopher affirm, that propositions concerning them, are neither true nor false. But,

1. That there is, or may be, that there hath been, a certain prediction of future contingents, hath been demonstrated, and therefore they must on some account or other (and what that account is hath been declared) have a determinate truth. And I had much rather conclude, that there are certain predictions of future contingents in the Scripture, and therefore they have a determinate truth ; than on the contrary, they have no determinate truth, therefore there are no certain predictions of them. * Let God be true, and every man a liar.'

2. As to the falsity of that pretended axiom: this proposition. Such a soldier shall pierce the side of Christ with a spear, or he shall not pierce him, is determinately true and

'' Anonymus ad 5. cap. priora Math. p. 28. Nego consequentiam Deus dicere potuit sescire quid facturus erat Abraham, etsi id certo non preenoverit.sed probabi-liter. Inducitur enira Deus saipius humano more loquens. Solent auteai homines af-iirniare se scire ea futura, qua; verisimiliter futura sunt, &c. ' Arist. lib. 1. dc Inlerp. cap. 8.

necessary, on the one side or the other, the parts of it being contradictory, ^vhich cannot be together. Therefore, if a man before the flood had used this proposition in the affirmative, it had been certainly and determinately true ; for that proposition which was once not true, cannot be true afterward upon the same account.

3. If no affirmative"" proposition about future contingents be determinately true, then every such affirmative proposition is determinately false; for from hence, that a thing-is, or is not, is a proposition determinately true or false. And therefore, if any one shall say that that is determinately future which is absolutely indifterent, his affirmation is false;^ which is contrary to Aristotle, whom in this they rely upon, who affirms, that such propositions are neither true nor false. The truth is, of propositions that they are true or false, is certain. Truth, or falseness, are their proper and necessary affections, as even and odd of numbers : nor can any proposition be given, wherein there is a contradiction, whereof one part is not true and the other false.

4. This proposition, * Petrusorat,' is determinately true" *de presenti,' when Peter doth actually pray (for 'quicquid est, dum est, determinate est'); therefore this proposition, 'de futuro, Petrus orabit,' is determinately true. The former is the measure and rule by which we judge of the latter. So that because it is true, ' de presenti, Petius orat,' ergo, this (de futuro) 'Petrus orabit,' was'ab seterno'true (exparte rei); and then (ex parte modi) because this proposition, 'Petrus orat,' is determinately true, 'de presenti:' ergo, This ' Petrus orabit,' was determinately true from all eternity. But enough of this.

Mr. B. having made a sad complaint of the ignorance and darkness that men were bred up in, by being led from the Scripture, and imposing himself upon them for *a guide of the blind, a light of them which are in darkness, an instructor of the foolish, and a teacher of the babes,' doth in pursuit of his great undertaking, in this chapter instruct them what the Scripture speaks concerning the being, na-

"" Alphons. de Mendoza. Con Tlieol. Scliolast. q. 1. p. 534. Vasquez. in 1. Tlio. disjjiit. 1(). Riivio in 1. Interpret, cap. 6. q. iinica, &c.

"\"ui Rod. de Arriaga. clis|)ut. Lot;. 14. sect. 5. subscct. 3. p. 205. Suarez. in Opus. I. 1. de Pr;rscientia Dei cap. 2. Vasquez. 1. Part. disp. 66. cap. 2. Pet. IJur-tado de JMcud. disp, 9. de Aniiua. sect. 6.

ture, and properties, of God. Of his goodness, wisdom, power, truth, righteousness, faithfulness, mercy, independency, sovereignty, infiniteness, men had before been informed, by books, tracts, and catechisms, composed according to the fancies and interests of men, the Scripture being utterly justled out of the way. Alas! of these things the Scriptures speaks not at all; but the description wherein that abounds of God, and which is necessary that men should know (whatever become of those other inconsiderable things, wherewith other poor catechisms are stuffed) is, that he is finite, limited, and obnoxious to passions, &c. 'Thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacriledge?'

CHAP. VI.

Of the creation and condition of man, before andafter the fall.

MR. BIDDLE'S THIRD CHAPTER.

*Q. Were the heaven and earth from all eternity, or created at a certain time ? And by whom ?

*A. Gen.i. 1.

' Q. How long was God a making them ?

*A. Exod. XX. 11.

*Q. How did God create man?

'A. Gen. ii. 7.

' Q. How did he create woman ?

'A. Gen. ii. 21,22.

* Q. Why was she called woman ? 'A. Gen. ii. 23.

* Q. What doth Moses infer from her being made a woman, and brought unto the man?

' A. Gen. ii. 24.

* Q. Where did God put man, after he was created ? *A. Gen. ii. 8.

'Q. What commandment gave he to the man^ when he put him into the garden ? *A. Gen. ii. 16, 17.

' Q. Was the man deceived to eat of the forbidden fruit? 'A. 1 Tim. ii. 14.

* Q. By whom was the woman deceived ? 'A. 2 Cor. xi. 3.

* Q. How was the w^oman induced to eat of the forbidden fruit? And how the man?

'A. Gen. iii. 6.

* Q. What effect followed upon their eating ?

* A. Gen. iii. 7.

* Q. Did tlie sin of our first parents in eating of the forbidden fruit, bring both upon them and their posterity the guilt of hell-fire, deface the image of God in them, darken their understanding, enslave their will, deprive them of power to do good, and cause mortality ? If not, what are the true penalties that God denounced against them for the said offence ?'

'A. Gen. iii. 16—19.'

EXAMINATION.

Having delivered his thoughts concerning God himself, his nature and properties, in the foregoing chapters ; in this our catechist proceeds to the consideration of his works, ascribing to God the creation of all things, especially insisting on the making of man. Now although many questions might be proposed, from which Mr. B. would, I suppose, be scarcely able to extricate himself, relating to the impossibility of the proceeding of such a work, as the creation of all things, from such an agent as he hath described God to be, so limited both in his essence and properties; yet, it being no part of my business to dispute or perplex any thing, that is simply in itself true and unquestionable, with the attendencies of it from other corrupt notions of him or them by whom it is received and proposed, I shall wholly omit all considerations of that nature, and apply myself merely to what is by him expressed. That he who is limited and finite in essence, and consequently in properties, should by his power, without the help of any intervening instr'ument out of nothing produce, at such a vast distance from him, as his hands can by no means reach unto such mighty effects, as the earth itself, and the fulness thereof, is not of an easy proof or resolution. But on these things at present I shall not insist: certain it is, that on this apprehension of God, the» Epicureans disputed for the impossibility oftlie creation of the world.

a Quibus cniiii oculis iiilueri polueiit vcstcr Plato fabricani illaiu Janti opuiis, qua construi a Deo ct a;dificari mimduni facit? Qnx ruolitio? Quai fenanieiila ? Qui vec-

His first question then is,

*Were the heaven and earth from all eternity, or created at a certain time ? And by whom ?'

To which he answers with Gen. i. 1. *In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.'

Right. Only in the exposition of this verse, as it discovers the principal efficient cause of the creation of all things, or the author of this great work, Mr. B. afterward expounds himself to differ from us, and the word of God in other places. By 'God' he intends the Father only and exclusively ; the Scripture plentifully ascribing this work also to the Son, and Holy Ghost, manifesting their concurrence in the indivisible Deity mito this great work; though by way of eminency, this work be attributed to the Father, as that of redemption is to the Son, and that of regeneration to the Holy Ghost; from neither of which not-withstandinp- is the Father excluded.

O

Perhaps'' the using of the name of God in the plural number, where mention is made of the creation, in conjunction with a verb singular. Gen. i. 1. and the express calling of God our Creators and Makers, Eccles. xii. 1. Psal. cxlix. 2. Job xxxv. 10. wants not a significancy to this thing. And, indeed, he that shall consider the miserable evasions that the*= adversaries have invented to escape the argument thence commonly insisted on, must needs be confirmed in the persuasion of the force of it. Mr. Biddle may happily close with Plato in this business ; who in his 'Timseus'brings in his SrjjutoupYoc, speaking to his Genii about the making of man; tellino- them that they were mortal, but incouraging them to obey him, in the making of other creatures upon the promise of immortality. ' Turn*^ you,' saith he, ' according to the law of nature to the making of living creatures, and imitate my

tes? QuiE machinffi ? Qui ministri tanti munerisfuerunt? Quemadinodnm autera obe-diendo parere voluntati arcliitecti aer, ignis, aqua, terra, potuerunt? Yelleius apud Ciceron. de Nat.Deor. lib. 1. statim a principio.

b Poterat et illud de angelis intelligi, faciamus iioraitiem &c. sed quia sequitur, ad imaginem nostraiii, nefas est credere, ad imagines angelorum honiineni esse factum, aut eandem esse imaginem angcloruin et Dei. Et ideo recte intelligitur pluralitas Trinitatis. Qua3 lamen Trinitas, quia unus estDeus, etiam cum dixisset, faciamus, et fecit, inquit, Deus liominem ad imaginem Dei: iion vero dixit, fecerunt Dii ad imaginem Deorum. August, de Civit. Dei. lib. 1 6. cap. 6.

c Georg. Enjed in. Explicat. loc Ver. et Nov. Testam. in Gen. i. 26.

<1 TeEWEs-^E xara <pv-i\i i/xEij E7ri tJ]V rHvl^tiaiv Sfj^uioi/pyiav, (xtfAOvi^im ti;v e/xnv Suva,«iv «ipi Tw vfjioiy yivsffiv. Plato, in Tiniffio.

power, which I used in your generation or birth.' A speech fit enough for Mr. B.'s god, 'who is shut up in heaven,'and not able of himself to attend his whole business. But what a sad success this Demiurgus had, by his want of prescience, or foresight of what his demons would do (wherein also Mr. Biddle likens God unto him) is farther declared: for they imprudently causing a conflux of too much matter and humour, no small tumult followed thereon in heaven, as at large you may see in the same author. However, it is said expressly the Son or Word created all things, John i. 3. 'and by him are all things,' 1 Cor. viii. 6. Rev. iv. 11. Of the Holy Ghost the same is affirmed. Gen. i. 2. Job xxvi. 13. Psal. xxxiii. 6. Nor can the Word and Spirit be degraded from the place of principal efficient cause in this work, to a condition of instrumentality only which is urged (especially in reference to the Spirit), unless we shall suppose them to have been created before any creation, and to have been instrumental of their own production. But of these things in their proper place.

His second question is, 'How long was God making them ?' And he answers from Exod. xx. 11. 'In six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them.'

The rule formerly I prescribed to myself of dealing with Mr. B. causes me to pass this question also, without farther inquiry; although, having already considered what his notions are concerning the nature and properties of God, I can scarce avoid conjecturing, that by this crude proposal of the time wherein the work of God's creation was finished, there is an intendment to insinuate such a gross conception of the working of God, as will by no means be suited to his omnipotent production of all things. But speaking of things no farther than enforced, I shall not insist on this query.

His third is,' How did God create man ?' And the answer is, Gen. ii. 7. To which he adds a fourth, * How did he create woman?' which he resolves from Gen. ii. 21, 22.

Mr. Biddle, undertaking to give all the grounds of religion in his catechisms, teacheth as well by his silence as his expressions. What he mentions not in the known doctrine he opposeth, he may well be interpreted to reject. As to the mutter whereof man and woman were made, Mr. Bid-

die's answers do express it; but as to the condition and state wherein they were made, of that he is silent; though he knows the Scripture doth much more abound in delivering the one than the other. Neither can his silence in this thing be imputed to oversight or forgetfulness, considering how subservient it is to his intendment in his two last questions, for the subverting of the doctrine of original sin, and the denial of all those effects and consequences of the first breach of covenant whereof he speaks. He can upon another account take notice, that man was made in the image of God. But whereas hitherto Christians have supposed that that denoted some spiritual perfection bestowed on man, wherein he resembles God, Mr. B. hath discovered that it is only an expression of some imperfection of God, wherein he resembles man ; which yet he will as hardly persuade us of, as that a man hath seven eyes, or two wings, which are ascribed unto God also. That man was created in a resemblance and likeness unto God, in that immortal substance breathed into his nostrils. Gen. ii. 7. in the excellent rational faculties thereof; the dominion he was intrusted withal over a great part of God's creation, but especially in the integrity and uprightness of his person; Eccles. vii. 29. wherein he stood before God, in reference to the obie-dience required at his hands; which condition, by the implanting of new qualities in our soul, we are through Christ in some measure renewed unto; Col. iii. 10. 12. Eph. iv. 24. the Scripture is clear, evident, and full in the discovery of; but hereof Mr. B. conceives not himself bound to take notice. But what is farther needful to be spoken as to the state of man before the fall, will fall under the consideration of the last question of this chapter.

Mr. B.'s process in the following questions, is to express the story of man's outward condition, unto the eighth, where he inquires after the commandment given of God to man, when he put him into the garden, in these words :

Q. ' What commandment gave he to the man, when he put him into the garden?' This he resolves from Gen. ii. 16, 17. That God gave our first parents the command expressed is undeniable. That the matter chiefly expressed in that command, was all, or the principal part of what he required of them, Mr. B. doth not go about to prove. 1

shall only desire to know of him, whether God did not in that estate require of them, that they should love him, fear him, believe him, acknowledge their dependance on him, in universal obedience to his will ? And whether a suitableness unto all this duty, were not wrought within them by God? If he shall say no, and that God required no more of them, but only not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil; I desire to know whether they might have hated God, abhorred him, believed Satan, and yet been free from the threatening here mentioned, if they had only forbore the outward eating of the fruit? If this shall be granted, 1 hope I need not insist to manifest what will easily be inferred? Nor to shew how impossible this is, *God continuing God, and man a rational creature ? If he shall say that certainly God did require that they should own him for God ; that is, believe him, love hjm, fear him, and worship him, according to all thathe should reveal to them, and require of them, I desire to know whether this particular command could be any other than sacramental and symbolical, as to the matter of it, being a thing of so small importance in its own nature, in comparison of those moral acknowledgments of God before-mentioned. And to that question Ishall not need to add more.

Although it may justly be supposed, that Mr. B. is not •without some thoughts of deviation from the truth, in the foliowino- questions, yet the last being of most importance, and he being express therein, in denying all the effects of the first sin, but only the curse that came upon the outward visible world, I shall insist only on that, and close our considerations of this chapter. His question is thus proposed :

Q. ' Did the sin of our first parents in eating of the forbidden fruit, bring both upon them and their posterity, the guilt of hell-fire, deface the image of God in them, darken their understandings, enslave their wills, deprive them of power to do good, and cause mortality ? If not, what are the true penalties denounced against them for that offence.'

To this he answers from Gen. iii. IG—19.

What the sin of our first parents was, may easily be discovered from what was said before concerning the commandment given to them. If universal obedience was required

« Vid. Uialiib. de .luslit. Vindicaf.

of them unto God, according to the tenor of the law of their creation, their sin was an universal rebellion against, and apostacy from him; which though it expressed itself in the peculiar transgression of that command mentioned, yet it is far from being reducible to any one kind of sin, whose whole nature is comprised in that expression. Of the effects of this sin commonly assigned, Mr. B. annumeratesand rejects six; sundry whereof are coincident, and all but one, reducible to that general head of loss of the image of God. But for the exclusion of them all at once from being any effects of the first sin, Mr. Biddle thus argues : If there were no effects nor consequences of the first sin but what are expressly mentioned, Gen. iii. 16, 17, &.c. then those now mentioned, are no effects of it; but there are no effects or consequences of that first sin, but what are mentioned in that place; therefore those recounted in his query, and commonly esteemed such, are to be cashiered from any such place in the thoughts of men.

Ans. The words insisted on by Mr. Biddle being expressive of the curse of God for sin on man, and the whole creation here below for his sake, it will not be easy for him to evince, that none of the things he rejects, are noteminently enwrapped in them. Would God have denounced, and actually inflicted such a curse on the whole creation, which he had put in subjection to man, as well as upon man himself, and actually have inflicted it with so much dread and severity as he hath done, if the transgression upon the account whereof he did it, had not been as universal a rebellion against him as could be fallen into ? Man fell in his whole dependance from God,and"is cursed universally in all his concernments, spiritual and temporal.

But is this indeed the only place of Scripture where the effects of our apostacy from God, in the sin of our first parents, are described ? Mr. Biddle may as well tell us, that Gen. iii. 15. is the only place where mention is made of Jesus Christ; for there he is mentioned. But a little to clear this whole matter in our passage, though what hath been spoken may suffice to make naked Mr. B.'s sophistry. 1. By the effects of the first sin, we understand every thing of evil, that either within or without, in respect of a present or future condition ; in reference to God, and the

fruition of him whereto man was created, or the enjoyment of any goodness from God which is come upon mankind, by the just ordination and appointment of God, whereunto man was not obnoxious in his primitive state and condition. I am not at present at all engaged to speak c^e modo, of what is privative, what positive, in original sin, of the way of the traduction, or propagation of it, of the imputation of the guilt of the first sin, and adhesion of the pollution of our nature, defiled thereby, or any other questions thatare coincident with these, in the usual inquest made into, and after the sin of Adam, and the fruits of it, but only as to the things themselves, which are here wholly denied. Now,

2. That whatsoever is evil in man by nature, whatever he is obnoxious and liable unto that is hurtful and destructive to him and all men in common, in reference to the end whereto they were created, or any title wherewith they were at first intrusted, is all wholly the effect of the first sin, and is in solidnm to be ascribed thereunto, is easily demonstrated. For,

1. That which is common to all things in any kind, and is proper to them only of that kind, must needs have some common cause equally respecting the whole kind : but now of the evils that are common to all mankind, and peculiar or proper to them, and every one of them, there can be no cause, but that which equally concerns them all, which by the testimony of God himself, was this fall of Adam; Rom. V, 15. 18.

2. The evils that are now incumbent upon men in their natural condition (which what they are, shall be afterward considered), were either incumbent on them at their first creation, before the sin and fall of our first parents, or they are come upon them since, through some interposing cause or occasion. That they were not in them, on them, that they were not liable, nor obnoxious to those evils, which are now incumbent on them, in their first creation, as they came forth from the hand of God (besides what was said before, of the state and condition wherein man was created, even upright in the sight of God, in his favour and acceptation, no way obnoxious to his anger and wratli), is evident by the light of this one consideration ; viz. That there was nothing in man nor })elonging to him, no respect, no regard, or re-

lation, but what was purely, and immediately of the Holy God's creation and institution. Now it is contrary to all that he hath revealed or made known to us of himself, that he should be the immediate author of so much evil, as is now by his own testimony in man by nature, and without any occasion, of so much vanity and misery as he is subject unto : and besides, directly thwarting the testimony which he gave of all the works of his hands, that they were ex-ceedino- gfood; it beina: evident, that man in the condition whereof we speak, is exceeding evil.

3. If all the evil mentioned hath since befallen mankind, then it hath done so by some chance and accident, whereof God was not aware, or by his righteous judgment and appointment, in reference to some procuring, and justly deserving cause of such a punishment. To affirm the first, is upon the matter to deny him to be God. And I doubt not, but that men, at as easy and cheap a rate of sin, may deny that there is a God, as confessing his divine essence, to turn it into an idol 5 and by making thick clouds, as Job speaks, to interpose between him and the affairs of the world, to exclude his energetical providence in the disposal of all the works of his hands. If the latter be affirmed, I ask, as before, what other common cause, wherein all and every one of mankind is equally concerned, can be assigned of the evils mentioned, as the procurement of the %rath and vengeance of God, from whence they are, but only the fall of Adam, the sin of our first parents ; especially considering, that the Holy Ghost doth so expressly point out this fountain, and source of the evils insisted on ; Rom. v.

4. These things then being premised, it will quickly appear, that every one of the particulars rejected by Mr. B. from being fruits or effects of the first sin, are indeed the proper issues of it: and though Mr. B. cut the roll of the abominations and corruptions of the nature of man by sin, and cast it into the fire, yet we may easily write it again, and add many more words of the like importance.

1. The first effect or fruit of the first sin, rejected by Mr. B. is, * its rendering men guilty of hell fire;' but the Scripture seems to be of another mind, Rom. v. 12. ' Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and

( Rom. i. 18.

SO deatli passed on all men, for that all have sinned.' That all men sinned in Adam, that they contracted the guilt of the same death with him, that death entered by sin, the Holy Ghost is express in. The death here mentioned is that which God threatened to Adam if he did transgress. Gen. ii. which, that it was not death temporal only, yea not at all, Mr. B. contends, by denying mortality to be a fruit of this sin; as also excluding in this very query all room for death spiritual, which consists in the defacing of the image of God in us, which he with this rejects. And what death remains, but that which hath hell following after it, we shall afterward consider.

Besides, that deatli which Christ died to deliver us from, was that which we were obnoxious to, upon the account of the first sin : for he came to 'save that which was lost; and tasted death to deliver us from death ; dying to deliver them, who for fear of death were in bondage all their lives ;' Heb. ii. 13. But that this was such a death, as hath hell-fire attending it, he manifests by affirming, that he 'delivers us from the wrath to come.' By hell-fire we understand nothing but the wrath of God for sin, into whose hand it is a fearful thing to fall, our God being a consuming fire. That the guilt of every sin is this death whereof we speak, tliat hath both curse and wrath attending it, and that it is the proper wages of sin, the testimony of God is evident.^ What other death men are obnoxious to, on the account of the first sin, that hath not these concomitants, Mr. B, hath not as yet revealed. By nature also we are *■' children of wrath ;' and on what foot of account our obnoxiousness now by nature unto wrath is to be stated, is sufficiently evident by the light of the preceding considerations.

'The defacing of the image of God in us,' by this sin, as it is usually asserted, is in the next place denied. That man was created in the image of God, and wherein that image of God doth consist, was before declared. That we are now born with that character upon us, as it was at first enstamped upon us, must be affirmed, or some common cause of the defect that is in us, wherein all and every one of the posterity of Adam are equally concerned, besides that of the first sin, is to be assigned. That this latter cannot be done hath

K Rom. vi. 23. »> Epli. ii. 3.

been already declared. He that shall undertake to make good the former, must engage in a more difficult work, than Mr. B. in the midst of his other employments, is willing to undertake. To insist on all particulars relating to the image of God in man, how far it is defaced, whether any thing properly and directly thereunto belonging, be yet left remaining in us; to declare how far our souls, in respect of their immortal substance, faculties, and consciences; our persons, in respect of that dominion over the creatures, which yet by God's gracious and merciful providence we retain, may be said to bear the image of God, is a work of another nature than what I am now engaged in. For the asserting of what is here denied by Mr. B. concerning the defacing of the image of God in us by sin, no more is required, but only the tender of some demonstrations to the main of our intendment in the assertion, touching the loss by the first sin, and our present want in the state of nature, of that righteousness and holiness, wherein man at his first creation stood before God (in reference unto the end whereunto he was created), in uprightness, and ability of walking unto all well-pleasing. And as this will be fully manifested in the consideration of the ensuing particulars instanced in by Mr. B. so it is sufficiently clear and evident, from the renovation of thatimao-e which we have by Jesus Christ, and that expressed both in general, and in all the particulars wherein we affirm that image to be defaced. * The new man, which we put on in Jesus Christ, which is renewed in knowledge, after the imao-e of him that created him;' Col. iii. 10. it is that which we want, by sins defacing (suo more) of that image of God in us, which we had in knowledge; so Eph. iv. 23, 24. that new man is said to consist in the 'renewing of our mind, whereby after God we are created in righteousness and holiness.' So that whereas we were created in the image of God, in righteousness and holiness, and are to be renewed again by Christ, unto the same condition of his image in righteousness and holiness, we doubt not to affirm, that by the first sin (the only interposition of general concernment to all the sons of men), the image of God in us was exceedingly defaced. In sum, that which made us sinners, brought sin and death upon us ; that which made us liable to condemnation, that defaced the image of God in us; that all this was done by

VOL. VIII. p

the first sin, the apostle plainly asserts ; Rom. v. 12. 15. 17, 18, &:c.

To the next particular effect of sin, by Mr. B. rejected, 'the darkening of our understandings/ I shall only inquire of him, whether God made us at first with our understandings dark, and ignorant, as to those things which are of absolute necessity that we should be acquainted withal, for the attainment of the end whereunto he made us? For once, I will suppose, he will not affirm it; and shall therefore proceed one step farther, and ask him, whether there be not such a darkness now upon us by nature, opposed unto that light, that spiritual and saving knowledge, which is of absolute necessity for every one to have, and be furnished withal, that will again attain that glory of God, which we are born short of. Now because this is that which will most probably be denied, I shall by the way only desire him,

1. To cast aside all the places of Scripture, where it is positively and punctually asserted that we are so dark and blind, and darkness itself in the things of God; and then,

2. All those where it is no less punctually and positively asserted, that Christ gives us light, knowledge, understanding, which of ourselves we have not. And if he be not able to do so, then,

^. To tell me, whether the darkness mentioned in the former places and innumerable others, and as to the manner and cause of its removal and taking away in the latter, be part of that death which passed on all men, by the offence of one, or by what other chance it is come upon us?

Of the * enslaving of our wills, and the depriving us of power to do good,' there is the same reason, as of that next before. It is not my purpose to handle the common-place of the corruption of" nature by sin ; nor can I say that it is well for Mr. Biddle, that he finds none of those efiects of sin in himself; nothing of darkness, bondage, or disability; or if he do, that he knows where to charge it, and not on himself and the depravedness of his own nature; and that because I know none who are more desperately sick, than those who by a fever of pride, have lost the sense of their own miserable condition. Only to stop him in his haste from rejecting the evils mentioned, from being effects or consequences of the first sins, I desire him to peruse a little

the ensuing Scriptures, and take them as they come to mind ; Eph. ii. 1—3. 5. John v. 25. Matt. viii. 22. Eph. v. 8. Luke iv. 18. 2 Tim. ii. 25, 26. John viii. 34. Rom. vi. 16. Gen. vi. 5. Rom. vii. 5. John iii. 6. 1 Cor. ii. 14. Rom. iii. 12. Acts viii. 31. John v. 41. Rom. viii. 7. Jer. xiii. 23, &c.

The last thing denied is, its 'causing mortality.' God threatening man with death if he sinned, Gen. ii. 17. seems to instruct us, that if he had not sinned, he should not have died. And upon his sin, affirming that on that account he should be dissolved and return to his dust, Gen. iii. 18, 19. no less evidently convinces us, that his sin caused mortality actually and in the event. The apostle also affirming, that ' death entered by sin, and passed upon all, inasmuch as all have sinned,' seems to be of our mind. Neither can any other sufficient cause be assigned, on the account whereof innocent man should have been actually mortal or eventually have died. Mr. Biddle, it seems, is of another persuasion; and, for the confirmation of his judgment, gives you the words of the curse of God to man upon his sinning ; 'dust thou art, and imto dust thou shalt return.' The strength of his reason therein lying in this, that if God denounced the sentence of mortality on man after sinning, and for his sin, then mortality was not an efl^ect of sin, but man was mortal before in the state of innocency. Who doubts but that at this rate he maybe able to prove what he pleases?

A brief declaration of our sense in ascribing immortality to the first man in the state of innocency, that none be mistaken in the expressions used, may put a close to our considerations of this chapter. In respect of his own essence and 'being, as also of all outward and extrinsical causes, God alone is eminently and perfectly immortal; he only in that sense hath life and immortality. Angels and souls of men, immaterial substances, are immortal as to their intrinsical essence, free from principles of corruption and mortality ; but yet are

' Illud corpus ante peccatum, et mortale secundum aliani, et immortale secundum aliam caasam dici poterat, id est, raortale, quia poterat mori, immortale, quia poterat noii mori. Aliud est enira non posse mori.sicut quasdara naturas immortales creavit Deus, aliud est autem posse non mori; secundum quemmodum primus crea-tus est liomo iramortalis, quod ei praestabatur de ligno vitje, non de constitutione na-turfe: a quo ligno separatus est, cum peccasset, ut posset mori, qui nisi peccasset posset non mori. Mortalis ergo erat conditione coporis animalis, immortalis autem beneficio conditoris. Si enim corpus animale, utique et mortale, quia et mori poterat, quamvis et immortale dico, quia et mori non poterat. August. Tom. Tertio. de Genefi ad literam. lib. 6. cap. 24.

p 2

obnoxious to it, in respect of that outward cause (or the power of God), which can at any time reduce them into nothing. The immortality we ascribe to man in innocency, is only an assured preservation, by the power of God, from actual dying ; notwithstanding the possibility thereof, which he was in, upon the account of the constitution of his person, and the principles thereunto concurring. So that though from his own nature, he had a possibility of dying, and in that sense was mortal, yet ""God's institution, assigning him life in the way of obedience, he had a possibility of not dying, and was in that sense immortal, as hath been declared. If any desire farther satisfaction herein, let him consult Johannes Junius's answer to Socinus's prelections, in the first chapter whereof he pretends to answer in proof the assertion in title, * Primus homo ante lapsum natura mortalis fuit:' wherein he partly mistakes the thing in question, which respects not the constitution of man's nature, but the event of the condition wherein he was created.' And himself in another place states it™ better.

The sum of the whole may be reduced to what follows. Simply immortal and absolutely is God only: ' He only hath immortality;' 1 Tim. vi. 16. Immortal in respect of its whole substance or essence, is that which is separated from all matter, which is the principle of corruption, as angels; or is not educed from the power of it, whither of its own accord it should a^ain resolve, as the souls of men. The bodies also of the saints in heaven, yea, and of the wicked in hell, shall be immortal, though in their own nature's corruptible, being changed and preserved by the power of God. Adam was mortal, as to the constitution of his body, which was apt to die ; immortal in respect of his soul, in its own substance ; immortal in their union by God's appointment, and from his preservation, upon his continuance in obedience. By the composition of his body, before his fall, he had a fosse mori; by the appointment of God, a posse non mori; by his fall, a 7i07i posse iion mori,

^ Quincunque elicit Adam priinum honrmem mortaleii) factum, ita ut sive pecca-ret, sive non peccaret, nioreielur in corpore, hoc est de corpore exiret non peccali nierito scd necessitate iiaturtE, Anathema sit. Concil. Rlilevitan. cap. 1.

' Qurestio est de immortalitate hominis liiijus concreti ex animaet corpore conflali. Quando locjuor de morte, de dissolulione hiijus concreti loqiior. Socin. contra Puc-ciuni, p. 2!i!i5.

™ Vid. Rivet. Exercitat. in Gen. cap. 1. Exerc. 9.

la this estate, on his disobedience, he was threatened with death ; and therefore was obedience the tenure whereby he held his grant of immortality, which on his neglect, he was penally to be deprived of. In that estate he had, (1.) The immortality mentioned, or a power of not dying from the appointment of God. (2.) An uprightness and integrity of his person before God, with an ability to walk with him in all the obedience he required, being made in the image of God and upright. (3.) A right, upon his abode in that condition, to an eternally blessed life, which he should (4.) actually have enjoyed. For he had a pledge of it in the ' tree of life.' He lost it for himself and us, which if he never had it, he could not do. The death wherewith he was threatened, stood in opposition to all these; it being most ridiculous to suppose, that any thing penal in the Scripture comes under the name of death, that was not here threatened to Adam. Death of the body, in a deprivation of his immortality spoken of; of the soul, spiritually in sin, by the loss of his righteousness and integrity; of both in their obnoxiousness to death eternal, actually to be undergone, without deliverance by Christ, in opposition to the right to a better, a blessed condition, which he had. That all these are penal, and called in the Scriptures by the name of death, is evident to all that take care to know what is contained in them.

For a close then of this chapter and discourse, let us also propose a few questions, as to the matter under consideration, and see what answer the Scripture will positively give in to our inquiries.

First, then.

1. Q. In what state and condition was man at first created ?

A. 'God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him, male and female created he them ;' Gen. i. 27.

' And God saw every thing that he had made, and behold it was very good;* ver. 31.

* In the image of God made he man ;' Gen. ix. 6.

' Lo! this only have I found, that God hath made man upright;' Eccles. vii. 29.

' Put on the new man which after God is created in righteousness and holiness;' Ephes. iv. 24.

' Put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge, after the image of him that created him j' Col. iii. 10.

Q. 2. Should our first parents have died, had they not sinned, or were they obnoxious to death in the state of in-nocency ?

A. ' And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

' But of the tree of tlie knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it, for in the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die ;' Gen. ii. IG, 17.

* By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned ;' Horn. v. 12.

' For the wages of sin is death;' Rom. vi. 23.

Q. 3. Are we now since the fall, born wilh the image of God so instamped on us, as at our first creation in Adam ?

A. ' All have sinned and come short of the glory of God;' Rom. iii. 23.

* Lo ! this only have I found, that God hath made man upright, but he hath found out many inventions ;' Eccles. vii.29.

* So then, they that are in the flesh cannot please God ;' Rom. viii. 8.

' And you who were dead in trespasses and sins ;' Eph. ii. 1.

* For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another;' Titus iii. 3.

' The old man is corrupt according to deceitful lusts;' Eph. iv. 22.

Q. 4. Are we now born approved of God and accepted with him, as when we were first created, or what is our condition now by nature, what say the Scriptures hereunto?

• A. * We were by nature the children of wrath as well as others;' Eph. ii. 3.

* Except a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God ;' John iii. 3.

* lie that believeth not the Son, the wrath of God abi-deth on him ;' ver. 36.

'That which is born of the flesh is flesh ;' John iv. 6.

Q. 4. Are our understandings by nature able to discern the things of God, or are they darkened and blind ?

A. * The natural man receiveth not the things that are of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him, neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned ;' 1 Cor. ii. 14.

' The light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not;' John i. 5.

' —To preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind.' Luke iv. 18.

' Having their understandings darkened, being alienated from the life of God, through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart ;' Eph. iv. 18.

' Ye were sometixnes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord;' Eph. v. 8.

* For God who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ;' 2 Cor. iv. 6.

' And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true;' 1 John v. 20.

Q. 5. Are we able to do those things now in the state of nature, which are spiritually good, and acceptable to God ?

A. ' The carnal mind is enmity against God, for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be;' Rom. viii. 7.

'You were dead in trespasses and sins ;' Eph. ii. 1.

* The imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth ;' Gen. viii. 21.

' Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots ? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil;' Jer. xiii. 23.

* For without me ye can do nothing;' John xv. 5. 'Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think anything

as of ourselves ; our sufficiency is of God;' 2 Cor. iii. 5.

' For I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing ;' Rom. vii. 18.

Q. 6. How came we into this miserable state and condition ?

A. ' Behold I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me ;' Psal. li. 5.

' Who can brino- a clean thing out of an unclean ? Not one;' Job. xiv. 4.

' That which is born of the flesh is flesh ;' Johniii. 6.

' Wherefore as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin ; so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned ;' Rom. v. 12.

Q. 7. Is then the guilt of the first sin of our first parents reckoned unto us ?

A. * But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead;' ver. 15.

' And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation ;' ver. 16.

• For by one man's offence death reigned ;' ver. 17.

* Therefore by the offence of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation ;' ver. 18.

' By one man's disobedience many were made sinners;' ver. 20.

Thus, and much more fully, doth the Scripture set out, and declare the condition of man, both before and after the fall; concerning which, although the most evident demonstration of the latter, lies in the revelation made of the exceeding efficacy of that power and grace, which God in Christ puts forth for our conversion and delivery from that state and condition before described, yet so much is spoken of this dark side of it, as will render vain the attempts of any, who shall endeavour to plead the cause of corrupted nature, or alleviate the guilt of the first sin.

It may not be amiss in the winding up of the whole, to give the reader a brief account, of what slight thoughts this gentleman and his companions have concerning this whole matter, of the state and condition of the first man, his fall or sin, and the interest of all his posterity therein, which confessedly lie at the bottom of that whole dispensation of grace in Jesus Christ, which is revealed in the gospel.

First, For Adam himself, they are so remote from assigning to him any eminency of knowledge, righteousness, or holiness, in the state wherein he was created ; that,

1. For his knowledge, they say, ' he "was a mere great

" Adarmis iiistar iiir<intis vel jnicri sc iiiuluni esse ignoravit. Siiialc. de vcr. Uei fil. cap. 7. !>. i'.

baby, that knew not that he was naked.' So also, taking away the difference between the simple knowledge of nakedness in innocency, and the knowledge joined with shame, that followed sin. '°0f his wife he knew no more but what occurred to his senses.' Though the expression which he used at first view and sight of her, do plainly argue another manner of apprehension ; Gen. ii. 23, 24. For? ' the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, he knew not the virtue of it.' Which yet I know not how well it agrees with another place of the ''same author, where he concludes, that in the state of innocency, there was in Adam a real predominancy of the natural appetite, which conquered or prevailed to the eating of the fruit of that tree ; also that "^being mortal, he knew not himself to be so. The sum is, he was even a very beast, that knew neither himself, his duty, nor the will of God concerning him.

2. For his righteousness and holiness, which, as was said before, because he was made upright, in the image of God, we ascribe unto him, ^Socinus contends in one whole chapter in his prelections, ' That he was neither just nor holy, nor ought to be so esteemed or called.'

And ' Smalcius, in his confutation of Franzius's ' Theses de peccato Originali,' all along derides and laughs to scorn the apprehension or persuasion, that Adam was created in righteousness and holiness, or that ever he lost any thing of the image of God, or that ever he had any thing of the

° De conjuge propria, nou nisi sensibus obvia cognovit. Soci. de stat. prim. Horn. cap. 4. p. 119.

P Vim arboris scientiae boni ct mali perspectam non habuerit. Idem ibid. p. 197.

'1 Socin. pr»lect. cap. 3. p. 8.

"■ Cum ipse mortalis esset, se tamen mortalera esse nesciverit. Socln. de stat. prim. Horn. cap. 4. p. 118.

s Utrum prinins homo ante peccatum justitiam aliquam originalem habuerit? Pleri-que omnes eum illam habuisse affirmant. Sed ego scire veiira — concludamus igitur, Adannira, etiara antequara mandatum illud Dei transgrederetur, revera justum non fuisse. Cum nee irapeccabilis esset, nee ullum peccandi occasionem habuisset; vel certe justum eum fuisse affirmari non posse, cum nullo modo constat, eum ulia ratione a peccando abstinuisse. Socin. Praelect. cap. 3. p. 8. vid. cap. 4. p. 11.

' Fit mentio desiitutionis vel carenti® divina glori£e,ergo privationis iraaginis Dei et justitiae et sanctitatis, ejusque originalis; fit mentio carentiae divina gloria;, ergo in creatione cum hoiiiine fuit communicata : oineptias ! Sraal. Refut. Tlies. de pec-cat. Origi. Disput. 2. p. 42. Porro ait Franzius, Paulura mox e vestigio imaginera Dei,seu novum hominem ita explicare, quod fuerit conditus primus homo ad justitiam et sanctimoniam veram. Hie cum erroribus fallaciae, etiam et fortassis voiun-

tariaj, sunt commixtse ;— Videat lector benevolus quanti sit facienda illatio.

Franzii, dum ait: ergo imago Dei in homine ante lapsum consistebat in concreata justitiaet vera sanctinionia primorum parentum. Si htec non sunt scops dissolute, equidoin nescio quid eas tandem nomiuabinmr. Smalcius. ubi sup. pp. 50, ,51.

image of God, beyond or besides that dominion over the creatures which God aave him.

"Most of the residue of the herd, describing the estate and condition of man in his creation, do wholly omit any mention of any moral uprightness in him.

And this is the account these gentlemen give us, concerning the condition and state wherein the first man was of God created. A heavy burden of the earth, it seems he was, that had neither righteousness, nor holiness, whereby he might be enabled to walk before God, in reference to that great end, wheieunto he was created ; nor any knowledge of God, himself, or his duly.

Secondly, For his sin, the great''' master of their family disputes, that it was a bare transgression of that precept, of'not eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil;' and that^ his nature was not vitialed or corrupted thereby. Wherein he is punctually followed by the Racovian catechism ; which also giveth this reason, why his nature was not depraved by it, namely, because it was but one act; so light are their thoughts and expressions of that great transgression.

Thirdly, For his state and condition,^ they all, with open mouth, cry out, that he was mortal and obnoxious to death, which should in a natural way have come upon him, though he had not sinned. But of this before.

Fourthly, Farther, that the* posterity of Adam were no

u Volkel. de Vera. Rclig. lib. 2. cap. 6. p. 9. edit, cum lib. Crell. de Deo.

K Sociii. Prailect. cap. 3. p. 8.

y Etenim uiium illud peccatum per so, non modo universes posteros, sed ne ipsum quidem Adamuni, corrumpendi vim habere potuit. Dei vero consilio, in pec-cati illius paenam id factum fuisse, uec usquam legltur, et plane incredibile est, imo impiuni idcogitare. Socin. Praelect. cap. 4. sect. 4. p. 13. Lapsus Adami, cum unus actus fuerit, vim earn, quie depravare ipsam naturam Adami, raulto minus postero-rum ipsius posset, habere non potuit. Ipsi vero in pasnam irrogatura fuisse, nee Scriplura docet, nt superius exposuimus, ct Deum ilium, qui oimiis wquitatis fons est, incredibile jjrorsus est id facere voluisse : Catecli. Racov. de Cogiiiti. Christ, cap. 10. quest. 'J.

"^ De Adarao eum immortalem crcatum non fuisse, res apertissiraa est. Nam ex teiTa creatus, cibis usus, liberis gignendis destinatus, et aniraalis ante lapsum fuit. Smalcius de Divin. Jes. Christ, cap. 7. de Prouiisso Vitze yEterna;.

* Concludimus igitur, nullum, improprie etiam locjuendo, peccatum originale esse; id est, ex peccato illo primi parentis nullaui labem aut pravitatem universe humano gencri necossario ingenitam esse, sivc inilictam quodaunnodo fuisse. Socin. Prelect, cap. 4, sect. 4. pp. 13, 14. Peccatum originis nullum prorsus est, quare nee liberum arbitrium vitiare potuit. Nee enini e Scriplura id peccatum originis

doceri potest. Catech. Uacov. de Cognit. Christ, cap. 10. de lib. Arbit.

qusedani ex falsissimis principiis de ducuntur. In illo generc illud potissiinum est.

way concerned, as to their spiritual prejudice, in that sin of his, as though they should either partake of the guilt of it, or have their nature vitiated, or corrupted thereby : but that the whole doctrine of original sin, is a figment of Austin, and the schoolmen that followed him, is the constant clamour of them all. And indeed this is the great foundation of all, or the greatest part of their religion. Hence are the necessity of the satisfaction and merit of Christ, the efl&cacy of grace, and the pov/er of the Spirit in coiiveision, decried. On this account is salvation granted by them, without Christ; a power of keei)ing all the Commandments asserted; and justification upon our obedience ; of which, in the process of our discourse.

Such are the thoughts, such are the expressions of Mr. B.'s masters, concerning this whole matter. '•Such was Adam, in their esteem ; such was his fall; and such our concernment therein. He had no righteousness, no holiness (yea, cSocinus at length confesses, that he did not believe his soul' was immortal) ; we contracted no guilt in him, derive no pollution from him : whether these men are in any measure acquainted with the plague of their own hearts, the severity and spirituality of the law of God, with that ' redemption which is in the blood of Jesus,' the Lord will one day manifest: but into their secret let not my soul descend.

Lest the weakest, or meanest reader should be startled with the mention of these things, not finding himself ready furnished with arguments from Scripture to disprove the

quod ex peccato (ut vocant) origlnali depromitur : de quo ita disputant, ut crimen a primo pareiite conceptual, in sobolem derivatuui esse defendant, ejusque contagione, turn onines humanas vires corruptas et depravalaa, turn potissimum voluntatis liber-

talem dcstructam esse asserant. qua omnia iios periiegainus, utpote et sanae

mentis rationi, et divinaj Scripturaj contraria. Volkel. de Vera Religi. lib. 3. cap. 18. p. 547, 348. Prior pars Thesis Franzii falsa est. Nam nullum idividuum unquam peccato originisfuit infectum. Quia peccatum illud mera est fabula, quara tanquam foetum alienum fovent Lutherani, at alii. Smalcius Refut. Thes. Franz, disput. 2. p. 46,47. Vid. compend. Socinis. c. 3. Smalc. de vera Divin. Jes. Christ, c. 7. Putas Adami peccatum et inobedientiani ejus ])ostcrilati imputari. At hoc aequo tibi ne-gamus, quam Christ! obedientiam credentibus imputari. Jonas Schlichtingius, disput. pro Socino adversus Meisnerum p. 2.)1. vide etiam p. 100. Quibus ita expiicatis,

facile COS qui onmeui Adarai posteritatem, in ipso Adanio parente suo pec-

casse, et mortis supplicium vere fuisse commeritum. Idem, Comment, in Epist, ad Hebra-os ad caj). 7. p. 296.

'' Ista sapicnlia rerum divinarum, et sanctimonia, quam Adanio ante lapsum tribuit Franzius, una emu aliis, idea qusedam est, in cerebro ipsorum nata. Smalcius ubi sup.

•= Socin. Epist. 5. ad Johan. Vokel p. 489.

boldness and folly of these men in their assertions, I shall add some few arguments, whereby the severals by them denied and opposed, are confirmed from Scriptures; the places before-mentioned, being in them cast into that form and method, wherein they are readily subservient to the purpose in hand.

First, That man was created in the image of God, in knowledge, righteousness, and holiness, is evident on the ensuing considerations.

1. He who was made very good and upright, in a moral consideration, had the original righteousness pleaded for: for moral goodness, integrity, and uprightness, is equivalent unto righteousness ; so are the words used in the description of Job i. 1. And * righteous' and ' upright' are terms equivalent; Psal. xxxiii. 1. Now that man was made thus good and upright was manifested in the Scriptures cited in answer to the question before proposed, concerning the condition wherein our first parents were created. And indeed this uprightness of man, this moral rectitude, was his formal aptitude and fitness, for and unto that obedience, which God required of him, and which was necessary for the end whereunto he was created.

2. He who was created perfect in his kind, was created with the original righteousness pleaded for. This is evident from hence, because righteousness and holiness is a perfection of a rational being, made for the service of God. This in angels is called the truth, or that original holiness and rectitude, which the devils ' abode not in ;' John viii. 44. Now, as before, man was created ' very good and upright,' therefore perfect, as to his state and condition : and whatever is in him of imperfection, flows from the corruption and depravation of nature.

3. He that was created in the image of God, was created in a state of righteousness, holiness, and knowledge. That Adam was created in the * image of God,' is plainly affirmed in Scripture, and is not denied. That by the image of God is especially intended the qualities mentioned, is manifest from that farther description of the image of God, which we have given us in the Scriptures before produced, in answer to our first question. And what is recorded of the first man in his primitive condition, will not suffer us to esteem

him such a baby in knowledge as the Socinians would make him. His imposing of names on all creatures, his knowing of his wife on first view, &c. exempt him from that imputation. Yea the very ** heathens could conclude, that he was very wise indeed, who first gave names to things.

Secondly, For the disproving of that mortality, which they ascribe to man in innocency, the ensuing arguments may suffice ;

1. He that was created in the image of God, in righteousness and holiness, whilst he continued in that state and condition, was immortal. That man was so created, lies under the demonstration of the foregoing arguments and testimonies. The assertion thereupon, or the inference of immortality from the image of God, appears on this double consideration. (1.) In our renovation by Christ unto the image of God, we are renewed to a blessed immortality: and our likeness to God consisted no less in that, than in any other communicable property of his nature. (2.) Where-ever is naturally perfect righteousness, there is naturally perfect life, that is, immortality : this is included in the very tenor of the promise of the lavf. ' If a man keep my statutes he shall live in them;' Levit. xviii. 5.

2. That which the first man contracted, and drew upon himself by sin, was not natural to him before he sinned. But that man contracted and drew death upon himself, or ' de himself liable and obnoxious unto it by sin, is proved b;y 1 the texts of Scripture that were produced above, in answer to our second question; as Gen. ii. 17. 19. Rom.

^ 14. vi. 23. &c.

6. That which is besides and contrary to nature, was r c natural to the first man : but death is besides, and contrary to the nature, as the voice of nature abundantly testi-fieth; therefore, to man in his primitive condition it was not natural.

Unto these may sundry other arguments be added, from the promise of the law, the end of man's obedience, his constitution and state, denying all proximate causes of death, &c. But these may suffice.

J OlfxcLi /xh iyii Tov aXnSlo-TaTov Xoyov WEfi tcuraiv eTtsi ai ZoJxjaTEf, ^Ei'^a) tiik ^vvayXt fiTcu -n aV4>pa)7r£iav, -rh 'SstfA.ivm ta Tt^ana lT/iy.Ar3. to~? ■TrfayfAttcrjV. Plato in Cratylo.

Thirdly, That the sin of Adam is not to be confined to the mere eating of the fruit of 'the tree of knowledge of good and evil/ but liad its rise in infidelity, and comprised universal apostacy from God, in disobedience to the law of his creation, and dependance on God, I have elsewhere*^ demonstrated, and shall not need here again to insist upon it. That it began in infidelity, is evident from the beginning of the temptation wherewith he was overcome. It was to doubt of the truth and veracity of God, to which the woman was at first solicited by Satan; Gen. iii. 4. 'Hath God said so?' pressing that it should be otherwise, than they seemed to have cause to apprehend from what God said: and their acquiescence in that reply of Satan, without revolving to the truth and faithfulness of God was plain unbelief. Now as faith is the root of all righteousness and obedience, so is infidehty of all disobedience. Being overtaken, conquered, deceived into infidelity, man gave up himself to act contrary to God and his will, shook off his sovereignty, rose up against his law, and manifested the frame of his heart, in the pledge of his disobedience, eating the fruit that was sacramentally forbidden him.

Fourthly, That all men sinned in Adam, and that his sin is imputed to all his posterity is by them denied, but is easily evinced. For,

1. By whom sin entered into the world, so that all sinned in him, and are made sinners thereby, so that also his sin is called the 'sin of the world/ in him all mankind sinned, and his sin is imputed to them. But that this was the condition, and state of the first sin of Adam, the Scriptures before-mentioned, in answer to our seventh question, do abundantly manifest; and thence also is his sin called 'the sin of the world / John i. 29.

2. In whom all are dead, and in whom they have contracted the guilt of death and condemnation, in him they have all sinned, and have his sin imputed to them. But in ' Adam all are dead / 1 Cor. xv. 22. as also Rom. v. 12. 14—18. and death is the wages of sin only; Rom. vi. 23.

3. As by the obedience of Christ we are made righteous, so by the disobedience of Adam we are made sinners. So the apostle expressly, Rom. v. but we are made righteous by the

« Diatrib. de Jusfit. Divin. Vin.

obedience of Christ, by the imputation of it to us, as if we had performed it; 1 Cor. i. 30. Phil. iii. 9. therefore we are sinners, by the imputation of the sin of Adam to us, as though we had committed it; which the apostle also affirms. To what hath been spoken, from the consideration of that state and condition, wherein by God's appointment, in reference to all mankind, Adam was placed, namely, of a natural and political or federal head, (of which the apostle treats, 1 Cor. XV.) from the loss of that image wherein he was created, whereunto by Christ we are renewed, many more words like these might be added.

To what hath been spoken, there is no need that much should be added, for the removal of any thing insisted on, to the same puipose with Mr. B.'s intimations in the Raco-vian catechism. But yet seeing that that task also is undertaken, that which may seem necessary for the discharging of what may thence be expected, shall briefly be submitted to the reader. To this head they speak in the first chapter, of the way to salvation ; the first question whereof is of the import ensuing.

* Q. Seeing^ thou saidst in the beginning, that this life which leadeth to immortality is divinely revealed, I would know of thee, why thou saidst so V

'A. Because as man by nature hath nothing to do with immortality (or hath no interest in it), so by himself he could by no means know the way which leadeth to immortality.'

Both question and answer being sophistical and ambiguous, the sense and intendment of them, as to their application to Ihe matter in hand, and by them aimed at, is first to be rectified by some few distinctions, and then the whole will cost us very little farther trouble.

1. There is or hath been, a twofold way to a blessed immortality; 1. The way of perfect obedience to the law; for he that did it was to live therein. 2. The way of faith in the blood of the Son of God ; for he that believeth shall be saved.

2. Man by nature may be considered two ways, 1. As

fCum dixeris initio, banc viara quae ad immortalitatem ducat esse divinitus pate-factam, scire velira, cur id abs te dictum Sf?—Propterea, quia ut homo natura nihil habet comniime cum imniortalitate, ita cam ipse viara, quae nos ad immortalitatem duceret, nulla ratione per se cognoscere potuit. Catech. Racov. de via Salut. cap. 1.

he was in his created condition not tainted, corrupted, weakened, nor lost by sin. 2. As fallen, dead, polluted, and guilty.

3. Immortality is taken either, 1. Nakedly, and purely in itself, for an eternal abiding of that which is said to be immortal : 2. For a blessed condition and state, in that abidino- and continuance.

4. That expression 'by nature' referring to man in his created condition, not fallen by sin, may be taken two ways. 1. Strictly, for the consequences of the natural principles whereof man was constituted; or 2. More largely it comprises God's constitution and appointment, concerning man in that estate.

On these considerations, it will be easy to take off this head of our catechist's discourse, whereby also the remaining trunk will fall to the ground.

I say, then, man by nature, in his primitive condition, was by the^ appointment and constitution of God immortal, as to the continuance of his life, and knew the way of perfect legal obedience, tending to a blessed immortality; and that by himself, or by virtue of the law of his creation, which was concreated with him ; but fallen man in his natural condition, being dead spiritually, obnoxious to death temporal and eternal, doth by no means know himself, nor can know the way of faith in Jesus Christ, leading to a blessed immortality and glory.

It is not then our want of interest in immortality, upon the account whereof we know not of ourselves the way to immortality by the blood of Christ; but there are two other reasons that enforce the truth of it.

1. Because'' it is a way of mere grace and mercy, hidden from all eternity in the treasures of God's infinite wisdom, and sovereign will, which he neither prepared for men in his created condition, nor had man any need of; nor is it in the least discovered by any of the works of God, or the law written in the heart; but is solely revealed from the bosom of the Father, by the only begotten Son; neither angels nor men being able to discover the least glimpse of that majesty, without that revelation.

B Rom. ii.7—9. b John i. 18. 1 Cor. ii. 7.Eph.iii. 8—11. Col. ii. 2,3. 1 Tim. iii. 16.

2. Because man in his fallen condition, though there be retained in his heart some weak and faint expressions of g'ood and evil, reward and punishment, Rom. ii. 14, 15. yet is spiritually' dead, blind, alienated from God, ignorant, dark, stubborn, so far from being able of himself to find out the way of grace unto a blessed immortality, that he is not able upon the revelation of it savingly, and to the great end of his proposal to receive, apprehend, believe, and walk in it, without a new spiritual creation, resurrection from the dead or new birth, wrought by the exceeding greatness of the power of God. And on these two doth depend our disability to discover, and know the way of grace, leading to life and glory. And by this brief removal of the covering, is the weakness and nakedness of their whole ensuing discourse so discovered, as that I shall speedily take it, with its offence out of the way. They proceed :

' Q. But'' why hath man nothing to do with (or no interest in) immortality V

'A. Therefore, because from the beginning he was formed of the ground, and so was created mortal; and then, because he transgressed the command given him of God, and so by the decree of God, expressed in his command, was necessarily subject to eternal death.'

1. It is true man was created of the dust of the earth, as to his bodily substance; yet it is as true, that moreover God breathed into him the breath of life, whereby he became a living soul; and in that immediate constitution and framing from the hand of God, was free from all nextly disposing causes unto dissolution; but his immortality we place on another account, as hath been declared, which is no way prejudiced by his being made of the ground.

2. The second reason belongs unto man only as having sinned, and being fallen out of that condition and covenant wherein he was created. So that I shall need only to let the reader know, that the eternal death, in the judgment of our catechists, whereunto man was subject by sin, was only an eternal dissolution or annihilation (or rather an abode

'Eph. ii. 1. John i. 5. Rom. iii. 17,18. viii. 7, 8. 2 Cor. ii. 14. Tit. iii. 3. Epli. ii. 8. iv. 18. Col. i. 13. ii. 13. &c.

I' Cur vero nihil coruniuiie habet homo cum immortalitate ?—Idcirco, quod ab initio de humo formatus, propteieaque mortalis creatus fuerit; deinde vero, quod mandatum Dei, ipsi propositura, transgressus sit; ideoque decreto Dei ipsius in mandato expresso, aeternse morti necessario subjectus fuerit.

VOL. VIII. Q

under dissolution, dissolution itself being not penal), and not any abiding punishment, as will afterward be farther manifest. They go on,

* Q. But' how doth this agree with those places of Scripture, wherein it is written that man was created in the image of God, and created unto immortality, and that death entered into the world by sin?' Gen. i. 26. Wisd. ii. 23. Rom. V. 12.

* A. As™ to the testimony which declareth that man was created in the image of God, it is to be known, that the image of God doth not signify immortality ; (which is evident from hence, because at that time, when man was subject to eternal death, the Scripture acknowledgeth in him that image; Gen. ix, 6. James iii. 9.) but it denoteth the power and dominion over all things made of God on the earth; as the same place where this image is treated of clearly sheweth ;' Gen. i. 26.

The argument for that state and condition wherein we affirm man to have been created, from the consideration of the image of Cod wherein he was made, and whereunto in part we are renewed, was formerly insisted on. Let the reader look back unto it, and he will quickly discern, how little is here offered to enervate it in the least. For,

1. They cannot prove that man in the condition and state of sin, doth retain any thing of the image of God ; the places mentioned, as Gen. ix. 6. and James iii. 9. testify only, that he was made in the image of God at first, but that he doth still retain the image they intimate not; nor is the inference used in the places, taken from what man is, but what he was created.

2. That the image of God did not consist in any one excellency hath been above declared ; so that the argument to prove that it did not consist in immortality, because it did consist in the dominion over the creatures, is no bet-

' Qui vero id convenjet iis Scripturae locis, in quibus Scriptum cxtat, hominem ad imaginem Dei creaUiin esse, et creatum ad immortalitatern, et quod mors per jieccatum in munduin iiitroieret?—Gen. i. 26, 'J7. Sap. ii. 23. Rom. v. 12.

•» Quod ad testimonium attinet, quod liominem creatum ad imagiiu'iu Dei pro-nunciat, sciendun) est, imaginem Dei non significare immortalilera ; (quod hinc pa-tet, quod Scriptura eo tempore, quo homo aeterna; niorti subjectus erat, agnoscat in homine istam imaginem. Gen. ix. 6. Jacob, iii. 9.) sed potcstatein hominis.et dominium in omnes res a Deo conditas, supra terram, designare: ut idem locus, iu quo de hac eadem imagine agitur, Gen. i 26. aperte indicat.

BEFORE A¥D AFTER THE FALL. 227

ter than that would be, which should conclude that the sun did not give light because it gives heat. So that,

3. Though the image of God, as to the main of it, in reference to the end of everlasting communion with GocJ (whereunto we were created) was utterly lost by sin, or else we could not be renewed unto it again by Jesus Christ, yet as to some footsteps of it, in reference to our fellow-creatures, so much might be, and was retained, as to be a reason one towards another, for our preservation from wrong and violence.

4. That place of Gen. i. 26. ' Let us make man in our imao-e, and let him have dominion over the fish of the sea,' &c. is so far from proving that the image of God wherein man was created, did consist only in the dominion mentioned, that it doth not prove that dominion to have been any part of, or to belong unto, that image. It is rather a grant made to them who were made in the image of God, than a description of that image wherein they were made.

It is evident then, notwithstanding any thing here excepted to the contrary, that the immortality pleaded for belonged to the image of God, and from man's being created therein, is rightly inferred, as above was made more evident.

Upon the testimony of the book of Wisdom, it being confessedly apocryphal, I shall not insist. Neither do I think, that in the original any new argument to that before mentioned of the image of God, is added ; but that is evidently pressed, and the nature of the image of God somewhat explained. The words are ; "Otl 6 S'eoc eKTiae rbv av^pwirov lirX cKJiOapaia, koX hkovu rrig Idiag IdiorijTog iironqcrtv avTov. ^06v(j^ Be StajSoXou ^avarog eiariX^ev elg tov Kocrfiov' Tretjoa^oixri 8f avTov oi rrig iKtivov fxepi^og ovreg. The opposition that is put between the creation of man in integrity and the image of God in one verse, and the entrance of sin, by the envy of the devil in the next, plainly evinces, that the mind of the author of that book was, that man, by reason of his being created in the image of God, was immortal in his primitive condition. That which follows is of another nature, concerning which they thus inquire and answer:

q2

' Q. What," moreover, wilt thou answer to the third testimony V

' A. The apostle in that place treateth not of immortality, {mortality] but of death itself. But mortality differeth much from death; for a man may be mortal and yet never die.' But,

1. The apostle eminently treats of man's becoming obnoxious to death, which until he was, he was immortal. For he says that death entered the world by sin, and passed on all men, not actually, but in the guilt of it, and obnoxious-ness to it. By what means death entered into the world, or had a right so to do, by that means man lost the immortality which before he had.

2. It is true, a man may be mortal as to state and condition, and yet by Almighty power be preserved and delivered from actual dying, as it was with Enoch and Elijah ; but in an ordinary course he that is mortal must die, and is directly obnoxious to death; but that which we plead for from those words of the apostle is, that man by God's constitution and appointment was so immortal, as not to be liable nor obnoxious to death until he sinned. But they will prove their assertion in their progress.

* Q. What" therefore is the sense of these words, that death entered into the world by sin ?'

' This; that Adam for sin by the decree and sentence of God, was subject to eternal death; and therefore, all men, because, or inasmuch as they are born of him, are subject to the same eternal death. And that this is so, the comparison of Christ with Adam which the apostle instituteth from ver. 12. to the end of the chapter, doth declare.'

Be it so, that this is the meaning of those words; yet hence it inevitably follows, that man was no way liable or obnoxious to death, but upon the account of the commina-tion of God annexed to the law he gave him. And this is the whole of what we affirm ; namely, that by God's ap-

" Quid porro ad tertium respondcbis ?—Apostolus eo in loco non agit de iminor-talitalf, [niortaiitate] veruiu de luorte ipsa ; mortalitas vero a niorte nuiltuin dissidct; siquidem polt'st essequis niortalis, ncc tamcn iinqnani inori.

o Qtiai igitur est horuni verborniii senteiitia; quod mors per peccatutii introierit in munduni ?—Max, quod Adanius oh peccatuni, dccrcto et senleiiiia Dei sfcrnas TOorti subjeclus est; proinde, oinncs Iioniines, co quod ex co nati sunt, cidem a!ter-ns niorti subjaceant : rem ita esse, collatio Christi cum Adamo, quam Apostolus eodem capite, a ver. 12. ad finein, iiistituit, indicio est.

pointment man was immortal, and the tenure of his immortality was his obedience; and thereupon,his right thereunto he lost by his transgression.

2. This is farther evident from the comparison between Christ and Adam, instituted by the apostle. For as we are all dead without Christ and his righteousness, and have not the least right to life, or a blessed immortality ; so antecedently to the consideration of Adam and his disobedience, we were not in the least obnoxious unto death, or any way liable to it, in our primitive conditions.

And this is all that our catechists have to plead for themselves, or to except against our arguments and testimonies to the cause in hand. Which how weak it is in itself, and how short it comes of reaching to the strength we insist on, as little comparison of it, with what went before, will satisfy the pious reader.

What remains of that chapter, consisting in the depravation of two or three texts of Scripture, to another purpose than that in hand, I shall not divert to the consideration of; seeing it will more orderly fall under debate in another place.

What our catechists add elsewhere about original sin or their attempt to disprove it, being considered, shall give a close to this discourse.

Their tenth chapter is, ' de libero arbitrio,' where after, in answer to the first question proposed, they have asserted, that it is in our power to yield obedience unto God, as having free will in our creation so to do, and having by no way or means lost that liberty or power ; their second question is,

' Is*" not this free will corrupted by original sin ?

' A. There is no such thing as original sin ; wherefore that cannot vitiate free will; nor can that original sin be proved out of the Scripture : and the fall of Adam being but one act, could not have that force as to corrupt his own

P Noiine peccato originis hoc liberum arbitrium vitiatiim est?—Peccatum originis nullum piorsusest: quare nee liberum arbitrium vitiare potuit; nee enim e Serip-tura id peccatum originis doceri potest, et lapsus Ada; cum unus actus fuerit vim eani, quse depravare ipsam naturain Adami, multo minus vero posterorum ipsius posset, habere non potuit. Ipsi vero in poenam irrogatum fuisse, nee Scriptura docet, uti superius exposuimus ; et Deum ilium, qui omnis ajquitatis fons est, incredibile prorsus est, id facere voluisse. Cap. 10. de lib. Arbit. q. 2.

natufe, much less that of his posterity. And that it was inflicted on him as a punishment, neither doth the Scripture teach, and it is incredible that God, who is the fountain of all goodness, would so do.'

1. This is yet plain dealing. And it is well that men who know neither God nor themselves, have yet so much honesty left, as to speak downright what they intend. Quickly despatched ; there is no such thing as original sin. To us the denying of it, is one argument to prove it. Were not men blind, and dead in sin, they could not but be sensible of it. But men swimming with the waters feel not the strength of the stream.

2. But doth the Scripture teach no such thing ? Doth it nowhere teach, that we who were ' created upright, in the image of God,' are now 'dead in trespasses and sins, by nature children of wrath, having the v/rath of God upon us, being blind in our understandings, and alienated from the life of God, not able to receive the things that are of God, which are spiritually discerned, our carnal minds being enmiiy to God, not subject to his law, nor can be?' That our hearts are stony, our affections sensual, that we are wholly ' come short of the glory of God?' That every figment of our heart is evil, so that we can neither think, nor speak, nor do, that which is spiritually good, or acceptable to God ; that being born of the flesh, we are flesh ; and unless we are born again, can by no means enter into the kingdom of heaven ? That all this is come upon us by the sin of one man, whence also judgment passed on all men to condemnation ? Can nothing of all this be proved from the Scripture ? These gentlemen know that we contend not about words or expressions ; let them grant this hereditary corruption of our natures, alienation from God, impotency to good, deadness and obstinacy in sin, want of the spirit, image, and grace of God, with obnoxiousness thereon to eternal condemnation, and give us a fitter expression to declare this state and condition by, in respect of every one's personal interest therein, and we will, so it may please them, call it ' original sin' no more.

3. It is not impossible, that one act should be so high and intense in its kind, as to induce a habit into the subject, and so Adam's nature be vitiated by it; and he begot

a son in his own likeness. The devils upon one sin, became obstinate in all the wickedness that their nature is capable of. 2. This one act was a breach of covenant with God, upon the tenor and observation whereof, depended the enjoyment of all that strength and rectitude with God, wherewith, by the law of his creation, man was endued withal. 3. All man's covenant good for that eternal end to which he was created, depended upon his conformity to God, his subjection to him and dependance on him, all which by that one sin he wilfully cast away, for himself and posterity (whose common, natural, and federal head he was), and righteously fell into that condition which we described. 4. The apostle is much of a different mind from our catechists, Rom. v. 15, 16, &c. as hath been declared.

4. What is credible concerning God and his goodness with these gentlemen I know not. To me, that is not only in itself credible which he hath revealed concerning himself, but of necessity to be believed. That he gave man a law, threatening him and all his posterity in him and with him, with eternal death upon the breach of it, that upon that sin, he cast all man'kind judicially out of covenant, imputing that sin unto them all, unto the guilt of condemnation, seeing it is his judgment that they who commit sin are worthy of death, and that he is of purer eyes than to behold iniquity, is to us credible, yea, as was said, of necessity to be believed. But they will answer the proofs that are produced from Scripture, in the asserting of this original sin.

'Q. But^ that there is original sin, those testimonies seem to prove. Gen. vi. 5. ' Every cogitation of the heart of man is only evil every day;' and Gen. viii. 21. * The cogitation of man's heart is evil from his youth.'

' A. These testimonies deal concerning voluntary sin : from them therefore original sin cannot be proved. As for the first, Moses sheweth it to be such a sin for whose sake

T Vcruntamen esse peccatum originis ilia testimonia docere videntur, Gen. vK 5, &c. viii. 21.—HsBC testimonia agunt de peccato voluntario: ex iis itaque effici nequit peccatum originis quod auteni ad primum attinet, Moses id peccatum ejus-niodi fuisse docet cujus causa poenituisse Deum quod hominem cre^sset, et euni di-luvio punire decrevisset: quod ceite de peccato quod homini natura inesset, quale peccatum originis censeat, affirmari nullo pacto potest. In altera vero testimonio docet, peccatum liominis earn vim habiturum non esse, ul Deus mundum diluvio propter illud puniret: quod etiani peccato originis nullo modo convenit

God repented him that he had made man and decreed to destroy him with a flood : which certainly can by no means be affirmed concerning a sin which should be in no man by nature, such as they think original sin to be. In the other he sheweth, that the sin of man shall not have that efficacy, that God should punish the world for it with a flood : which by no means agreeth to original sin.'

That this attempt of our cathechists is most vain and frivolous will quickly appear; for, 1. Suppose original sin be not asserted in those places, doth it follow there is no original sin? Do they not know that we affirm it to be revealed in the way of salvation, and proved by a hundred places besides ? And do they think to overthrow it by their exception against two or three of them? when if it be taught in any one of them it suffices. 2. The words as by them rendered, lose much of the efficacy for the confirmation of what they oppose, which in the original they have. In the first place, it is not every thought of man's heart, but every imagination or figment of the thoughts of his heart. The ' motus primo primi,' the very natural frame andtemperof theheartof man, astoits first motions towards good or evil, are doubtless expressed in these words : so also is it in the latter place.

We say then, that original sin is taught and proved in these places : not singly or exclusively to actual sins, not a parte ante, or from the causes of it, but from its effects. That such a frame of heart is universally by nature in all mankind, and every individual of them, as that it is ever, always, or continually casting, coining, and devising evil, and that only, without the intermixture of any thing of another kind that is truly and spiritually good, is taught in these places ; and this is original sin. Nor is this disproved by our catechists.

For,

1. Because the sin spoken of is voluntary, therefore it is not original, will not be granted. Original sin, as it is taken peccatum originans, was voluntary in Adam; and as it is originatum in us, is in our will habitually, and not against them, in any actings of it, or them. 2. The effects of it in the coining of sin and in the thoughts of men's hearts, are all voluntary; which are here mentioned to demonstrate

and manifest that root from whence they spring, that prevailing principle and predominant habit, from whence they so uniformly proceed.

2. Why it doth not agree to original sin, that the account mentioned, ver. 6. of God's repenting that he had made man, and his resolution to destroy him, these gentlemen offer not one word of reason to manifest. We say, (1.) that it can agree to no other but this original sin, with its infallible effects, wherein all mankind are equally concerned, and so became equally liable to the last judgment of God; though some, from the same principle had acted much more boldly against his holy Majesty than others. (2.) Its being in men by nature doth not at all lessen its guilt. It is not in their nature as created, nor in them so by nature : but is by the fall of Adam come upon the nature of all men, dwelling in the person of every one; which lesseneth not its guilt, but manifests its advantage for provocation.

3. Why the latter testimony is not applicable to original sin, they inform us not. The words joined with ii, ire an expression of that patience and forbearance which God resolved and promised to exercise towards the world, with a non obstante, for sin. Now what sin should this be, but that which is the sin of the world ? That actual sins are excluded we say not; but that original sin is expressed and aggravated by the effects of it, our catechists cannot disprove. There are many considerations of these texts, from whence the argument from them, for the proof of that corruption of nature which we call original sin, might be much improved; but that is not my present business, our catechists administering no occasion to such a discourse. But they take some other texts into consideration.

*Q. Whaf thinkest thou of that which David speaks, Psal. li. 7. Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me V

' A. It is to be observed, that David doth not here speak of any men, but himself alone, nor that simply but with respect to his fall: and uses that form of speaking, which you have

' Quid vero ea de re sentis quod David ait, Psal. li. 7.—Aniniadvertendum est, hie Davideai noh agere de quibusvis hominibus, sed de se tantum ; nee siiupliciter, sed habita ratione lapsus sui: et eo loquendi modo usum esse, cujus excraphira apud eundem Davidem habes Psal. Iviii. 4. Quamobrem nee eo testiraonio effici prorsus potest peccatem origiiiis.

in him again, Psal. Iviii. 4. Wherefore original sin cannot be evinced by this testimony.' But,

1. Though David speak of himself, yet he speaks of himself in respect of that Avhich was common to himself with all mankind, being a child of wrath as well as others. Nor can these gentlemen intimate any thing of sin and iniquity, in the conception and birth of David, that was not common to all others with him. Any man's confession for himself of a particular gailt in a common sin, doth not free others from it. Yea, it proves all others to be partakers in it, who share in that condition wherein he contracted the guilt.

2. Though David mention this by occasion of his fall, as having his conscience made tender, and awakened to search into the root of his sin and transgression thereby; yet it was no part of his fall, nor was he ever the more or less conceived in sin and brought forth in iniquity, for that fall, which were ridiculous to imagine. He here acknowledges it, upon the occasion of his fall, which was a fruit of the sin, wherewith he was born; James i. 14, 15. but was equally guilty of it before his fall and after.

3. The expression here used, and that of Psal. Iviii. 3. ' The wicked are enstranged from the womb, they go astray as soon as they be born speaking lies;' exceedingly differ. Here David expresses what was his infection in the womb, there what is wicked men's constant practice from the womb. In himself he mentions the root of all actual sin ; in them the constant fruit that springs from that root in unregenerate men. So that by the favour of these catechists, I yet say, that David doth here acknowledge a sin of nature, a sin wherewith he was defiled from his conception, and polluted when he was warmed, and so fomented in his mother's womb, and therefore this place doth prove original sin.

One place more tliey call to an account, in these words. 'Q. But ^Paulsaith, that in Adam all sinned;' Rom. v. 12. 'A. Itis not in that place, * in Adam all sinned.' But in the Greek the words are t^' (^ which interpreters do frequently

• At riiulusaitTlom. v. 12. in Adamo, &c.—Nonhabetureo loco, in Adamonincs pecciisse; veruni in Graeco verba sunt i<f>' eJ qure passim intorprefes reddiint laline, in 'quo, c|iia! taincn rc'd<li possunt per particular quoiiiani aut quatenns, ut c locis simili-biis, Kom. viii. S. Phil. iii. 1'2. Heb. ii. 18. 2 Cor. v. 4. vidcre est. Appnret igitur iicquecx hoc loco cxtrui posse poccatum originis.

render in Latin in quo,' in whom/ which yet may be rendered by the particles quoniam or quatenus, ' because,' or' inasmuch/ as in hke places, Rom. viii. 3. Phil. iii. 12. Heb. ii. 18. 2 Cor. V. 4. It appeareth, therefore, that neither can original sin be built up out of this place.

1. Stop these men trom this shifting hole, and you may with much ease entangle and catch them twenty times a day. This word may be rendered otherwise, for it is so in another place. A course of procedure that leaves nothing certain in the book of God. 2. In two of the places cited, the words are not t^' w, but Iv i^, Rom. viii. 3. Heb. ii. 18. 3. The places are none of them parallel to this ; for here the apostle speaks of persons, or a person in an immediate precedency, in them of things. But, 4. Render e^' w by quoniam,' because/ or ' for that,' as our English translation doth ; the argument is no less evident for original sin, than if they were rendered by, ' in whom.' In the beginning of the verse the apostle tells us that death entered the world by the sin of one man, that one man of whom he is speaking, namely, Adam, and passed upon all men : of which dispensation, that death passed on all men, he gives you the reason in these words, 'for that all have sinned/ that is, in that sin of that one man, whereby death entered on the world, and passed on them all. I wonder how our catechists could once imagine, that this exception against the translation of those words should enervate the argument from the text, for the proof of all men's guilt of the first sin ; seeing the conviction of it is no less evident from the words, if rendered according to their desire.

And this is the sum of what they have to offer, for the acquitment of themselves from the guilt and stain of original sin, and for answer to the three testimonies on its behalf, which themselves chose to call forth, upon the strength whereof they so confidently reject it at the entrance of their discourse, and in the following question triumph upon it, as a thing utterly discarded from the thoughts of their catechumens : what reason or ground they have for their confidence, the reader will judge. In the meantime it is sufficiently known, that they have touched very little of the strength of our cause ; nor once mentioned the testimonies and arguments, on whose evidence and strength in this business we rely. And for themselves who write and teach

these things, I should much admire their happiness, did I not so much as I do pity them in their pride and distemper, keeping them from an acquaintance with their own miserable condition.

CHAP. VII.

Of the person of Jesus Christ, and on what account he is the Son of God. MR. BIDDLE'S FOURTH CHAPTER EXAMINED.

' Q. How many Lords of Christians are there, by way of distinction from that one God ? 'A. Eph. iv. 5. ' Q, Who is that one Lord ?

* A. 1 Cor. viii. 6.

' Q. How was Jesus Christ born? 'A. Matt. i. 18. Luke i. 30—35.

' Q. How came Jesus Christ to be Lord, according to the opinion of the apostle Paul ?

* A. Rom. xiv. 9.

' Q. What saith the apostle Peter also, concerning the time and manner of his being made Lord?

'A. Acts ii. 32, 33. 36.

' Q. Did not Jesus Christ approve himself to be God by his miracles ? And did he not those miracles by a divine nature of his own, and because he was God himself? What is the determination of the apostle Peter in this behalf?

'A. Acts ii. 22. x. 38.

' Q. Could not Christ do all things of himself? And was it not an eternal Son of God that took flesh upon him, and to whom the human nature of Christ was personally united, that wrought all his works? Answer me to these things in the words of the Son himself.

'A. Johnv. 19,20.30. xiv. 10.

'Q. What reason doth the Son render, why the Father did not forsake him, and cast him out of favour? Was it because he was of the same essence with him, so that it was impossible for the Father to forsake him, or cease to love him?

'A. John viii. 28, 29. xv. 9, 10.

' Q. Doth the Scripture avouch Christ to be the Son of God, because he was eternally begotten out of the divine essence, or for Other reasons agreeing to him only as a man ? Rehearse the passages to this purpose.

* A. Luke i. 30—32. 34, 35. John x. 36. Acts xiii. 32,33. Rev. i. 5. Col. i. 18. Heb. i. 4, 5. v. 5. Rom. viii. 29.

* Q. What saith the Son himself concerning the prerogative of God the Father above him?

* A. John xiv. 28. Mark. xiii. 32. Matt. xxiv. 36. ' Q. What saith the apostle Paul?

' A. 1 Cor. XV. 24. 28. xi. 3. iii. 22, 23. ' Q. Howbeit, is not Christ dignified as with the title of Lord, so also with that of God, in the Scripture? ' A. John XX. 28.

* Q. Was he so the God of Thomas, as that he himself in the meantime did not acknowledge another to be his God.?

' A. John XX. 17. Rev. iii. 12.

* Q. Have you any passage of the Scripture where Christ, at the same time that he hath the appellation of God given to him, is said to have a God ?

'A. Heb. i. 8,9.'

EXAMINATION.

The aim and design of our Catechist in this chapter being to despoil our blessed Lord Jesus Christ of his eternal Deity, and to substitute an imaginary Godhead, made and feigned in the vain hearts of himself and his masters, into the room thereof; I hope the discovery of the wickedness and vanity of his attempt, will not be unacceptable to them who love him in sincerity. I must still desire the reader not to expect the handling of the doctrine of the Deity of Christ at large, with the confirmation of it, and vindication from the vain sophisms, wherewith by others, as well as by Mr. B. it hath Ijeen opposed. This is done abundantly by other hands. In the next chapters that also will have its proper place, in the vindication of many texts of Scripture from the exceptions of the Racovians. The removal of Mr. B.'s sophistry and the disentangling of weaker souls, who may

in any thing be intricated by his queries, is my present intendment. To make our way clear and plain, that every one that runs may read the vanity of Mr. B.'s undertaking against the Lord Jesus, and his kicking against the pricks therein, I desire to premise these few observations.

1. Distinction of persons (it being an infinite substance), doth no way prove difference of essence between the Father and the Son. Where Christ as Mediator is said to be another from the Father or God spoken personally of the Father, it argues not in the least, that he is not partaker of the same nature with him. That in one essence there can be but one person, may be true where the substance is finite and limited, but hath no place in that which is infinite.

2. Distinction-' and inequality in respect of office ia Christ, doth not in the least take away equality and sameness with the Father in respect of nature and essence. A Son of the same nature with his Father, and therein equal to him, may in office be his inferior, his subject.

3. The advancement and exaltation of Christ as Mediator to any dignity whatever, upon, or in reference to, the work of our redemption and salvation, is notatall inconsistent with that essential a^la honour, dignity, and worth, which he hath in himself, as ' God blessed for ever.' Though he humbled himself and was exalted, yet in nature he was one and the same, he changed not.

4. The Scriptures asserting the humanity of Christ with the concernments thereof, as his birth, life, and death, doth no more thereby deny his Deity, than by asserting his Deity, with the essential properties thereof, eternity, omniscience, and the like, it denies his humanity.

5. God's working any thing in and by Christ as he was Mediator, denotes the Father's sovereign appointment of the things mentioned to be done, not his immediate efficiency in the doino; of the thing-s themselves.

The consideration of these few thing-s beino; added to what I have said before in general about the way of dealing with our adversaries in these great and weighty things of the knowledge of God, will easily deliver us from any great trouble in the examination of Mr. B.'s arguments and insi-

* T>:v vmoTayhv Tni SsuXix.?; ^oj<(>nc aVEiXii^aij, iirsp hfxZv vTrorctoo^irai r£ iavTou WttTfi, oi (j)uff-Ei StitiTOf, aXX ivwei ^i!f<}))if JauXix^f nv IXaSt. Alhanas. dial. I. conlra Maced.

nuations against the Deity of Ciirist, which is the business of the present chapter.

His first question is,

' How many Lords of Christians are there by way of distinction from that one God?' And he answers, Eph. iv. 5. ' One Lord.'

That of these two words there is not one that looks towards the confirmation of what Mr. Biddle chiefly aims at, in the question proposed, is I presume sufficiently clear in the light of the thing itself inquired after. Christ, it is true, is the one Lord of Christians ; and therefore God equal with the Father. He is also one Lord in distinction from his Father, as his Father, in respect of his personality ; in which regard, there are three that bear witness in heaven, of which he is one ; but in respect of essence and nature, ' He and his Father are one.' Farther, unless he were one God with his Father, it is utterly impossible he should be the one Lord of Christians. That he cannot be our Lord in the sense intended, whom we ought to invocate and worship, unless also he were our God, shall be afterward declared. And although he be our Lord in distinction from his Father, as he is also our Mediator, yet he is the same God with him, 'which workethall in all;' 1 Cor. xii. 6. His being Lord then distinctly, in respect of his mediation, hinders not his being God, in respect of his participation in the same nature with his Father. And though here he be not spoken of in respect of his absolute sovereign Lordship, but of his Lordship over the church, to whom the whole church is spiritually subject, (as he is elsewhere also so called on the same account; as John xiii. 13. Acts vii.59. Rev. xxii. 20.) yet, were he not Lord in that sense also, he could not be so in this. The Lord our God only is to be worshipped. 'My Lord and my God,' says Thomas. And the mention of one God is here, as in other places, partly to deprive all false Gods of their pretended Deity, partly to witness against the impossibility of polytheism, and partly to manifest the oneness of them who are worshipped as God the Father, Word, and Spirit; all which things are also severally testified unto.

His second question is an inquiry after this Lord, who he is, in these words; 'Who is this Lord ?' And the answer is from 1 Cor. viii. 6. ' Jesus Christ, by whom are all things.'

The close of this second answer might have caused Mr. B. a little to recoil upon his insinuation in the first, concerning the distinction of this ' one Lord' from that 'one God,'in the sense by him insisted on. Who is he by whom are all things (in the same sense as they are said to be of the Father); wl)o is that but God? ' He that made all things is God ;' Heb. iii. 4. And it is manifest that he himself was not made, by whom all things were made. For he made not himself; nor could so do, unless he were both before and after himself; nor was he made without his own concurrence by another, for by himself are all things. Thus Mr. B. hath no sooner opened his mouth to speak against the Lord Jesus Christ, but by the just judgment of God he stops it himself with a testimony of God against himself, which he shall never be able to rise up against unto eternity.

And it is a manifest perverting and corrupting of the text which we have in tGrotius's gloss upon the place, who interprets the to. iravra, referred to the Father, of all things simply, but the to. rravra, referred to Christ, of the things only of the new creation ; there being not the least colour for any such variation, the frame and structure of the words requiring them to be expounded uniformly throughout : ' But to us there is one God the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him, and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.' The last expression, ' and we by him,' relates to the new creation ; ' all things' to the first. But Grotius follows 'Enjedinus, in this as well as other things.

His inquiry in the next place is after the birth of Jesus Christ, in answer whereunto the story is reported from Matthew and Luke ; which, relating to his human nature, and no otherwise to the person of the Son of God, but as he was therein made flesh or assumed the ''holy thing so born of the Virgin, into personal subsistence with himself, I shall let pass with annexing unto it the observation before-mentioned; viz. That what is affirmed of the human nature of Christ, doth not at all prejudice that nature of his, in respect whereof he is said to be' in the beginning with God, and to be God,' and with reference whereunto himself said, ' before Abraham

^ Groti. Annof. in 1 Cor. viii. 6.

* Enjedin. explicat. loc. vet. et nov. Testam, in locum.

<> Luke i. 35. <^ John i. 1, 2. viii. 57. Prov. viii. 'Ji,'. &c.

was I am.' God possessed him in the beginning of his ways, being then his only begotten Son, full of grace and truth. Mr. B. indeed, hath small hopes of despoiling Christ of his eternal glory by his queries, if they spend themselves in such fruitless sophistry as this.

* Qu. 4, 5. How came Jesus Christ to be Lord according to the opinion of the apostle Paul ?' The answer is, Rom. xiv. 19. .

* What saith Peter also concerning the time and manner of his being made Lord?' Answer, Acts ii. 32, 33. 36.

Ans. 1. That Jesus Christ as Mediator, and in respect of the work of redemption and salvation of the church to him committed, was made Lord by the appointment, authority, and designation of his Father, we do not say was the opinion of Paul, but is such a divine truth, as we have the plentiful testimony of the Holy Ghost unto. He was no less made a Lord, than a Priest, and Prophet of his Father; but that the eternal Lordship of Christ, as he is one with his Father, ^' God blessed for evermore,' is any way denied by the asserting of this Lordship given him of his Father as Mediator, Mr. B, wholly begs of men to apprehend and grant, but doth not once attempt from the Scripture to manifest or prove. The sum of what Mr. Biddle intends to argue hence is, Christ's submitting himself to the form and work of a servant unto the Father, was exalted by him, and had ' a name given him above every name,' therefore he was not the Son of God and equal to him. That his condescension into office is inconsistent with his divine essence, is yet to be proved. But may we not beg of our catechist at his leisure to look a little farther into the chapter from whence he takes his first testimony concerning the exaltation of Christ to be Lord ; perhaps it may be worth his while. As another argument to that of the dominion and Lordship of Christ, to persuade believers to a mutual forbearance as to judging of one another, he adds ver. 10. 'We shall all stand before the judgment-seat of Christ.' And this, ver. 11. the apostle proves from that testimony of the prophet, Isa. xlv. 23. as he renders the sense of the Holy Ghost; ' As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.' So that Jesus Christ our Lord is that Je-

''Rora. ix. 5. VOL. VIII. K

hovah, that God, to whom all subjection is due, and in particular, that of standing before his judgment-seat; but this is overlooked by Grotius, and not answered to any purpose by Enjedinus, and why should Mr. B. trouble himself with it?

2. For the time assigned by him of his being made Lord, specified by the apostle, it doth not denote his first investiture with that office and power, but the solemn admission, into the glorious execution of that lordly power, which was given him as Mediator. At his incarnation and birth, God affirms by the angel, that he was then ' Christ the Lord ;* Luke ii. 11. and when ' he brought his first begotten into the world, the angels were commanded to worship him ;' which, if he were not a Lord, I suppose Mr. B. will not say they could have done. Yea, and as he was both believed in, and worshipped before his death and resurrection; John ix. 38. xiv. 1. which is to be performed only to the Lord our God; Math. iv. 10. so he actually in some measure exercised his lordship towards, and over angels, men, devils, and the residue of the creation, as is known from the very story of the gospel; not denying himself to be a king, yea, witnessing thereunto when he was to be put to death; Luke xxiii. 3. John xviii. 37. as he was from his first shewing unto men; John i. 49.

' Q. 6. Did not Jesus approve himself to be God by his miracles? And did he not these miracles by a divine nature of his own, and because he was of God himself? What is the determination of the apostle Peter in this behalf?'

' A. Acts ii. 22. X. 38.'

The intendment of Mr. Biddle in this question, as is evident by his inserting of these words in a different character, ' by a divine nature of his own, and because he was God himself,' is to disprove, or insinuate an answer unto the argument, taken from the miracles that Christ did, to confirm his Deity. The naked working of miracles, I confess, without the influence of such other considerations, as this argument is attended withal, in relation to Jesus Christ, will not alone of itself assert a divine nature in him who is the instrument of their working or production. Though they are from divine power, or they are not miracles, yet it is not necessary that he by whom they are wrought should be

possessor of that divine power, as * by whom' may denote the instrumental, and not the principal cause of them. But for the miracles wrought by Jesus Christ, as God is said to do them ' by him,' because he appointed him to do them, as he designed him to his offices, and thereby gave testimony to the truth of the doctrine he preached from his bosom, as also because he was with him, not in respect of power and virtue, but as the Father in the Son ; John x. 38. so he working these miracles by his own power, and at his own will, even as his Father doth; John v, 21. and himself giving power and authority fo others to work miracles by his strength, and in his name; Matt. x. 8. Mark xvi. 17, 18. Luke X. 19. there is that eminent evidence of his Deity in his working of miracles, as Mr. B. can by no means darken or obscure, by pointing to that which is of a clear consistency therewithal: as is his Father's appointment of him to do them, whereby he is said to do them in his name, &.c. as in the place cited; of which afterward. Acts ii. 22. The intendment of Peter is to prove that he was the Messias of whom he spake ; and therefore he calls him ' Jesus of Nazareth,' as pointing out the man whom they knew by that name, and whom seven or eight weeks before they had crucified and rejected. That this man was * ' approved of God,' he convinces them from the miracles which God wrought by him; which was enough for his present purpose. Of the other place there is another reason ; for though Gro-tius expound those words on 6 ^tbg r)v juet' avrov, ' For God was with him ;' God always loved him, and always heard him, according to Matt. iii. 17. (where yet there is a peculiar testimony given to the divine Sonship of Jesus Christ) and John xi. 42. yet the words of our Saviour himself, about the same business, give us another interpretation and sense of them. This I say he does, John, x. 37, 38. ' If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works : that ye may know and believe that the Father is in me, and I in him.' In the doing of these works, the Father was so with him, as that he was in him, and he in the Father. Not only evspyi]-

uv Inoiria-i JI avroZ i &co;, oTt aisro Seou »v. Graec. Schol.

R 2

TiKwg, but by that divine indwelling, which oneness of nature gives to Father and Son. *

His seventh question is exceeding implicate and involved: a great deal is expressed that Mr. B. would deny, but by what inference from the Scriptures he produceth, doth not at all appear; the words of it are, ' Could not Christ do all things of himself, and was it not an eternal Son of God that took flesh upon him, and to whom the human nature of Christ was personally united, that wrought all these works? Answer me to these things in the words of the Son himself.

' A. John V. 19, 20. 30. xiv. 10.'

The inference which alone appears from hence, is of the same nature with them that are gone before. That Christ could not do all things of himself, that he was not the eternal Son of God, that he took not flesh, is that which is asserted ; but the proof of all this doth disappear. Christ being accused by the Jews, and persecuted for healing a man on the sabbath day, and their rage being increased by his asserting his equality with the Father (of which afterward); ver. 17, 18. he lets them know, that in the discharge of the office committed to him, he did nothing but according to the will, commandment, and appointment of his Father, with whom he is equal, and doth of his own will also the things that he doth ; so that they had no more to plead against him for doing what he did, than they had against him whom they acknowledged to be God. Wherein he is so far from declining the assertion of his own Deity (which that he maintained the Jews apprehended, affirming that he made himself equal with God, which none but God is, or can be, for between God and that which is not God, there is no proportion, much less equality) as that he farther confirms it, by affirming, that he ' doeth whatever the Father doeth, and that as the Father quickeneth whom he will, so he quickeneth whom he will.' That redoubled assertion then of Christ, that he can do nothing of himself, is to be applied to the matter under consideration. He had not done, nor could not do any work, than such as his Father did also : it was impossible he should ; not only because he would not, in which sense to ajSouAijrov is one kind of those things

which are impossible ; but also because of the oneness in will, nature, and power of himself, and his Father, which he asserts in many particulars. Nor doth he temper his speech as one that would ascribe all the honour to the Father, and so remove the charge that he made a man equal to the Father, as '^Grotius vainly imagines : for although as man he acknowledges his subjection to the Father, yea as Mediator in the work he had in hand, and his subordination to him as the Son, receiving all things from him by divine and eternal communication; yet the action or work that gave occasion to that discourse, being an action of his person, wherein he was God, he all along asserts his own equality therein with the Father, as shall afterward be more fully manifested.

So that though in regard of his divine personality, as the Son, he hath all things from the Father, being begotten by him, and as Mediator doth all things by his appointment and in his name ; yet he in himself is still one with the Father, as to nature and essence, * God to be blessed for evermore,' And that it was an eternal Son of God that took flesh upon him, &:c. hath Mr. B. never read, that in the * beginning was the Word, and the Word was God, and the Word was made flesh;' that ' God was manifested in the flesh ;' and that ' God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law?' Of which places afterward, in their vindication from the exception of his masters.

His eighth question is of the very same import with that going before, attempting to exclude Jesus Christ from the unity of essence with his Father, by his obedience to him, and his Father's acceptation of him in the work of mediation ; which being a most ridiculous begging of the thino-in question, as to what he pretends in the query to be argumentative, I shall not farther insist upon it.

Q. 9. We are come to the head of this discourse and of Mr. B.'s design in this chapter; and indeed of the greatest design that he drives in religion, viz. The denial of the eternal Deity of the Son of God, which not only in this place directly, but in sundry others covertly he doth invade

f Semper ea quae de se praedicare cogitur, Christus ita temperat, ut oraneni ho-noreni referat ad patrem, et removeat illud crimen, quasi hominera patri a?qualnm facial. Grotius Annot. in Joh. cap. 5. v. 30.

and oppose. His question is, ' Doth the Scripture account Christ to be the Son of God, because he was eternally begotten out of the divine essence, or for other reasons agreeing to him only as a man ? Rehearse the passages to this purpose.'

His answer is from Luke i. 31—35. John x. 36. Acts xiii. 32, 33. Rev. i. 5. Col. i. 18. Heb. i. 4, 5. v. 5. Rom. viii, 29. most of which places are expressly contrary to him in his design, as the progress of our discourse will discover.

This, I say, being the head of the difference between us in this chapter, after I have rectified one mistake in Mr. B.'s question, I shall state the whole matter so as to obviate farther labour and trouble, about sundry other ensuing queries. For Mr. B.'s question then, we say not that the Son is begotten eternally out of the divine essence, but in it, not by an eternal act of the Divine Being, but of the person of the Father; which being premised I shall proceed.

The question that lies before us is,

* Doth the Scripture account Christ to be the Son of God, because he was eternally begotten out of the divine essence, or for other reasons agreeing to him only as a man? Rehearse the passages to this purpose.'

The reasons as far as I can gather which Mr. B. lays at the bottom of this appellation, are 1. His birth of the Virgin, from Luke i. 30 34. 2. His mission, or sending into the world by the Father ; John x. 36. 3. His resurrection with power; Acts xiii. 32, 33. Rev. i. 5. Col. i. 18. 4. His exaltation; Heb. V. 5. Rom. viii. 29.

For the removal of all this, from prejudicing the eternal Sonship of Jesus Christ, there is an abundant sufficiency arising from the consideration of this one argument. If Jesus Christ be called the Son of God antecedently to his incarnation, mission, resurrection, and exaltation, then there is a reason and cause of that appellation, before, and above all these considerations ; and it cannot be on any of these accounts that he is called the Son of God; but that he is so called antecedently to all these, I shall afterward abundantly manifest. Yet a little farther process in this business, as to the particulars intimated, may not be unseasonable.

1. Then, I shall propose the causes, on the account

whereof alone these men affirm that Jesus Christ is called the Son of God. Of these the first and chiefest they insist upon is, his birth of the Virgin ; viz. that he was called the Son of God, because he was conceived of the Holy Ghost; this our catechist in the first place proposes, and before him his masters. So the Racovians, in answer to that question.

' Iss therefore the Lord Jesus a mere man V ' A. By no means ; for he was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin, and therefore, from his birth and conception was the Son of God, as we read in Luke i. 35.' The place insisted on by the gentleman we are dealing withal.

Of the same mind are the residue of their companions. So do Ostorodus and Voidovius give an account of their faith, in their ' Compendium,' as they call it, of the doctrine of the Christian church, flourishing now chiefly in Poland. * They'' teach,' say they, ' Jesus Christ to be that man that was conceived of the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin, besides and before whom they acknowledge no only begotten Son of God truly existing. Moreover, they teach him to be God, and the only begotten Son of God, by reason of his conception of the Holy Ghost,' &c. Smalcius hath written a whole book of the true divinity of Jesus Christ, wherein he hath gathered together whatever excellencies they will allow to be ascribed unto him, making his Deity to be the exurgency of them all. Therefore is he God, and the Son of God, because the things he there treats of, are ascribed unto him. Among these in his third chapter, which is of the conception and nativity of Jesus Christ, he gives this principal account why he is called the Son of God, even from his conception and nativity. 'He' was,' saith he, 'conceived of the Holy

% Ergo dorninus Jesus est purus homo ?—Ans. NuUo pacto; etenim est conceptus a Spiritu Sancto, natus ex Maria Virgine, eoque ab ipsa conceptione et ortu Filius Dei est, ut de ea re Luke i. 35. legimus. Catech. Racov. de Persona Ciiristi cap. 1.

h Jesuin Christum decent esse homrnem ilium, a spiritu Sancto conceptum, et natum ex beata Virgine, extra vel ante quem, nullum agnoscunt esse (aut) fuisse re ipsa existentemunigenituniDei Filium. Porro hunc, Deum etFilium Dei unigeni-tum esse docent turn ratione coiiceptionis, a Spiritu Sancto, &c. Compendiolum Doctrinffi Eccles. Christianas, &c. cap. 1.

' Conceptus enim est de Spiritu Sancto, et natus ex Virgine Maria. Ob id genus conceptionis et nativitatis niodum Filius etiam Dei ab ipso angelo vocatus fuit, et ita naturalis Dei Filius (quia scilicet talis natus fuit)dici vere potest. Solus Jesus Christus a Deo patre suo absque opera viri in lumen productus est. Smal. de vera divinit. Jes. Christ, cap. 3.

Ghost, and born of the Virgin Mary, because of which manner of conception and nativity, he was by the angel called the Son of God ; and may so really be called the natural Son of God, because he was born such ; only Jesus Christ was brought forth to light by God his Father, without the help of man.'

The great master of the herd himself, from whom indeed the rest do glean, and gather almost all that they take so much pains to scatter about the world, gives continually this reason of Christ's being called the Son of God, and his natural Son. ' I say,"" saith he, ' that Christ is deservedly called the natural Son of God, because he was born the Son of God, although he was not begotten of the substance of God. And that he was born the Son of God another way, and not by generation of the substance of God, the words of the angel prove; Luke i. 35. Therefore, because that man Jesus of Nazareth, who is called Christ, was begotten not by the help of any man, but by the operation of the Holy Spirit in the womb of his mother, he is, therefore, or for that cause, called the Son of God.' So he against Weick the Jesuit. He is followed by Volkelius, lib. 5. cap. 11. p. 468. whose book indeed is a mere casting into a kind of a method, what was written by Socinus and others, scattered in sundry particulars, and whose method is pursued and improved by Episcopius. Jonas Schlichtingius amongst them all seems to do most of himself; I shall therefore add his testimony, to shew their consent in the assignation of this-cause of the appellation of the ' Son of God,' ascribed to our blessed Saviour. 'There are,' saith he, *many sayings of Scripture, which shew that Christ is in a peculiar manner, and on an account not common to any other, the Son of God; but yet we may not hence conclude that he is a Son on a

^ Dico igitur, Christum merito dici posse Filium Dei naturalcm, quia natus est Dei Filius ; tametsi ex ipsa Dei substantia non fuerit generatus. Natum autem ilium sub alia ratione, quam per geiieratiouem ex ipsius Dei substantia probant angeli verba, Mariae matri ejus dicta, Luke i. 35. Quia igitur homo ille Jesus Nazare-iius, qui dictus est Christus, non viri alicujus opera, sed Spiritus Sancti opcratione generatus est in niatris utoro ; propterea Filius Dei est vocatus. Faust. Socin. Re-ponsio. ad Weick. cap. 4. p. 202.

' Sunt quideiu plurima dicta qua; ostendunt Christum, peculiar! prorsus nee ulli alio communi ratione esse Dei Filium; non tamen bine concludere licet eum esse naturali ratione filium ; cum praeter banc, et illam coramunem, alia dari possit, et in Cbristo reipsa locum habeat. Nonne singular! jirorsus ratione, nee ulli communi, Dei ?"ilius est Christus, si ab ipso Deo, vi et efficacia Spiritus Sancii, in utero vir-ginis conceptus fuit ct fijenitus? Schlichting. ad 3Icisner. Artie, de Trinit. p. 160.

natural account, when besides this, and that more common, another reason may be given, which hath place in Christ. Is he not the Son of God on a singular account, and that which is common to no other, if of God himself, by the virtue and efficacy of the Holy Spirit, he was conceived and begotten in the womb of his mother?

And this is the only buckler which they have to keep off the sword of that argument for the Deity of Christ, from his being the proper Son of God, from the throat and heart of that cause which they have undertaken. And yet how faintly they hold it, is evident from the expressions of this most cunning and skilful of all their champions. There may another reason be given ; which is the general evasion of them all, from any express testimony of Scripture. * The words may have another sense,' therefore, nothing from them can be concluded; whereby they have left nothing stable, or unshaken in Christian religion; and yet wipe their mouths, and say they have done no evil.

But now lest any one should say, that they can see no reason why Christ should be called the ' Son of God,' because he was so conceived by the Holy Ghost, nor wherefore God should therefore in a peculiar manner, and more eminently, than in respect of any other, be called the ' Father of Christ;' to prevent any objection that on this hand might arise, Smal-cius gives an account whence this is, and why God is called the ' Father of Christ,' and what he did in his conception ; which, for the abomination of it, I had rather you should hear in his words than in mine. In his answer to the second part of the refutation of Socinus by Smiglecius, cap. 17, 18. he contends to manifest and make good that Christ was the 'Son of God according to the flesh,'in direct opposition to that of the apostle, ' He was of the seed of David according to the flesh, declared to be the Son of God,' &c. Rom. i. 3, 4. He says then, cap. 18. p. 156. 'Socinus affirmat Deum

in generatione Christi vices patris supplevisse.- But how

I pray? why, 'Satis est ad ostendendum, Deum in generatione Christi vices viri supplevisse, si ostendatur, Deum id ad Christi generationem adjecisse, quod in generatione hominis ex parte viri, ad hominem producendum adjeci solet.' But what is that, or how is that done ? ' Nos Dei virtutem in Virginis uterum aliquam substantiam creatam

vel immisisse, aut ibi creasse affirraamus, ex qua juncto eo, quod ex ipsius Virginis substantia accessit, verus homo ge-neratus fuit. Alias enim homo ille, Dei Filius a conceptione et nativitate proprie nonfuisset;' cap. 17. p. 150. Very good, unless this abominable figment may pass current, Christ was not the Son of God. Let the reader observe by the way, that they cannot but acknowledge Christ to have been, and to have been called the ' Son of God' in a most peculiar manner : to avoid the evidence of the inference from thence, that therefore he is God, of the same substance with his Father, they only have this shift, to say he is called the' Son of God,' upon the account of that, whereof there is not the least tittle, nor word in the whole book of God ; yea, which is expressly contrary to the testimony thereof; and unless this be granted, theyaffirmthatChrist cannot be called the'Son of God.' But let us hear this great Rabbi of Mr. B.'s religion a little farther clearing up this mystery : * Necessitas magna fuit, ut Christus ab initio vitse suae esset Deo Filius, qualis futurus non fuisset nisi Dei virtute aliquid creatum fuisset, quod ad constituendum Christi coi'pus, una cum Marige sanguine concurrit. Mansit autem nihilominus sanguis Mariae Virginis purissimus, etiamsi cum alio aliquo semine commixtus fuit. Potuit enim tam purum, imo purius semen, a Deo creari, et proculdubio creatum fuit, quam erat sanguis Marise. Communis denique sensus, et fides Christianorum omnium, quod Christus non ex virili semine conceptus sit; primum, communis error censendus est, si sacris literis repugnet: Deinde id quod omnes sentiunt, facile cum ipsa veritate con-ciliari potest, ut scilicet semen illud, quod a Deo creatum, et cum semine Marias conjunctum fuit, dicatur non virile, quia non a viro profectum sit, vel ex viro in uterum Virginis translatum, ut quidam opinantur, qui semen Joseplii tran-slatum in Virginis uterum credunt; cap. 18. p. 158. And thus far are men arrived. Unless this horrible figment may be admitted, Christ is not the Son of God. He who is the 'true God and eternal life,' will one day plead the cause of his own glory against these men.

I insist somewhat the more on these things, that men may judge the better, whether in all probability Mr. Biddle in his impartial search into the Scripture, did not use the help of some of them that went before him, in the discovery

of the same things, which he boasts himself to have found out.

And this is the first reason which our catechist hath taken from his masters, to communicate to his scholars, why Jesus Christ is called the Son of God. This he and they insist on, exclusively to his eternal Sonship, or being the Son of God in respect of his eternal generation of the substance of his Father.

The other causes which they assign, why he is called the Son of God, I shall very briefly point unto. By the way that hath been spoken of they say he was the Son of God ; the natural Son of God. But they say he was the Son of God, before he was God. He grew afterward to be a God by degrees as he had those graces and excellencies, and that power given him, wherein his Godhead doth consist. So that he was the Son of God, but not God (in their own sense) until awhile after; and then, when he was so made a God, he came thereby to be more the Son of God. But by this addition to his Sonship he became the adopted Son of God; as by being begotten, as was before revealed, he was the natural Son of God. Let us hear Smalcius a little opening these mysteries;' Neither,'"" saith he,' was Christ God, all the while he was the Son of God. To be the Son of God, is referred to his birth, and all understand how one may be called the Son of God, for his birth or original. But God none can be (besides that one God), but for his likeness to God. So that when Christ was made like God, by the divine qualities which were in him, he was most rightly so far the Son of God, as he was God, and so far God, as he was the Son of God. But before he had obtained that likeness to God, properly he could not be said to be God.'

And these are some of those monstrous figments which under pretence of bare abhorrence to the Scripture, our catechist would obtrude upon us. First, Christ is the Son of God. Then growing like God in divine qualities, he is made a God, and so becomes the Son of God. And this, if the

"Necenim orani tempore quo Christus Filius Dei fuit, Deus etiam fuit. Filiuni enim Dei esse, ad nativitatem etiam referri, et ob ortum ipsura aliqucm Dei Filium appellari posse nemo non intelligit. AtDeum (prseter unura ilium Deum) nemo esse potest, nisi proptersimilitudinem cum Deo. Itaquetunc cum Christus Deo similisfac-tus esset per divinas quaj in ipso erantquaiitates, suramo jure eatenus Dei Filius, qua deus, et vicissim eatenus Deus, qua Dei Filius: at ante obtentam illani cum deo similitudinem Deus proprie dici non potuit. Smal. Respon. ad Smiglec. cap. 17. p. 1,54.

man may be believed, is the pure doctrine of the Scripture. And if Christ be a God because he is like God, by the same reason we are all gods in ISIr. B.'s conceit, being all made in the image and likeness of God, which, says he, by sin we have not lost.

But what kind of Sonship is added to Christ by all these excellencies, whereby he is made like to God ? The same author tells us, that it is a Sonship by adoption, and that Christ on these accounts was the adopted Son of God. ' If,'" saith he, * what is the signification of this word adoptivus may be considered from the Scripture, we deny not but that Christ in this manner may be called the adopted Son of God ; seeing that such is the property and condition of an adopted son that he is not born such as he is afterward made by adoption ; certainly seeing that Christ was not such by nature, or in his conception and nativity as he was afterward in his succeeding age, he may justly on that account be called the adopted Son of God.' Such miserable plunges doth Satan drive men into, whose ' eyes he hath once blinded, that the glorious light of the gospel should not shine into them.' And by this we may understand whatever they add farther concerning the Sonship of Christ; that all belongs to this adoptive Sonship, whereof there is not one tittle in the whole book of God.

The reasons they commonly add, why in this sense Christ is called the Son of God, are the same which they give, why he is called God. 'Heo is the only begotten Son of God (say the authors of the Compendium of the religion before-mentioned), because God sanctified him, and sent him into the world, and because of his exaltation at the right hand of God, whereby he was made our Lord and God.'

If the reader" desire to hear them speak in their own words, let him consult Smalcius, *de vera Divinit. Jes. Christ.' cap. 7. &c. 'Socin. Disput. cum Erasmo Johan. Rationum qua-

" Si qu£C sitvocabuli adoptivus significatio ex mente sacrarum literarurn conside-rcUir, nos non inficiari Christum suo modo esse adoptivuin Dei Filium. Quia enini adoptivi Filii ea est conditio et proprietas, ut talis non sit natus qualis factus est post adoplionem; certe quia Ciiristus talis natura, vcl in ipsa conceptione et nativitate non fuit, qualis postea fuit, Ktate accedente, sine injuria adoptivus Dei FiJiuseo mode dici potest. Snialci. ad Smiglec. cap. 20. j). 17;").

" Filium Dei unigenituin esse decent, tuui propter sanctificationem, ac missioneni in nmiuiuui, turn cxaltationein ad dei dextrani; adeo ut factum Dtnuinum et Deuiu nostrum aflirniant. Conipendi. Rclig. cap. 1. p. 2.

tuor antecedent. Refut. Disput. de Christinatura;' pp. 14,15. Adversus Weickum pp. 224. 245. et passim. Volkel. de vera Religi. lib. 5. cap. 10—12. Jonas Schlicht. ad Meisner. pp. 192, 193. &c. Especially the same person, fully and distinctly opening and declaring the minds of his companions, and the several accounts on which they affirm Christ to be, and to have been called the Son of God, in his Comment on the Epistle to the Hebrews, pp. 16—20. as also his Notes upon Vechnerus's Sermon on John i. p. 14. &c. 'Anonym. Res-pon. ad centum argumenta Cichorii Jesuita?' pp. 8—10. ' Con-fessio Fidei Christianee, edita nomine Ecclesiarum in Polo-nia. pp. 24, 25.

Their good friend Episcopius hath ordered all their causes of Christ's filiatiori under four heads.

' The Pfirst way,' saith he, 'whereby Christ is in the Scriptures (car l^oyjiv called the Son of God, is in that as man he was conceived of the Holy Ghost and born of a virgin. And I doubt not,' saith he, 'but that God is on this ground called eminently the Father of our Lord Christ.

' 2. Jesus Christ by reason of that duty or office which was imposed on him by his Father, that he should be the King of Israel promised by the prophet, is called the Son of God.

' 3. Because he was raised up by the Father to an immortal life, and as it were born again from the womb of the earth, without the help of any mother.

' 4. Because being so raised from death, he is made complete heir of his Father's house, and Lord of all his heavenly goods, saints, and angels.' The like he had written before in his Apology for the Remonstrants; cap. 2. sect. 2.

Thus he, evidently and plainly from the persons before-named. But yet after all this, he asks another question, whether all this being granted, there do not yet moreover z'e-main a more eminent and peculiar reason, why Christ is

P Primus modus est, quia quatcnus homo ex SpiriUi Dei Sancto conceptus est, et ex Virgine natus est: nee dubium mihi est, quin ob hunc modum, Deus etiam xar' l^o^r,v vocetur Pater domini nostri Jesu Christ). Secundus modus est, quia Jesus Christus ratione muneris illius, quod a Patre special! mandato impositum ei fuit, ut Rex Israelis esset, promissus ille per prophetas, et prjevisus ante secula Filius Dei vocatur. Tertius modus est, quia a Patre ex raortuis in vitam immortalem suscitalus, et veluti ex utero terrae, nullo mediante raatre, denuo geiiitus est. Quartus modus est, quia Jesus Cliristus ex raorte suscitatus, hteres extasse constitutus est in domo Patris sui, ac proinde bonorum omnium Cfelestium, et Patris sui ministrorum omnium sive angelorum Domiiius. Episcop. Institu. Theolog. lib. 4. cap. 33. sect. 2. p. 195.

called the Son of God. He''answers himself: There is; namely, his eternal generation of the Father ; his being God of God, from all eternity, which he pursues with sundry arguments ; and yet in the close disputes, that the acknowledgment of this truth is not fundamental, or the denial of it exclusive of salvation. So this great reconciler of the Ar-minian and Socinian religions, whose composition and unity into an opposition to them whom he calls Calvinists, is the great design of his theological institutions, and such at this day is the aim of Curcellaeus, and some others. By the way I shall desire (before I answer what he offers to confirm his assignation of this fourfold manner of filiation to Jesus Christ), to ask this learned gentleman (or those of his mind who do survive him) this one question; Seeing that Jesus Christ was from eternity the Son of God, and is called so after his incarnation, and was on that account in his whole person the Son of God, by their own confessions, what title he or they can find in the Scripture of a manifold filiation of Jesus Christ, in respect of God his Father ? or whether it be not a diminution of his glory, to be called the Son of God upon any lower account, as by a new addition to him, who was eternally his only begotten Son, by virtue of his eternal generation of his own substance ?

Having thus discovered the mind of them with whom we have to do, and from whom our catechist hath borrowed his discoveries, I shall briefly do these two things :

1. Shew that the filiation of Christ consists in his gene-ration of the substance of his Father from eternity ; or that he is the Son of God upon the account of his divine nature and subsistence therein, antecedent to his incarnation.

2. That it consists solely therein, and that he was not, nor was called the Son of God upon any other account, but that mentioned ; and therein answer what by Mr. B. or others is objected to the contrary.

3. To which I shall add testimonies and arguments for the Deity of Christ, whose opposition is the main business of that new religion, which Mr. Biddle would catechise poor unstable souls into, in the vindication of those excepted against by the Racovians.

For the demonstration of the first assertion, I shall insist

1 Insti. Tlieol. lib. 4. sect, 2. c. 33. p. 335.

on some few of the testimonies and arguments, that might be produced for the same purpose.

1. He who is the true, proper, only begotten Son of God, of the livino- God, he is beootten of the essence of God his Father, and is his Son by virtue of that generation. But Jesus Christ was thus the only, true, proper, only begotten Son of God ; and, therefore, is the Son of God upon the account before-mentioned. That Jesus Christ is the Son of God in the manner expressed, the Scripture abundantly tes-tifieth: ' Lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased ;' Matt. iii. 17. ' Thou art Christ the Son of the living God ;' Matt. xvi. 16. John vi. 69.

Which place in Matthew is the rather remarkable, because it is the confession of the faith of the apostles, given in answer to that question, * Whom say ye that I the Son of man am?' They answer, 'the Son of the living God.' And this in opposition to them who said he was a prophet, or as one of the prophets, as Mark expresses it, chap. vi. 15. that is, only so. And the whole confession manifests, that they did in it acknowledge both his office of being the Mediator, and his divine nature, or person also. 'Thou art the Christ;' those words comprise all the causes of filiation, insisted on by them with whom we have to do, and the whole office of the mediation of Christ; but yet hereunto they add,' the Son of the living God:' expressing his divine nature and Sonship on that account.

And we know that the ' Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true ; and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ, this is the true God, and eternal life ;' 1 John v. 20. * He spared not his own Son ;' Rom. viii. 32. ' And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt amongst us, and we saw his glory, the glory as of the only begotten Son of God ;' John i. 14. ' No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father he hath revealed him ; ver. 18. Said also, ' That God was his Father making himself equal with God ;' 1 John v. 18. ' So God loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son ;' John iii. 16. ' In this was manifest the love of God, that he sent his only beo-otten Son into the world ;' 1 John iv. 9. ' Thou art my Son this

day have I begotten thee ;' Psal. ii. 7. &,c. All which places will be afterward vindicated at large.

To prove the inference laid down, I shall fix on one or two of these instances.

1. He who is 'Idiogvlbg, the 'proper Son' of any, is begotten of the substance of his Father: Christ is the proper Son of God, and God he called often 'iSiov Traripa his ' proper Father.' He is properly a Father who begets another of his substance, and he is properly a Son, who is so begotten.

Grotius"^ confesseth there is an emphasis in the word I'Stoc, whereby Christ is distinguished from that kind of Sonship, which the Jews laid claim unto. Now the sonship they laid claim unto, and enjoyed so many of them, as were truly so, was by adoption. For' to them pertained the adoption;' Rom. ix. 4. wherein this emphasis then, and specially of Christ's Sonship should consist, but in what we assert of his natural Sonship, cannot be made to appear. Grotius says it is, because the ' Son of God was a name of the Messiah.' True, but on what account ? Not that common of adoption, but this of nature, as shall afterward appear.

Again, He who is properly a Son, is distinguished from him who is metaphorically so only. For any thing whatever is metaphorically said to be, what it is said to be, by a translation, and likeness to that which is true. Now if Christ be not begotten of the essence of his Father, he is only a metaphorical Son of God, by way of allusion, and cannot be called the proper Son of God, being only one who hath but a similitude to a proper Son. So that it is a plain contradiction, that Christ should be the proper Son of God, and yet not be begotten of his Father's essence. Besides, in that eighth of the Romans, the apostle had before mentioned other sons of God, who became so by adoption; ver. 1.5, 16. but when he comes to speak of Christ, in opposition to them, he calls him God's own, or proper Son; that is, his natural Son, they being so only by adoption. And in the very words themselves, the distance that is given him by way of eminence above all other things, doth sufficiently evince in what sense he is called the proper Son of God. ' He that spared not his own Son, how shall he not with him give us all things V

<■ Grot. Annot. Job. v. 18.

2. The only begotten Son of God, is his natural Son, begotten of his essence, and there is no other reason of this appellation. And this is farther clear from the antithesis, of this only begotten, to adopted. They are adopted sons who are received to be such by grace and favour. He is only begotten, who alone is begotten of the substance of his father. Neither can any other reason be assigned, why Christ should so constantly, in way of distinction from all others, be called the ' only begotten Son of God.' It were even ridiculous to say that Christ were the only begotten Son of God, and his proper Son, if he were his Son only metaphorically and improperly. That Christ is the proper, only begotten Son of God improperly and metaphorically, is that which is asserted to evade these testimonies of Scripture. Add hereunto, the emphatical discriminating significancy of that voice from heaven, " this is he, that well-beloved Son of mine ;* and that testimony which in the same manner Peter gave to this Sonship of Christ in his confession, ' thou art the Son of the living God ;' and the ground of Christ's filiation will be yet more evident. Why the Son of the living God, unless as begotten of God, as the living God, as living things beget of their own substance'.' but of that place before. Christ then being the true, proper, beloved, only begotten Son of the living God, is his natural Son, of his own substance and essence.

The same truth may have farther evidence given unto it, from the consideration of what kind of Son of God Jesus Christ is. He who is such a Son as is equal to his Father in essence and properties ; he is a Son begotten of the essence of his Father. Nothing can give such an equality, but a communication of essence ; then, with God equality of essence, can alone give equality of dignity and honour. For between that dignity, power, and honour, which belongs to God, as God, and that dignity or honour, that is, or may be, given to any other, there is no proportion, much less equality, as shall be evidenced at large afterward. And this is the sole reason why a son is equal to his father in essence and properties, because he hath from him a communication of the same essence, whereof he is partaker. Now that Christ is such a Son as hath been mentioned, the Scripture abundantly testifies. ' My Father,' saith Christ,

VOL. VIII, s

'worketh hitherto, and I work. Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, not only because he had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himselfequal withGod;'John V.17. 18. ver. 17. having called God his Father, in the particular manner before-mentioned, and afhrmed to himself an equal nature and power for operation with his Father; the Jews thence infer that he testified of himself, that he was such a Son of God, as that he was equal with God.

The full opening of this place at large is not my present business. The learned readers know where to find that done to their hand. The intendment of those words is plain and evident. Grotius* expounds lo-ov tavrbv n^ ^em ; by, ' it was lawful for him to do what was so to God, and that he was no more bound to the sabbath than he; which,' saith he, 'was a gross calumny.' So ver. 19.* those words of our Saviour ; *The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he sees the Father do' (wherein the emphasis lies evidently in the words a(p' kavTov, for the Son can do nothing of himself, but what the Father doth, seeing he hath his essence, and so consequently will and power communicated to him by the Father) he renders to be an allusion to, and comparison between, a master and scholar : as the scholar looks diligently to what his master doth, and strives to imitate him; so was it with Christ and God ; which exposition was the very same with that which the Arians assigned to this place as Maldonat upon the place makes appear. That it is not an equal licence with the Father, to work on the sabbath, but an equality of essence, nature, and power, between Father and Son, that the Jews concluded from the saying of Christ, is evident from this consideration ; that there was no strength in tliat plea of our Saviour, of working on the sabbath day, because his Father did so, without the violation of the sabbath, unless there had been an equality between the persons working. That the Jews did herein calumniate Christ, or accused him falsely, the Tritheits said, indeed, as "Zanchius testifies ; and Socinus is of the same mind, whose

' Sibi licere prsedicans quicquid Deo licot; ncque magis sabbato adstringi. crassa calumiiia. Grot. Annot. John, v. 18.

' Comparatio est sumpla a discipulo sibi qui magistruiu pra'eiinlem diligenter intuetuT, ut iniitari posset.

" Zanchius dc Tribus Eloliiiu. lib. 5. cap. 4. p. 1.51.

interests Grotius chiefly serves in his annotations. But the whole context and carriage of the business, with the whole reply of our Saviour, do abundantly manifest, that the Jews, as to their collection, were in the right, that he made himself such a Son of God as was equal to him.

For if in this conclusion they had been mistaken, and so had calumniated Christ; there be two grand causes, why he should have delivered them from that mistake, by expounding to them what manner of Son of- God he was. First,'' because of the just scandal they might take at what he had spoken, apprehending that to be the sense of his words, which they professed. Secondly, because on that account they sought to slay him, which if they had done, he should by his death have borne witness to that which was not true. They sought to kill him, because he made himself such a Son of God, as by that Sonship he was equal to God; which if it were not so, there was a necessity incumbent on him, to have cleared himself of that aspersion : which yet he is so far from, as that in the following verses, he farther confirms the same thing.

So he * thought it not robbery to be equal with God;' Phil. ii. 6. It is of God the Father that this is spoken, as the Father ; as it appears in the winding up of that discourse, ver. 11. 'That every tongue shall confess, that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.' And to him is Christ equal, and therefore begotten of his own essence.

Yea he is such a Son as is one with his Father: * 1 and my Father are one;' John x. 30. which the Jews again instantly interpret without the least reproof from him, that he being man, did yet aver himself to be God; ver. 33.

This place also is attempted to be taken out of our hands by^ Grotius, though with no better success than the former. 'E-yw Koi 6 Trarrip ev laiilv. ' He joineth what he had spoken, with what went before :' saith he, * If they cannot be taken from my Father's power, they cannot be taken from mine ;

^ Notemus igilur Christum Judseos tauquara in werboruni suorum intelligentia hallucinatos niinime reprehendeuteni se naturalem Dei Filiara clare professum esse. Deinde, quod isto niodo colligunt Christum se Deo squalem facere recte fecerunt; nee ideo a Christo refelluntur, aut vituperantur ab evangelista, qui in re tanta nos errare non fuit passus. Cartwrightus Har. Evan, in Loc.

y Connectit quod dixerat cum superioribus. Si Patris potcstati eripi non poterunt, nee meai poterunt. Nam potestas meaa Patre emanat, et quidem ita, ut tantundem vaieat a me aut a patre custodiri. vid. Gen. xli. 25. 27.

s2

for I have my power of my Father, so that it is all one to be kept of me, as of my Father :' which he intends, as I suppose, to illustrate by the example of the power that Joseph had under Pharoah, Gen xli. though the verse he intend be false printed. But that it is an unity of essence and nature, as well as an alike prevalency of power that our Saviour intends, not only for that apprehension which the Jews had concerning the sense of those words, who immediately took up stones to kill him for blasphemy, from which apprehension he doth not at all labour to free them ; but also from the exposition of his mind in these words, which is given us in our Saviour's following discourse. For ver. 16. he tells us, this is as much as if he had said, * I am the Son of God.' Now the unity between Father and Son, is in essence and nature principally ; and then that he * doeth the works of the Father,' the same works that his Father doeth ; ver. 37, 38. which, were he not of the same nature with him he could not do: which he closes with this, * that the Father is in him, and he in the Father,' ver. 38. of which words before and afterward.

He then (that we may proceed) who is so the Son of God, as that he is one with God, and therefore God, is the natural and eternal Son of God ; but that such a Son is Jesus Christ, is thus plentifully testified unto in the Scripture. But because I shall insist on sundry other places to prove the Deity of Christ, which also all confirm the truth under demonstration, I shall here pass them by. The evidences of this truth from Scripture do so abound, that I shall but only mention some other heads of arguments, that may be, and are commonly insisted on to this purpose. Then,

3. He who is the Son of God, begotten of his Father, by an eternal communication of his divine essence, he is the Son begotten of the essence of the Father. For these terms are the same, and of the same importance. But this is the description of Christ as to his Sonship, which the Holy Ghost gives us. Begotten he was of the Father according to his own testimony; 'Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee;' Psal. ii. 7. And he is * the only begotten Son of God;' John i. 14. And that he is so begotten by a communication of essence, we have his own testimony ; * When there were no hiUs I was brought forth;' Prov. viii. 28. He

was begotten and brought forth from eternity. And how he tells you farther, John v. 26. ' The Father hath given unto the Son to have life in himself.' It was by the Father's communication of life unto him, and his living essence or substance ; for the life that is in God, differs not from his being: and all this from eternity. ' The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. When there were no depths, 1 was brought forth : when there were no fountains abounding with water: before the mountains were settled ; before the hills was I brought forth, &c. Prov. viii. 22, &c. to the end of ver. 32. ' And thou, Bethlehem-Ephratah,—out of thee shall come forth unto me, he that is to be ruler in Israel: whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting;' Mich. v. 2.

* In the beginning was the Word ;' John i. 1. * And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self, with the glory which I had with thee before the world was ;' John xvii. 5.

* And again, when he bringeth in the first begotten into the world, he saith,' &c. Heb. i. 5, &c.

4. The farther description which we have given us of this Son, makes it yet more evident. * He is the brightness of his Father's glory, and the express image of his person ;' Heb. i. 3. ' The image of the invisible God ;' Col. i 15. That Christ is the essential image of his Father, and not an accidental image ; an image so as no creature is, or can be admitted into copartnership with him therein, shall be on another occasion in this treatise fully demonstrated. And thither the vindication of those texts from the gloss of Grotius is also remitted.

And this may suffice (without insisting upon what more mifht be added) for the demonstration of the first assertion; that Christ's filiation ariseth from his eternal generation; or he is the Son of God, upon the account of his being begotten of the essence of his Father from eternity.

2. That he is, and is termed the Son of God, solely on this account, and not upon the reasons mentioned by Mr. B. and explained from his companions, is with equal clearness evinced : nay, I see not how any thing may seem necessary for this purpose to be added to what hath been spoken; but for the farther satisfaction of them who oppose themselves.

the ensuing considerations, through the grace and patience of God, may be of use.

1. If for the reasons and causes above insisted on from the Socinians, Christ be the Son of God, then Christ is the Son of God * according to the flesh,' or according to bis human nature. So he must needs be, if God be called his Father, because he supplied the room of a Father in his conception. But this is directly contrary to the Scripture: calling him the Son of God in respect of his divine nature, in opposition to the flesh, or his human nature, * Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh, and declared to be the Son of God with power;' Rom. i. 2, 3. ' Of whom, as concernhig the flesh, Christ came, who is over all God blessed for ever;' Kom. ix. 5. The same distinction and opposition is observed, 2 Cor. xiii. 4. 1 Pet. iii. 18. If Jesus Christ according to the flesh be the Son of David, in contradistinction to the Son of God, then doubtless he is not called the Son of God according to the flesh : but this is the plain assertion of the Scripture in the places before-named. Besides, on the same reason that Christ is the Son of man, on the same he is not the Son of God. But Christ was, and was called the Son of man, upon the account of his conception of the substance of his mother, and particularly the Son of David; and so is not on that account the Son of God.

Farther, that place of Rom. i. 3, 4. passing not without some exceptions, as to the sense insisted on, may be farther cleared and vindicated. Jesus Christ is called the Son of God, ver. 1.3.' The gospel of God, concerning his Son Jesus Christ.' This Son is farther described, 1. By his' human nature, he was made of the seed of David according to the flesh.' 2. In respect of his person or divine nature, wherein he was the Son of God ; and that Iv dvvufxei, in powe ror ' existing in the power of God ;' for so dvvafiig put absolutely doth often signify; as Rom. i. 20. Matt. vi. 13. xxvi. 64. Luke iv. 36. He had, or was, in the omnipotency of God; and was this declared to be, not in respect of the flesh, in which he was made of a woman, but, Kara irvtvfia uyiwavvng (which is opposed to Kara aaQKu), 'according to,' or 'in respect of his divine Holy Spirit;' as is also the intendment of that word the * Spirit,' in the places above-mentioned. Neither is

it new, that the Deity of Christ should be called Trvwfxa ayi-tjj(Tvin]g. Himself is called, CD'li>lp ti'lp ; Dan. ix. 24. sancti-tas sanctitatum; as here spiritus sanctitatis. And all this, saith the apostle, was declared so to be, or Christ was declared to be thus the Son of God, in respect of his divine, holy, spiritual being, which is opposed to the flesh, €^ avaaracTewg vnKpiov,' by the (or his) resurrection from the dead,' whereby an eminent testimony was given unto his Deity: 'He was declared to be the Son of God' thereby, according to the sense insisted on.

To weaken this interpretation, Grotius moves, as they say, every stone, and heaves at every word; but in vain. (1.) 'OjOt(r^£VToc, he tells is as much as irpoopia^ivrog-^ as by the Vulgar Latin it is translated, pradestinatus. So he pleads it was interpreted by many of the ancients. The places he quotes were most of them collected by Beza, in his annotations on the place, who yet rejects their judgment therein, and cites others to the contrary. Luke xxii. 22. Acts x. 42. xvii. 31. are also urged by him to evince this sense of the word : in each of which places it may be rendered' declared,' or ' to declare;' and in neither of them ought to be by''predestinated.' Though the word may sometimes signify so (which is not proved), yet that it here doth so will not follow : oqoq, a definition (from whence that word comes) declares what a thing is, makes it known. And opiZoi, may best be rendered to * declare ;' Heb. iv. 7. So in this place: ti ovv Icttiv bpia-^ivTOQ Tov 3'EOu ; ^si-)(6ivTog, airo(pav^ivTog' says Chrysostom on the place. And so doth the subject matter require. The apostle treating of the way whereby Christ was manifested eminently to be the Son of God.

But the most learned man's exposition of this place is idmirable. 'Jesus,' ^saith he, 'is many ways said to be the Son of God.' (This is begged in the beginning, because it

y Jesus Filius Dei multis modis dicitur. Maxinie populariter, ideo quod in reg-nuni a Deo evectus est; quo sensu verba Psalmi secundi, de Davide dicta, cum ad regnuni pervenit, Christo aptantur. Acts xiii. 33. et ad HfEbreos i. 5. Hac autera Filii, sive regnia dignitas Jesu pra^destiriabatur et prtefigurabatur tuiu cum niortaleni agens vitam magna ilia sigua et prodigia ederet, qua Suvifjunv voce denotantur, sspe etsingulariter iuvafxeni;, ut Mark vi.5. ix. 39. Luke iv. 36, v. 17. vi. 19. viii. 46. ix. 1. Acts xiii. 12. HiEC signa edebat Jesus, per spiritum ilium sanctitatis, id est, vim di-vinam, per quam ab initio conceptioiiis sanctificatus fuerat; Luke i. 3.5. Mark ii. 8. John ix. 36. Ostenditur ergo Jesus nobilis ex materna parte, utpote ex rege ter-reno ortus; sed nobilior ex paterna parte, quippe a Deo factus Rex ceelestis post re-surrectionem. Grot. Anuot, in Rom. i. 3, 4.

will not be proved in the end. If this be granted it matters not much ^vhat follows.) ' But, most commonly, or most in a popular way, because he was raised unto a kingdom by God.' (Not once in the whole book of God. Let him, or any one for him, prove this by any one clear testimony from Scripture, and take his whole interpretation. The Son of God, as Mediator, was exalted to a kingdom, and made a Prince and Saviour. But that, by that exaltation, he was made the Son of God, or was so on that account, is yet to be proved : yea, it is most false.) He goes on : * In that sense the words of the second Psalm were spoken of David, because he was exalted to a kingdom, which are applied to Christ;' Acts xiii. 33. Heb. i. 5. (But it is not proved that these words do at all belong to David, so much as in the type; nor any of the words from ver. 7. to the end of the Psalm. If they are so to be accommodated, they belong to the manifestation, not constitution of him : and so they are applied to our Saviour when they relate to his resurrection, as one who was thereby manifested to be the Son of God, according as God had spoken of him.) But now how was Christ predestinated to this Sonship ? * This kingly dignity or the dignity of a Son, of Jesus, was predestinated and prefigured, when leading a mortal life, he wrought signs and wonders, which is the sense of the words/ Iv dvvafxei' The first sense of the word bpia^ivrog, is here insensibly slipped from. Predestinated and prefigured are ill conjoined, as words of a neighbouring significancy. To predestinate is constantly ascribed to Qod, as an act of his fore-appointing things to their end : neither can this learned man give one instance from the Scripture of any other signification of the word. And how comes now opia^ivrog to be prefigured? Is there the least colour for such a sense? ' Predestinated to be the Son of God with power:' that is,

* The sign he wrought prefigured that he should be exalted to a kingdom.' He was by them in a good towardliness for it. It is true, ^vvafiug and sometimes ^vvaf^lg, being in construction with some transitive verb, do signify great or marvellous works : but that Iv dwcLfjiEi, spoken of one declared to be so, hath the same signification, is not proved. He adds,

* These signs Jesus did by the Spirit of holiness'; that is, that divine efficacy wherewith he was sanctified from the begin-

iiing of his conception ;' Luke i. 35. Mark ii. 8. John ix. 36. In the two latter places there is not one word to the purpose in hand; perhaps he intended some other, and these are false printed. The first shall be afterward considered. How it belongs to what is here asserted, I understand not. That Christ wrought miracles by the ' efficacy of the grace of the Spirit/ with which he was sanctified is ridiculous. If by the Spirit is understood his 'spiritual divine nature;' this whole interpretation falls to the ground. To make out the sense of the words he proceeds; 'Jesus therefore is shewed to be noble on the mother's side, as coming of an earthly King, but more noble on his Father's part; being made a heavenly King of God after his resurrection;' Heb. v. 9. Acts ii. 30. xxvi. 23. And thus is this most evident testimony of the Deity of Christ eluded, or endeavoured to be so. Christ on the mother's side was the Son of David; that is, according to the flesh, of the same nature with her and him. On the Father's side, he was the Son of God, of the same nature with him. That God was his Father, and he the Son of God, because after his resurrection he was made a heavenly King, is a hellish figment; neither is there any one word or tittle in the texts cited to prove it: that it is a marvel to what end they are mentioned, one of them expressly affirming that he was the Son of God before his resurrection; Heb. v. 8, 9.

2. He who was actually the Son of God, before his conception, nativity, endowment with power or exaltation, is not the Son of God on those accounts, but on that only, which is antecedent to them. Now by virtue of all the arguments and testimonies before recited, as also of all those that shall be produced for the proof and evincing of the eternal Deity of the Son of God, the proposition is unmoveably established, and the inference evidently follows thereupon.

But yet the proposition as laid down may admit of farther confirmation at present. It is then testified to, Prov. XXX. 4. ' What is his name, and what is his Son's name, if thou canst tell?' He was therefore the Son of God, and he was ^incomprehensible, even then before his incarnation. Psal. ii. 7. ' Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.' Isa. ix. 6. 'Unto us a Son is born, unto us a child is 2:iven, and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful, the mighty God, the ever-

lasting Father, the Prince of peace.' He is a Son, as he is the everlasting Father. And to this head of testimonies belongs what we urged before from Prov. viii. 24. 8vc. ' He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of every creature;' Col. i. 15. which surely as to his incarnation he was not. ' Before Abraham was, I am;' John viii.58. Butof these places in the following chapter I shall speak at large.

3. Christ was so the Son of God, tliathe that was made like him was to be without father, mother, or genealogy; Heb. vii. 3. 'Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life, but made like the Son of God.' But now Christ in respect of his conception and nativity, had a mother, and one, they say, that supplied the room of father, had a genealogy that is upon record, and beginning of life. Sec. So that upon these accounts he was not the Son of God, but on that wherein he had none of all these things, in the want whereof, Melchisedec was made like to him. I shall only add,

4. That which only manifests the filiation of Christ, is not the cause of it. The cause of a thing is that which gives it its being. The manifestation of it is only that which declares it to be so. That all things insisted on, as the causes of Christ's filiation, by them with whom we have to do, did only declare and manifest him so to be who was the Son of God, the Scripture witnesseth. 'The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of ihe Highest shall overshadow thee; therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God;' Luke i. 35. He shall be called so, thereby declared to be so. * And great was the mystery of godliness, God was manifested in the flesh, justified in the spirit, seen of angels, preached unto theGentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory;' 1 Tim. iii. 16. All the causes of Christ's filiation assigned by our adversaries, are evidently placed as manifestations of God in him ; or his being the Son of God. ' Declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead ;' Rom. i. 3. The absurdity of assigning distinct, and so far different causes of the same effect of filiation, whether you make them total or partial, need not be insisted on.

Farther (to add one consideration more), says Sociuus,

Christ was the Son of God, upon the account of his holiness and righteousness, and therein his likeness to God. Now this he had not according to his principles in his infancy. He proves Adam not to have been righteous in the state of innocency, because he had yielded actual obedience to no law. No more had Christ done in his infancy. Therefore, (1.) He was not the Son of God upon the account of his nativity. Nor (2.) did he become the Son of God any otherwise than we do; viz. by hearing the word, learning the mind, and doing the will of God. (3.) God did not give his only begotten Son for us, but gave the son of Mary, that he might (by all that which we supposed he had done for us) be made the Son of God. And so (4.) this sending of Christ doth not so much commend the love of God to us, as to him, that he sent him to die and rise, that he might be made God and the Son of God. Neither (5.) can any ex-imious love to us of Christ be seen in what he did and suffered ; for had he not done and suffered what he did, he had not been the Son of God. And also (6.) if Christ be on the account of his excellencies, graces, and gifts, the Son of God, which is one way of his filiation insisted on ; and to be God, and the Son of God, is as they say all one ; and as it is, indeed ; then all who are renewed to the image of God, and are thereby the sons of God (as are all believers) are gods also.

And this that hath been spoken may suffice for the confirmation of the second assertion, laid down at the entrance of this discourse.

To the farther confirmation of this assertion, two things are to be annexed. First, The eversion of that fancy of Episcopius, before-mentioned, and the rest of the Socinian-izing Arminians, that Christ is called the Son of God, both on the account of his eternal Sonship, and also of those other particulars mentioned from him above. Secondly, To consider the texts of Scripture produced by Mr. B. for the confirmation of his insinuation, that Christ is not called the Son of God because of his eternal generation of the essence of his Father. The first may easily be evinced by the ensuing arguments.

1. The question formerly proposed to Episcopius may be renewed ; for if Christ be the Son of God, partly upon

the account of his eternal generation, and so he is God's proper and natural Son ; and partly upon the other accounts mentioned ; then,

1. He is partly God's natural Son, and partly his adopted Son ; partly his eternal Son, partly a temporary Son; partly a begotten Son, partly a made Son. Of which distinction in reference to Christ, there is not one iota in the whole book of God.

2. He is made the Son of God by that which only manifests him to be the Son of God, as the things mentioned do.

3. Christ is equivocally only, and not univocally called the Son of God ; for that which hath various and diverse causes of its being so, is so equivocally. If the filiation of Christ hath such equivocal causes, as eternal generation, actual incarnation, and exaltation, he hath an equivocal filiation ; which, whether it be consistent with the Scripture, which calls him the proper Son of God, needs no great pains to determine.

2. The Scripture never conjoins these causes of Christ's filiation, as causes in, and of the same kind; but expressly makes the one the sole cause constituting, and the rest, causes manifesting only ; as hath been declared. And to shut up this discourse, if Christ be the Son of man only, because he was conceived of the substance of his mother, he is the Son of God only, upon the account of his being begotten of the substance of his Father.

Secondly, There remaineth only the consideration of those texts of Scripture, which Mr. Biddle produceth to insinuate the filiation of Christ to depend on other causes, and not his eternal generation of the essence of his Father, which on the principles laid down and proved, will receive a quick and speedy despatch.

l.The first place named by him, and universally insisted on by the whole tribe, is Luke i. 30—35. It is the last verse only that I suppose weight is laid upon. Though Mr. B. name the others, his masters never do so. That of ver. 33. [31,32.] seems to deserve our notice in Mr. Biddle's judgment, who changes the character of the words of it, for their signifi-cancy to his purpose. The words are, ' Thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his

name Jesus ; he shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest.' What Mr. B. supposes may be proved from hence, at least how he would prove what he aims at, I know not. That Jesus Christ, who was born of the Virgin, was the Son of the Highest, we contend. On what account he was so, the place mentioneth not; but the reason of it is plentifully manifested in other places, as hath been declared.

The words of ver. 35. are more generally managed by them. 'The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee ; therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God.' But neither do these particles, ^lo Kctl, render a reason of Christ's filiation, nor are a note of the consequent, but only of an inference or consequence, that ensues from what he spake before. It being so as I have spoken, * even that holy thing that shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.' There is weight also in that expression; ayiov to ysvvoiinsvov: that' holy thing that shall be born of thee,'a'y{ov is not spoken in the concrete, or as an adjective, but substantively, and points out the natural essence of Christ, whence he was that holy thing. Besides, if this be the cause of Christ's filiation which is assigned, it mustbe demonstrated that Christ was on that account called the Son of God; for so hath it been said, that he should be: but there is not any thing in the New Testament to give light, that ever Christ was on this account called the Son of God, nor can the adversaries produce any such instance.

2. It is evident that the angel in these words acquaints the blessed Virgin, that in, and by her conception, the prophecy of Isaiah should be accomplished, which you have chap. vii. 14. ' Behold a Virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel,' as the express words of ver. 31. in Luke declare; being the same with these of the prophecy, ' Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call, &.c. ver. 31, 32. And Matt. i. 21. this very thing being related, it is said expressly to be done according to what was foretold by the prophet, ver. 33. repeating the very words of the Holy Ghost by Isaiah, which are mentioned before. Now Isaiah fore-

telleth two things. 1. That a Virgin should conceive. 2. That he that was so conceived should be Immanuel, God with us : or the Son of God, as Luke here expresses it. And this is that which the angel here acquaints the blessed Virgin withal upon her inquiry, ver. 34. even that according to the prediction of Isaiah, she should conceive and bear a son, thouo-h a virgin, and that that Son of her's should be called the Son of God.

By the way, Grotius's dealing with this text, both in his annotations on Isa. vii. as also his large discourse on Matt. i. 21—23. is intolerable, and full of offence, to all that seriously weigh it. It is too large here to be insisted on. His main design is to prove, that this is not spoken directly of Christ, but only applied to him by a certain general accommodation. God may give time and leisure farther to lay open the heap of abominations, which are couched in those learned annotations throughout. Which also appears,

3. From the emphaticalness of the expression Sto koX ' even also,' that * holy thing' which is born of thee, even that shall be called the Son of God ; and not only that eternal Word that is incarnate. That iiyiov to jevvu>i.ievov, being in itself avwTroararoi', shall be called the Son of God : shall be called so, that is, appear to be so, and be declared to be so with power. It is evident then, that the cause of Christ's filiation is not here insisted on, but the consequence of the Virgin's conception declared; that which was * born of her should be called the Son of God.'

And this Socinus is so sensible of, that he dares not say that Christ was completely the Son of God, upon his conception and nativity; which, if the cause of his filiation were here expressed, he must be. ' It == is manifest (saith he) that Christ before his resurrection was not fully and completely the Son of God : being not like God before in immortality and absolute rule.'

Mr. Biddle's next place, whereby the Sonship of Christ is placed on another account, as he supposes, is John x. 36. ' Say ye of him whom the Father hath sanctified and sent

^ Constat igitur (ut ad propositum revertainur), CLristuin ante resurrectioncni Di'i Filiuin plenc et perfecte non fuisse : cum ilii et inimortalitatis ct absoluti do-niinii cum deo siniilitndo dcesset. Socin. Respon. ad Wiekiira. p. 225.

into the world. Thou blasphemest; because I said, 1 am the Son of God?'

That this Scripture is called to remembrance not at all to Mr. B's advantage will speedily appear. For,

1. Here is not in the words the least mention whence, or for what cause it is, that Christ is the Son of God, but only that he is so ; he being expressed and spoken of, under that description which is used of him twenty times in that Gospel, 'he who is sent of the Father.' This is all that is in this place asserted, that he whom the Father ' sanctified and sent into the world,' counted it no robbery to be equal with him, nor did blaspheme in calling himself his Son.

2. It is evident that Christ in these words asserts himself to be such a Son of God, as the Jews charged him with blasphemy for affirming of himself that he was. For he justifies himself against their accusation ; not denying in the least, that they rightly apprehended and understood him, but maintaining what he had spoken to be most true. Now this was that which the Jews charged him withal, ver. 33. that he being * man, blasphemed in making himself God.' For so they understood him, that in asserting his Sonship, he asserted also his Deity. This Christ makes good, namely, that he is such a Son of God, as is God also. Yea, he makes good what he had said, ver. 30, Avhich was the foundation of all the following discourse about his blasphemy : ' I and my Father are one.' So that

3. An invincible argument for the Sonship of Christ, to be placed only upon the account of his eternal generation, ariseth from this very place that was produced to oppose it. He who is the Son of God, because he is * one with the Father,' and God equal to him, is the Son of God upon the account of his eternal relation to the Father: but that such was the condition of Jesus Christ, himself here bears witness to the Jews, although they are ready to stone him for it. And of his not blaspheming in this assertion, he convinces his adversaries by an argument a rriinoriy ver. 34, 35.

A brief analysis of this place will give evidence to this interpretation of the words. Our Saviour Christ havino-given the reason, why the Jews believed not on him, namely, because they ' were not of his sheep,' ver. 26. describes

thereupon both the nature of those sheep of his, ver. 27. and their condition of safety, ver. 28. This he farther confirms from the consideration of his Father's greatness and power, which is amplified by the comparison of it with others, who are all less than he ; ver. 29. as also from his own power and will, which appears to be sufficient for that end and purpose from his essential unity with his Father ; ver. 30. The effect of this discourse of Christ by accident, is the ' Jews taking up of stones,' which is amplified by this, that it was the second time they did so, and that to this purpose, that they might stone him ; ver. 31. Their folly and madness herein Christ disproves with an argument ah absurdo; telling them, that it must be for some good work that they stoned him, for evil had he done none; ver. 32. This the Jews attempt to disprove, by a new argument a disparatis, telling him that it was not for a good work, but for blasphemy, that he ' made himself to be God,' whom they would prove to be but a man ; ver. 33. This pretence of blasphemy Christ disproves, as I said before, by an argument a minori; ver. 35, 36. and with another from the efiects, or the works which lie did, which sufficiently proved him to be God; ver. 27. 38. still maintaining what he said and what they thought to be blasphemy, so that they attempt again to kill him; ver. 39. It is evident then, that he still maintained what they charged him with.

4. And this answers that expression which is so frequent in the Scripture, of ' God's sending his Son into the world,' and that he came ' down from heaven, and came into the world ;' John, iii. 13. Gal. iv. 4. All evincing his being the Son of God, antecedently to that mission or sanctification, whereby in the world he was declared so to be. Otherwise not the Son of God was sent, but one to be his Son.

Acts xiii. 32, 33. is also insisted on : * We declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers, God hath fulfilled the same unto us, their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second Psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.'

He that can see in this text, a cause assigned of the filiation of Christ that should relate to the resurrection, I confess is sharper sighted than I. This I know, that if

Christ were made the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead, he was not the Son of God who died, for that preceded this his making to be the Son of God. But that God * gave his only begotten Son to die,' that he spared not his only Son, but gave him up to death; I think is clear in Scripture, if any thing be so.

2. Paul seems to interpret this place to me, when he informs us, that' Christ was declared to be the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead;' Rom. i. 3. Not that he was made so, but he was declared, or made known to be so. When being ' crucified through weakness, he lived by the power of God;' 2 Cor. xiii. 4. which power also was his own ; John, x. 18,

According as was before intimated, ^Grotius interprets these words, * Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee : I have made thee a king; which (he says) was fulfilled in that, when all power was given him in heaven and earth ;' Matt, xxviii. 18. as Justin in his colloquy with Try-pho ; t6t£ yiviCTiv avrov Xiyiov yevicF^ai, I^otov t) yvUxng avTOv s/jLiXXe jEvia^ai. 1. But then he was not the Son of God before his resurrection: for he was the Son of God by his being begotten of him : which as it is false, so contrary to his own gloss on Luke, i. 35. 2. Christ was a king before his resurrection, and owned himself so to be, as hath been shewed. 3. Justin's words are suited to our exposition of this place : he was said to be then begotten, because then he was made known to be so the Son of God. 4. That these words are not applied to Christ in their first sense, in respect of resurrection, from the preeminence assigned unto him above angels by virtue of this expression, Heb. i. 5. which he had before his death ; Heb. i. 6. Nor, 5. Are the words here used to prove the resurrection, which is done in the verses following out of Isaiah, and another Psalm ; ' and as concerning that he raised him up from the dead,' &c. ver. 34. But then,

3. It is not an interpretation of the meaning of that passage in the Psalm, which Paul, Acts xiii. insists on ; but the proving that Christ was the Son of God, as in that Psalm he was called, by his resurrection from the dead ;

* Ego fill hodie te genui, id est regem te feci: hoc in Chrisfo impletum, cum ei data oiunis potestas in cceIo et in terra. Matt, xxviii. 18, &c. Grot, in locum.

VOL. VIII. T

which was the great manifesting cause of his Deity in the world.

What Mr. B. intends by the next place mentioned by him, I know not. It is. Rev. i. 5. ' And from Jesus Christ who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead.' That Christ was the first who was raised from the dead to a blessed and glorious immortality, and is thence called the first begotten of them, or from the dead, and that all that rise to such an immortality, rise after him, and by virtue of his resurrection, is most certain and granted; but that from thence he is that only begotten Son of God, though thereby he was only declared so to be, there is not the least tittle in the text giving occasion to such an apprehension.

And the same also is affirmed of the following place of Col. i. 18. where the same words are used again. He is the head of the church, who is the beginning, rrpioTOTOKog Ik tC)v viKpwv, 'the first-born of the dead.' Only I shall desire our catechist to look at his leisure, a little higher into the chapter, where he will find him called also Trpwroroicoe Traarjg KTiaeiog, the first-born of all the creation; so that he must surely be iTjOWToroKoc before his resurrection : nay he is so the first-born of every creature, as to be ''none of them : for by him they were all created, ver. 16. He who is so before all creatures, as to be none of them, but that they are all created by him, is God blessed for ever : which when our catechist disproves, he shall have me for one of his disciples.

Of the same kind is that which Mr. Biddle next urgeth from Heb. i. 4, 5. only it hath this farther disadvantage, that both the verses going immediately before, and that immediately following after, do inevitably evince, that the constitutive cause of the Sonship of Jesus Christ, a priori, is in his participation of the divine nature, and that it is only manifested by any ensuing consideration, ver. 2, 3. The Holy Ghost tells us, that ' by him God made the world, who is the brightness of his glory and the express image of his person;'

•" So that •oTpaJTOTeJtoj wno-nj XTiVEouf is, o rt^BiTi; w^o naffng XTiVsajf qui genitus est prior omni croatura, vel ante onineni creaturani, for so -ar^JTOf sonietinies signifies comparatively. Arist. Avibus. w^Ztov i^apitcu, id est TrpoTE^ov. .Tolm i. 1.5. 'm^SncQ fjtov nv (i. e.) TTfOTipoj, and 1 Jolin iv. 19. isrpSTo; hyaTrttcnv (i.e.) wpoTtpoj. His generation was before the creation, indeed eternal. Tertuilian saith so too. Lib. de Trinitate. Quomodo priinogenitus esse po(uit, nisi quia secundum divinitatcm ante omneni creaturam ex Deo Patre Sermo processit.

and this as the Son of God, antecedent to any exaltation as Mediator: and ver. 6. 'He brings in the first begotten into the world, and says, let all the angels of God worship him.' He is the first begotten before his bringing into the world ; and that this is proved by the latter clause of the verse, shall be afterward demonstrated. Between both these, much is not like to be spoken against the eternal Sonship of Christ. Nor is the apostle only declaring his pre-eminence above the angels, upon the account of that name of his, the Son of God, which he is called upon record, in the Old Testament; but the causes also of that appellation he had before declared.

The last place urged to this purpose is of the same import. It is Heb. V. 5. ' So Christ also glorified not himself, to be made a high-priest; but he that said unto him, thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.' When Mr. B. proves any thing more towards his purpose from this place, but only that Christ did not of his own accord undertake the oflice of a mediator, but was designed to it of God his Father, who said unto him, ' Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee,' declaring of him so to be, with power after his resurrection, I shall acknowledge him to have better skill in disputing, than as yet I am convinced he is possessed of.

And thus have I cleared the eternal Sonship of Jesus Christ, and evinced the vanity of attempting to fix his prerogative therein upon any other account: not doubting, but that all who love him in sincerity, will be zealous of his glory herein. For his growing up to be the Son of God by degrees, to be made a God in process of time, to be the adopted Son of God; to be the Son of God upon various accounts of diverse kinds, inconsistent with one another, to have had such a conception and generation, as modesty forbids to think, or express ; not to have been the Son of God, until after his death, and the like monstrous figments, I hope he will himself keep his own in an everlasting abhorring of.

The farther confirmation of the Deity of Christ, whereby Mr. Biddle's whole design will be obviated, and the vindication of the testimonies wherewith it is so confirmed from his masters, is the work designed for the next chapter.

There are yet remaining of this chapter two or three

T 2

questions, looking the same way with those ah'ead)^ considered, and will upon the principles already laid down, and insisted on, easily and in very few words be turned aside from prejudicing the eternal Deity of the Son of God. His tenth then is,

' What saith the Son concerning the prerogative of the Father above him?' And answer is oiven, John xiv. 28. Mark. xiii. 22. Matt. xxiv. 36. Whereunto is subjoined another of the same; ' What saith the apostle Paul ? Ans. 1 Cor. xv. 24. 28. xi.3.'

The intendment of these questions being the application of what is spoken of Christ, either as mediator or as man, unto his person, to the exclusion of any other consideration, viz. that of a divine nature therein, the whole of Mr. Biddle's aim in them is sufficiently already disappointed. It is true, there is an order, yea a subordination in the persons of the trinity themselves ; whereby the Son, as to his personality, may be said to depend on the Father, being begotten of him ; but that is not the subordination here aimed at by Mr. B, but that which he underwent by dispensation as mediator, or which attends him in respect of his human nature. All the difficulty that may arise from these kinds of attribution to Christ, the apostle abundantly salves in the discovery of the rise and occasion of them; Phil. ii. 7—9. he who was in the form of God, and equal to him, was, in the form of a servant, whereunto he humbled himself, his servant, and less than he. And there is no more difficulty in the questions wherewith Mr. B. amuses himself and his disciples, than there was in that, wherewith our Saviour stopped the mouth of the Pharisees, viz. how Christ could be the Son of David, and yet his Lord, whom he worshipped? For the places of Scripture in particular urged by Mr. Biddle, John xiv. 28. says our Saviour, 'my Father is greater than I,' {mittens misso, says Grotius himself, referring the words to office not nature) which he was, and is in respect of that work of mediation, which he had undertaken ; '^but ' ina^qualitas officii non tolljt ffiqualitatem naturae.' A king's son is of the same nature with his father, though he may be employed by him in an

^ Ideo autom nusquam Scripturu est, quod Deus pater major sit Spiritu Sancto, vol Spiritus Sanctus minor Deo Patrc : quia non sic assunipta est creatura in qua appa-reret S. S. sicut assumptus est filius liominis, in qua forma ipsius Verbi Dei persona prjesentarelur. August, lib. 1. di 'Iriuii. eap. 6.

inferior office. He that was less than his Father, as to the work of mediation, being the Father's servant therein, is equal to him as his Son, as God to be blessed for ever. Mark. xiii. 32. Matt. xxiv. 36. affirm, that the Father only ' knows the times and seasons mentioned, not the angels, nor the Son.' And yet notwithstanding it was very truly said of Peter to Christ, 'Lord thou knovvest all things ;' John xxii, 17. He that in, and of the knowledge and wisdom, which as man he had, and wherein he grew from his infancy, knew not that day, yet as he knew all things knew it: it was not hidden from him, being the day by him appointed. Let Mr. Bid-die acknowledge, that his knowing all things proves him to be God, and we will not deny, but his not knowing the day of judgment, proves him to have another capacity, and to be truly man.

As ''man he took on him those affections, which we call ^ufftfca KOI adial5\nTa Tra^r)' amongst which, or consequently unto which, he might be ignorant of some things. In the meantime he who made all times, as Christ did, Heb. i. 2. knew their end, as well as their beginning. He knew the Father, and the day by hira appointed; yea all things that the Father hatli were his : and in him were all the 'treasures of wisdom and knowledge hid ;' Col. ii. 3.

Paul speaks to the same purpose, I Cor. xv. 24, 28. The kingdom that Christ doth now peculiarly exercise, is his economical mediatory kingdom, which shall have an end put to it, when the whole of his intendment in that work shall be fulfilled, and accomplished. But that he is not also sharer with his Father, in that universal monarchy, which, as God by nature, he hath over all, this doth not at all prove. All the argument from this place is but this; Christ shall cease to be mediator, therefore he is not God. And that no more is here intended, is evident from the expression of it; 'Then shall the Son himself be subject;' which if it intend any thino- but the ceasins; from the administration of the me-diatory kingdom, wherein the human nature is a sharer, it would prove, that as Jesus Christ is mediator, he is not in subjection to his Father, which himself abundantly hath ma-

"l 'AutojeVtiv c 61? Kaiyxovo; ulo<; o wjiv n Aff^paafx yinj'^ai, ciiv xal Im XTyjifnv, tupo-xovf/ttj (TOvfitt .ttti 'nki,v^a, ncira, aa^Ka' ej^ei j/aj aii &eoth; avTOv to teAeiov. I'ruclus. Episcop. Constan. Epist. ad Armenios.

nifested to be otherwise. Of 1 Cor. xi. 3. and iii. 22, 23. there is the same reason; both speaking of Christ as mediator ; whence that no testimony can be produced against his Deity, hath been declared.

He adds twelfth, ' Q. Howbeit is not Christ dignified, as with the title of Lord, so with the title of God in the Scripture ? ^//s.Thomas saith, " my Lord, and my God.'' Verily, if Thomas said, that Christ was his God, and said true, Mr. B. is to blame, who denies liim to be God at all. With this one blast of the Spirit of the Lord is his fine fabric of religion blown to the ground. And it may be supposed, that Mr. B. made mention of this portion of Scripture, that he might have the honour of cutting his own throat, and destroying his own cause ; or rather, that God in his righteous judgment hath forced him to open his mouth to his own shame. Whatever be the cause of it, Mr. B. is very far from escaping this sword of the Lord, either by his insinuation in the present query, or diversion in the following; for the present; it was not the intent of Thomas to dignify Christ with titles, but to make a plain confession of his faith, being called upon by Christ to believe. In this state he professes, that he believes him to be his Lord and his God. Thomas doubtless was a Christian ; and Mr. B. tells us that Christians have but one God, chap. I. Qu. 1. Eph. iv. 6. Jesus Christ then being the God of Thomas, he is the Christian's one God ; if Mr. B. may be believed. It is not then the dignifying of Christ with titles, which it is not for men to do, but the naked confession of a believer's faith, that in these words is expressed. Christ is the Lord and God of a believer; ergo, the only true God ; as 1 John v. 19. Mr. B. perhaps will tell you, he was made a God; so one abomination begets another, infidelity idolatry ; of this afterward. But yet he was not according to his companions made a God before his ascension ; which was not yet, when Thomas made his solemn confession.

Some attempt also is made upon this place by Grotius. Kol 6 ^£oc fiov. ' Here first,' saith he, ' in the story of the gospel is this word found ascribed by the apostle unto Jesus Christ (which Maldonat before him observed for another purpose) to wit, after he had by liis resurrection proved himself to be him, from whom life and that eternal, ought to be

expected. And this custom abode in their church, as appears not only in the apostolical writings; E,ora. ix. 5. and of the ancient Christians, as may be seen in Justin Martyr against Trypho, but in the epistle also of Pliny unto Trajan, where he says, that the Christians sang verses to Christ, as to God :'« or as the words are in the author. Carmen Christo, quasi Deo, dicere secum invicem.' What the intendment of this discourse is, is evident to all those, who are a little exercised in the writings of them, whom our author all along in his annotations takes care of. That Christ was now made a God at his resurrection, and is so called from the power wherewith he was entrusted at his ascension, is the aim of this discourse. Hence he tells us, it became a custom to call him God among the Christians, which also abode amongst them. And to prove this custom, wrests that of the apostle, Rom. ix. 5. where the Deity of Christ is spoken of, in opposition to his human nature, or his flesh, that he had of the Jews, plainly asserting a divine nature in him, calling him God subjectively, and not only byway of attribution. But this is it seems a custom taken up after Christ's resurrection to call him God, and so continued; though John testifies expressly, that he was God in the beginning. It is true indeed, much is not to be urged from the expression of the apostles, before the pouring out of the Spirit upon them, as to any eminent acquaintance with spiritual things; yet they had before made this solemn confession, that Christ was the ' Son of the living God ;' Matt. xvi. 16 —18. which is to the full as much as what is here by Thomas expressed. That the primitive Christians worshipped Christ and invocated him, not only as a God, but professing him to be the true God and eternal life, we have better testimonies than that of a blind Pagan, who knew nothing of them nor their ways, but by the report of apostates, as himself confesseth. But learned men must have leave to make known their readino;s and observations, whatever become of the simplicity of the Scripture.

* Hie primuraea vox in narratione Evangelica reperitur ab apostolis Jesu tributa, postquani scilicet sua resurrectioiie probaverat se esse, a quo vita et quidem aeter-na, expectari deberet. Mansit deinde ille mos in ecciesia, ut apparet non tantuin in Scriptis Apostolicis ut, Rom. ix. 5. et veteruru Christianorum ut videre est apud Justinuni INIarlyrem contra Tryphoneni, sed et in Plinii ad Trajanum Epistola, ubi ait Cliiisti;inos Cliristo, ut Deo, Carolina cecinisse. Grot, in locum.

To escape the dint of this sword, Mr. Biddle nextiy queries.

'Q. Was he so the God of Thomas, as that he himself in the meantime, did not acknowledge another to be his God?

* A. John XX. 17. Rev. iii. 12.'

True, He who being partaker of the divine essence, in the form of God, was Thomas's God ; as he was mediator, the head of his church, interceding for them, acknowledged his Father to be his God. Yea God may be said to be his God, upon the account of his Sonship, and personality, in which regard he hath his deity of his Father, and is God of God. Not that he is a secondary, lesser, made God, a hero, semideus, as Mr. B. fancies him; but' God blessed for ever,' in order of subsistence depending on the Father.

Of the same nature is the last question, viz. * Have you any passage in the Scripture, where Christ at the same time hath the appellation of God given to him, and is said to have a God?

' A. Heb. i. 8, 9.'

By Mr. B.'s favour, Christ is not said to have a God, though God be said to be his God, 2. ver. 8. Christ by Mr. Biddies confession is expressly called God. He is then the one true God with the Father, or another ; if the first, what doth he contend about ? If the second, he is a God, that is not God by nature, that is, not the one God of Christians, and consequently an idol, and indeed such is the Christ that Mr, B, worshippeth. Whether this will be waved by the help of that expression, ver. 9. ' God thy God ;'-^vhere it is expressly spoken of him, in respect of his undertaking the office of mediation, wherein he was ' anointed of God with the oil of o-ladness above his fellows,' God and his saints will iudsfe.

Thus the close of this chapter, through the good wise hand of the providence of God, leaving himself and his truth not without witness, hath produced instances, and evidences of the truth op])osed, abundantly sufficient, without farther inquiry and labour, to discover the sophistry and vanity of all Mr. Biddle's former queries, and insinuations ; for which let him have the praise.

CHAP. VIII.

An entrance into the examination of the Racovian catechism, in the business of the Deity of Christ; their arguments against it answered: and testi-monies of the eternity of Christ vindicated.

Although the testimonies and arguments for the Deity of Christ might be urged and handled to a better advantage, if liberty might be used to insist upon them, in the method that seems most natural for the clearing and confirmation of this important truth, yet that I may do two works at once, I shall insist chiefly, if not only, on those texts of Scripture, which are proposed to be handled, and answered by the author or authors of the Racovian catechism, which work takes up near one fourth part of their book, and (as it is well known) there is no part of it, wherein so much diligence, pains, sophistry, and cunning are employed, as in that chapter, of the person of Christ, which by God's assistance we are entering upon the consideration of.

Those who have considered their writings know, that the very substance of all they have to say, for the evading of the force of our testimonies, for the eternal Deity of Christ, is comprized in that chapter, there being not any thing material, that any of them have elsewhere written, there omitted. And those who are acquainted with them, their persons, and abilities, do also know, that their great strength and ability for disputation, lies in giving plausible answers, and making exceptions against testimonies, caviling at every word and letter, being in proof and argument for the most part weak and contemptible. And therefore, in this long chapter of near a hundred pages, all that themselves propose by way of argument against the Deity of Christ is contained in two or three at the most; the residue being wholly taken up with exceptions to so many of the texts of Scripture wherein the Deity of Christ is asserted, as they have been pleased to take notice of. A course which themselves are forced to» apologize for, as unbecoming catechists.

I shall then, the Lord assisting, consider that whole chapter of tlieiis, in both parts of it : as to what they have

» Interpres lect. Prcfat. ad Catecli. Raco.

to say for themselves, or to plead against the Deity of Christ; as also what they bring forth for their defence against the evidence of the light that shineth from the texts, whose consideration they propose to themselves, to which many of like sort, may be added.

I shall only inform the reader, that this is a business quite beyond my first intention in this treatise, to whose undertaking I have been prevailed on, by the desires and entreaties of some, who knew that I had this other work imposed on me.

Their first question and answer are,

* Q. 1. Declare'' now to me, what I ought to know concerning Jesus Christ ?

' A. Thou must know, that of the things which thou oughtest to know, some belong to the essence of Christ, and some to his office.

'Q. 2. What are they which relate to his person?

' A. That only, that by nature he is a true man, even as the Scriptures do often witness : amongst others, 1 Tim. ii. 5. 1 Cor. XV. 21. Such a one as God of old promised by the prophets, and such as the creed, commonly called the apostles, witnesseth him to be, which with us all Christians embrace.'

Ans. That Jesus Christ was a true man, in his nature like unto us, sin only excepted, we believe ; and do abhor the abominations of Paracelsus, Wigelius, &c. and the Familists amongst ourselves, who destroy the verity of liis human nature. But that the Socinians believe the same, that he is a man in heaven, whatever he was upon earth, I presume the reader will judge, that it may be justly questioned, from what I have to offer (and shall do it in its place) on that account. But that this is all that we ought to know concerning the person of Christ, is a thing of whose folly and vanity our catechists will be one day convinced. The present trial of it between us depends in part,

•• Rogatum tc velini, ut milii ea de Jesu Cliristo exponas, qiiic me scire oporteat? —Sciendum tibi est, qujedatn ad essentiam Jesu Christi, quffidam ad illius muuus re-ferri, quajte scire oportet.

Quaenam ca sunt, qu;w ad personam i|)sins rcferuntur?—Id solum, quod natura sit lionio verus, quemadmodura ea de re crebro Scripfura' sacra; testaiitnr : inter alias, 1 Tim. ii. b. ct 1 Cor. xv. 21. qualem olim Dous per prophctas proriiiM'raf, ct qualem eliam esse testatur fidei symbolum, (piod vulgo apostolicum vocant.quud nubibcuni universl Cliristiani amplectuntur.

on the consideration of the Scriptures, which shall afterward be produced to evince the contrary : our plea from whence shall not here be anticipated. The places of Scripture they mention prove him to be a true man : that as man he died and rose : but that he who was man, was not also in one person God (the name of man there expressing the person, not the nature of man only), they prove not. The prophets foretold that Christ should be such a man, as should also be the Son of God, begotten of him; Psal.ii. 7. 'the mighty God;' Isa. ix 6, 7. 'Jehovah?' Jerem. xxiii. 6. * The Lord of hosts ;' Zech. ii. 8, 9. And the Apostles' Creed also (as it is unjustly called) confesseth him to be the only Son of God, our Lord, and requires us to believe in him, as we do in God the Father : which if he were not God, were an accursed thing ; Jerem. xvii. 5.

' Q. 3. Is "^ therefore' the Lord Jesus a pure (or mere) man ?

* A. By no means; for he was conceived of the Holy Ghost, born of the virgin Mary, and therefore from his very conception and birth was the Son of God: as we read Luke i. 35, that I may not bring other causes, which thou wilt afterward find in the person of Christ, which most evidently declare, that the Lord Jesus can by no means be esteemed a pure (or mere) man.'

Ans. 1. But I have abundantly demonstrated, that Christ neither was, nor was called the Son of God, upon the account here mentioned, nor any other intimated in the close of the answer, whatever; but merely and solely, on that of his eternal generation of the essence of his Father.

2. The enquiry is after the essence of Christ, which receives not any alteration by any kind of eminency, or dignity that belongs to his person. If Christ be by essence only man, let him have what dignity or honour he can have possibly conferred upon him, let him be born by what means soever, as to his essence and nature, he is a man still, but a man, and not more than a man ; that is, purus homo, a

<^ Ergo Doniinus Jesus est pnrus homo ?—Nullo pacto ; etenini est conceptus e Spiritu Sancto, natus ex Maria Virgine, coque ab ipsa conceptione et ortu Filius Dei est, ut ea de re Luke, i. 35. legimus, iibi angelus ]Mariam ita alloquitur: Spiritus Sanctus supervenict m to, &c. Ut alias causas non afferatn, quas postmodum in Jesu Christi persona deprehendes, quae evidentissime ostendunt, Dominum Jesuni pro puro honiine nullo raodo accipi posse.

'mere man/ and not (f}vctei^eoc,' God by nature ;' but such a God as the Gentiles worshij)ped; Gal. iv. 8. His being made God, and the Son of God, afterward, which our cate-chists pretend, relating to office and dignity, not to his nature, exempts him not at al! from being a mere man. This then is but a flourish to delude poor simple souls into a belief of their honourable thoughts of Christ, whom yet they think no otherwise of, than the Turks do of Mahomet; nor believe he was otherwise indeed, or is to Christians, than as Moses to the Jews. That which Paul speaks of the idols of the heathen, that they were not gods by nature, may according to the apprehension of these catechists be spoken of Christ; notwithstanding any exaltation or deification that he hath received ; he is by nature no God. Yea, the apprehensions of these gentlemen concerning Christ, and his deity, are the same upon the matter \»ith those of the heathen, concerning their worthies and heroes, who by an a7ro3"£wo-tc were translated into the number of their gods ; as Jupiter, Hercules, and others. They called them gods indeed ; but put them close to it, they acknowledged that properly there was but one God, but that these men were honoured, as being upon their great worth, and noble achievements, taken up to blessedness and power. Such an hero, an Hermes or Mercury, do they make of Jesus Christ: who for his faithful declaring the will of God was deified ; but, in respect of essence and nature, which here is enquired after, if he be any thing according to their principles, (of making which supposal I shall give the reader a fair account) he was, he is, and will be a mere man to all eternity, and no more. They allow him no more, as to his essence, than that, wherein he was like * us in all things, sin only excepted,' Heb. ii. 17.

*Q. You''said a little above, that the Lord Jesus is by nature man, hath he also a divine nature ?

* A. No: for that is not only repugnant to sound reason, but also to the Scriptures.'

But this is that which is now to be put to the trial; whether the asserting of the Deity of Christ be repugnant to

*• Dixeras paulo superiiis Duiiiiiiuiii Jcsuin natuia esse lioniiiiciii ; ati ick'ni liabct naturajii diviaain ?- -Ncfjiiaquam : nam id iion solum rationi saiiac, vituih ctiain Divinis Uteris repiigiiat.

TESTIMONIES THEREOF VINDICATED." 285

the Scriptures or no? and as we shall see in the issue, that as these catechists have not been able to answer, or evade the evidence of any one testimony of Scripture, of more than an hundred, that are produced for the confirmation of the truth of his eternal Deity, so notwithstanding the pretended flourish here at the entrance, that they are not able to produce any one place of Scripture, so much as in appearance, rising up against it. For that right reason, which in this matter of mere divine revelation they boast of, and give it the pre-eminence in their disputes against the person of Christ, above the Scripture, unless they discover the conso-nancy of it to the word, to the \q.\v and testimonies, whatever they propose on that account, may be rejected with as much facility, as it is proposed. But yet, if by right reason they understand reason, so far captivated to the obedience of faith, as to acquiesce in whatever God hath revealed, and to receive it as truth, than which duty there is not any more eminent dictate of right reason indeed ; we for ever deny the first part of this assertion, and shall now attend to the proof of it; nor do we here plead, that reason is blind and corrupted, and that the natural man cannot discern the things of God, and so require that men do prove themselves regenerate, before we admit them to judge of the truth of the propositions under debate, which though necessary for them, who would know the gospel for their own good, so as to be wise unto salvation, yet it being the grammatical and literal sense of propositions, as laid down in the word of the Scripture, thatwe are to judge of in this case, we require no more of men to the purpose in hand, but an assent to this proposition (which if they will not give, we can by undeniable demonstration compel them to). Whatever God, who is prima Veritas, hath revealed is true, whether we can comprehend the things revealed or no: which being granted, we proceed with our catechists in their attempt.

' Q. Declare* how it is contrary to right reason.

' A. First in this regard, that two substances having contrary properties cannot meet in one person; such as are.

f Ccdo qui ration! sanse repugnat ?^—Primo, ad eum raoduro, quod dure substantias, proprietatibus adveisae, coire in unara personam nequeant, ut sunt niorta-lem et immortalem esse, principium habere, et principle jcarere ; inutabileiu et ini-niutabilem existere. Deinde, quod dure naturae, personam singulae constituentes, in

to be mortal and immortal; to have a beginning ; and to want a beginning ; to be changeable and unchangeable.

* 2. Because *tvvo natures, each of them constituting a person, cannot likewise agree, or meet in one person : for instead of one, there must (then) be two. persons, and so also two Christs would exist: whom all without controversy acknowledge to be one, and his person one.'

And this is all which these gentlemen offer to make good their assertion, that the Deity of Christ is repugnant to right reason; which therefore upon what small pretence they have done, will quickly appear.

1. It is true, that there cannot be such a personal uniting of two substances with such diverse properties, so as by that union to make an exequation, or an equalling of those diverse properties; but that there may not be such a concurrence, and meeting of such different substances in one person, both of them preserving entire to themselves their essential properties, which are so diverse, there is nothing pleaded nor pretended. And to suppose that there cannot be such an union, is to beg the thing in question, against evidence of many express testimonies of Scripture, without tendering the least inducement for any to grant their requests.

2. In calling these properties of the several natures in Christ adverse or contrary, they would insinuate a consideration of them as of qualities in a subject, whose mutual contrariety should prove destructive to the one, if not both; or by a mixture cause an exurgency of qualities of another temperature. But neither are these properties such qualities, nor are they inherent in any common subject, but inseparable adjuncts of the different natures of Christ, never mixed with one another, nor capable of any such thing to eternity, nor ever becoming properties of the other nature, which they belong not unto, though all of them do denominate the person, wherein both the natures do subsist. So that instead of pleading reason, which they pretended they would, they do nothing in this first part of their answer, but beg the thing in question; which being of so much importance, and

unam personam coiivcnire itideni nequcant; nam loco unius duas personas esse oporteret, atque ita duos Christos existere, qucm untiin esse, et unaiii ipsiiis personam omnes citraonuiem controversiam agnoscunt.

concernment to our souls, is never like to be granted them on any such terms. Will Christ on their entreaties, cease to be God ?

Neither is their second pretended argument of any other kind. 1, We deny, that the human nature of Christ had any such subsistence of its own, as to give it a proper personality, being from the time of its conception, assumed into subsistence with the Son of God. This we prove by express texts of Scripture ; Isa. vii. 14. ix. 6. John i. 14. Rom. i. 3. ix. 5. Heb. ii. 15. Luke i. 35. Heb. ix. 14. Acts iii. 15. xx. 28. Phil. ii. 7. 1 Cor. ii. 8, &c. And by arguments taken from the assigning of all the diverse properties by them mentioned before, and sundry others, to the same person of Christ, &c. That we would take it for granted, that this cannot be, is the modest request of these gentlemen with whom we have to do.

2. If by natures constituting persons, they mean those, who antecedently to their union, have actually done so, we grant they cannot meet in one person; so that upon this union they should cease to be two persons. The personality of either of them being destroyed, their different beings could not be preserved. But if by constituting, they understand only that which is so in potentia, or a next possibility of constituting a person; then, as before, they only beg of us, that we would not believe, that the person of the Word did assume the human nature of Christ, that * holy thing, that was born of the Virgin,' into subsistence with itself 5 which for the reasons before-mentioned, and others like to them, we cannot grant.

And this is the substance of all that these men plead, and make a noise with in the world, in an opposition to the eternal Deity of the Son of God. This pretence of reason (which evidently comes short of being any thing else), is their shield and buckler in the cause they have unhappily undertaken. When they tell us of Christ's being hungry and dying, we say, it was in the human nature, wherein he was obnoxious to such things no less than we, being therein * made like unto us in all things, sin only excepted.' When of his submission and subjection to his Father, we tell them it is in respect of the office of Mediator, which he willingly undertook; and that his inequality unto him, as to that office.

doth no way prejudice his equality with him, in respect of his nature and being. But when with Scriptures and arguments from thence, as clear and convincing, as if they were written with the beams of the sun, we prove our dear Lord Jesus in respect of a divine nature whereof he was partaker from eternity, to be God blessed for ever: they tell us it cannot be, that two such diverse natures, as those of God and man, should be united in one person: and it cannot be so, because it cannot be so, there is no such union among other things. And these things must be, that those who are approved may be tried: but let us hear them out.

* Q. But ^vhereas they shew, that Christ consisteth of a divine and human nature, as a man consisteth of soul and body, what is to be answered them?

' A. That here is a very great difference. For ^they say, that the two natures in Christ are so united, that Christ is both God and man. But the soul and body are in that manner conjoined in man, that a man is neither soul nor body, nor neither soul nor body do singly of themselves constitute a person. But as the divine nature by itself constitutes a person, so it is necessary that the human nature should do.'

j4ns. 1. In what senseit may be said, that Christ, that is, the person of Christ, consisteth of a divine and human nature, was before declared. The person of the Son of God assumed the human nature into subsistence with itself, and both, in that one person are Christ.

2. If our catechists have no more to say to the illustration given to the union of the two natures in the person of Christ by that of the soul and body in one human person, but that there is a great difference in something between them, they do but filch away the grains that are allowed to every similitude; and shew wherein the comparats differ, but answer not to that wherein they do agree.

3. All that is intended by this similitude, is to shew, that besides the change of things, one into another, either by the loss of one, as of water into wine by Christ, and besides

f Cum vcro illi ostcndunt, Christum sic ex iiatura divina et humana coiistare, qucm-adinoduni homo exaniiiioft corpore constet, quid illisrespoiulenduiri'!—Permagnum hie esse discrinicn : illi enim aiunt, duas naturas in Chrislo ita uuitas esse, ut Cliristus sit Deus et homo; animo vcro et corpus ad eum niodum iu homine conjuncta sunt, ut nee aniuia nee corpus ipse lionio sit, nee enim anima, nee corpus sigillatim personam constituunt. Atut natura divina per sc constituit personam, ita humana constituat per se, necesse est.

TESTIMONIES THEREOF VINDICATED. 289

the union that is in physical generation by mixture, whereby and from whence some third thing ariseth, that also there is a substantial union, whereby one thing is not turned into another, nor mixed with it. And the end of using this similitude (which to please our catechists we can forbear, acknowledging, that there is not among created beings any thing that can fully represent this, which we confess ' without controversy to be a great mystery'), only to manifest the folly of that assertion of their master on John i. that if the ' Word be made flesh' in our sense, it must be turned into flesh; for, saith he, 'one thing cannot be made another, but by change, conversion, and mutation into it.' The absurdity of which assertion is sufficiently evinced, by the substantial union of soul and body, made one person, without that alteration and change of their natures which is pleaded for. Neither is the Word made flesh by alteration, but by union.

4. It is confessed that the soul is not said to be made the body, nor the body said to be made the soul, as the Word is said to be made flesh ; for the union of soul and body is not a union of distinct substances, subsisting in one common subsistence, but a union of two parts of one nature, whereof the one is the form of the other. And herein is the dissimilitude of that similitude. Hence will that predication be justified in Christ; 'the Word was made flesh,' without any change or alteration, because of that subsistence whereunLo the flesh, or human nature of Christ was assumed, which is common to them both. And so it is in accidental predications. When we say a man is made white, black, or pale, we do not intend that he is, as to his substance, changed into whiteness, &.c. but that he who is a man, is also become white.

5. It is true that the soul is not a person, nor the body; but a person is the exurgency of their conjunction; and therefore we do not say, that herein the similitude is urged ; for the divine nature of Christ had its own personality antecedent to this union : nor is the union of his person, the union of several parts of the same nature, but the concurrence of several natures in one subsistence.

6. That it is of necessity that Christ's * human nature should of itself constitute a person,' is urged upon the old

VOL. VIII. u

account of begging the thing in question. This is that which in the case of Christ we deny; and produce all the proofs before-mentioned to make evident the reason of our denial. But our great masters here say the contrary; and our under cathechists are resolved to believe them. Christ was a true man, because he had the true essense of a man, soul and bodj', with all their essential properties. A peculiar personality belongeth not to the essence of a man, but to his existence in such a manner. Neither do we deny Christ to have a person, as a man, but a human person. For the human nature of Christ subsisteth in that, which though it be in itself divine, yet as to that act of sustentation which it gives the human nature, it is the subsistence of a man. On which account the subsistence of the human nature of Christ is made more noble and excellent, than that of any other man whatever. And this is the whole plea of our ca-techists from reason, that whereto they so much pretend, and which they give the pre-eminence unto, in their attempts against the Deity of Christ, as the chief, if not the only, engine they have to work by. And if they be thus weak in the main body of their forces, certainly that reserve which they pretend from Scripture, whereof indeed they have the meanest pretence and shew that ever any of the sons of men had, who were necessitated to make a plea from them, in a matter of so great concernment as that now under consideration, will quickly disappear. Thus then they proceed : •

' Q. Declares also how it is repugnant to Scripture, diat Christ hath a divine nature.

* A. First, because that the Scripture proposeth to us, one only God by nature, whom we have above declared to be the Father of Christ. Secondly, the same Scripture tes-tifieth, that Jesus Christ was by nature a man, whereby it taketh from him any divine nature. Thirdly, because whatever divine thing Christ hath, the Scripture plainly teacheth that

8 Doce etiara, qui id repugnet Scriplurae, Cliristum liabere divinara naturam.— Priiuum, ea ratione, quod Scriptura nobis uiiuin tantum natura Dcuni ))roponat, quem superius dcmonstravinius esse Christi patreni. Secundo, cadeiii Scriptura tes-tatur, Jesura Cliristum natura esse hoiuinera, ut su])erius, ostensum est; quo ipso, illi naturam adirait divinam. Tertio, quod quicquid divinum Cliristus liabeat, Scriptura eum patris dono habere apcrte doceat, Alatt. xxviii. 18. Phil. ii. 9. 1 Cor. xv. 27. John. V. 19. x. 25. Dcnique cum uadera Scriptura apertissime ostendat, Jesum Christum omnia sua facta divina non sibi, nee alicui naturffi divinaj sua;; scd patri sue vindicare solitum fuisse, planum facit, earn divinam in Christo naturam prorsus otiosam, ac sine onini causa futuram fuisse.

he had it by a gift of the Father; Matt, xxviii. 18. Phil. ii. 9. 1 Cor. XV. 27. John v. 19. x. 25. Lastly, because the same Scripture most evidently shewing, that Jesus Christ did not vindicate and ascribe all his divine works to himself, or to any divine nature of his own, but to his Father, makes it plain, that divine nature in Christ was altogether in vain, and would have been without any cause.'

And this is that which our catechists have to pretend from Scripture against the Deity of Christ; concluding that any such divine nature in him would be superfluous and needless, themselves being judges. In the strength of what here they have urged, they set themselves to evade the evidence of near fifty express texts of Scripture, by themselves produced and insisted on, giving undeniable testimony to the truth they oppose. Let then what they have brought forth be briefly considered.

. 1. The Scripture doth indeed propose unto us 'one only God by nature,' and we confess that that only true God is the ' Father of our Lord Jesus Christ;' but we say, that the Son is partaker of the Father's nature, of the same nature with him, as being his proper Son, and by his ov/n testimony one with him. He is such a Son (as hath been declared) as is begotten of the essence of his Father, and is therefore God blessed for ever. If the Father be God by nature, so is the Son, for he is of the same nature with the Father.

2. To conclude that Christ is not God, because he is man, is plainly and evidently to beg the thing in question. We evidently demonstrate in the person of Christ, properties that are inseparable adjuncts of a divine nature, and such also as no less properly belong to a human nature : from the asserting of the one of these, to conclude to a denial of the other, is to beg that which they are not able to dig for.

3. There is a twofold communication of the Father to the Son; 1. By eternal generation; so the Son receives his personality, and therein his divine nature, from him who said unto him, 'Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee :' and this is so far from disproving the Deity of Christ, that it abundantly confirms it: and this is mentioned, John V. 19—22. This Christ hath by nature. 2. By collation of gifts, honour and dignity, exaltation, and glory upon him as

u 2

Mediator, or in respect of that office, which he humbled himself to undergo, and for the full execution whereof, and investiture with glory, honour, and power, was needful, which is mentioned. Matt, xxviii. 18. Phil. ii. 9. 1 Cor. xv. 27. which is by no means derogatory to the Deity of the Son; for inequality in respect of office is well consistent with equality in respect of nature. This Christ hath by grace. Matt, xxviii. 18. Christ speaks of himself as throughly furnished with authority for the accomplishing of the work of mediation, which he had undertaken. It is of his office, not of his nature, or essence that he speaks. Phil. ii. 9. Christ is said to be exalted, which he was in respect of the real exaltation given to his human nature, and the manifestation of the glory of his divine, which he had with his Father before the world was, but had eclipsed for a season. 1 Cor. XV. 27. relates to the same exaltation of Christ as before.

4. It is false, that Christ doth not ascribe the divine works which he wrought to himself and his own divine power, although that he often also make mention of the Father, as by whose appointment he wrought those works as Mediator; John v. 27. * My Father worketh hitherto, and I work ;' ver. 19,'For whatsoever things the Father doeth, these alsodoeth the Son ;' ver. 21. ' For as the Father raiseth up the dead and quickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.' Himself wrought the works that he did, though as to the end of his working them, which belonged to his office of mediation, he still relates to his Father's designation and appointment. And this is the whole of our catechists plea from reason and Scripture against the Deity of Christ. For the conclusion of the superfluousness, and needlesness of such a divine nature in the Mediator, as it argues them to be ignorant of the Scripture, and of the righteousness of God, and the nature of sin, so it might administer occasion to insist upon the demonstration of the necessity which there was, that he who was to be Mediator between God and man, should be both God and man, but that I aim at brevity, and the consideration of it may possibly fall in upon another account; so that here I shall not insist thereon.

Nextly, then, they address themselves to that which is their proper work (wherein they are exceedingly delighted).

viz. in giving in exceptions against the testimonies produced for the confirmation of the truth under consideration, which they thus enter upon.

'Q. But'' they endeavour to assert the divine nature of Christ from the Scriptures.

*A. They endeavour it, indeed, divers ways; and that whilst they study either to evince out of certain Scriptures what is not in them, or whilst they argue perversely from these things which are in the Scriptures, and so evilly bring their business to pass.'

These it seems are the general heads of our arguments for the Deity of Christ: but before we part we shall bring our catechists to another reckoning, and manifest both that what we assert is expressly contained in the Scriptures, and what we conclude by ratiocination from them, hath an evidence in it, which they are not able to resist. But they say,

' Q. What' are those things which they labour to evince, concerning Christ out of the Scriptures, which are not contained in them?

' A. Of this sort is (as they speak) his pre-eternity, which they endeavour to confirm with two sorts of Scriptures.

1. Such as wherein they suppose this pre-eternity is expressed

2. Such as wherein though it be not expressed, yet they think that it may be gathered from them.'

That we do not only suppose, but have also as great an assurance as the plain, evident, and redoubled testimony of the Holy Ghost can give us, of the eternity of Jesus Christ, shall be made evident in the ensuing testimonies, both of the one sort and the other; especially such as are express thereunto ; for in this matter we shall very little trouble the reader with collections and arguings, the matter inquired after being express and evident in the words and terms of the Holy Ghost himself. They say then:

' Q. Which'' are those testimonies of Scripture which seem to them to express his pre-eternity ?

h Atqui illi e Scripturis illam divinara in Cliristo naturaiu asserere conantur ?—Co-nantur quideni variis modis : idque dum student, aut e Scripturis quibusdam cvin-cere, qua in iis non habentur, aut dum ex iis, quae in Scripturis habentur, perperam ratiocinantur, ac male rem suam conficiunt.

' Quje vero sunt ilia, qua; illi de Christo e Scripturis evincere laborant quas illic non habentur?—Est illius, ut loquunlur, prajsternitas, quam duplici Scripturarum genere approbare nituntur. Prinium ejusmodi est, in quo preeasternitatera banc ex-pressam jiutant. Secundum, in quo licet expressa non sit, earn tamen colligi arbitrantur.

^ Quaenani sent testiraonia Scripturse, quje videntur ipsis earn praeaBternitatera ex-

'A. They are these, in which the Scripture witnesseth of Christ that he was in the beginning, that he was in heaven, that he was before Abraham; John i. 1. vi. 62- viii. 58.'

Before 1 come to the consideration of the particular places proposed by them to be insisted on, I shall desire to premise one or two things. As,

1. That it is sufficient for the disproving of their hypothesis concerning Christ, if we prove him to have been existent before his incarnation, whether the testimonies whereby we prove it, reach expressly to the proof of his eternity or no. That which they have undertaken to maintain is, that Christ had no existence before his conception and birth of the Virgin : which if it be disproved, they do not, they cannot deny but that it must be on the account of a divine nature ; for as to the incarnation of any pre-existing creature, (which was the Arians madness) they disavow, and oppose it.

2. That these three places mentioned, are very far from being all, wherein there is express confirmation of the eternity of Christ: and, therefore, v/hen I have gone through the consideration of them, I shall add some others also, which are of no less evidence and perspicuity than these, whose vindication we are by them called unto.

To the first place mentioned they thus proceed :

' Q. What' dost thou answer to the first?

'A. In the place cited, there is nothing about that pre-eter-nity, seeing here is mention of the beginning, Avhich is opposed to eternity. But the word beginning is almost always in the Scripture referred to the subject matter, as maybe seen, Dan. viii. 1. John xv. 27. 16.4. Acts xi. 15. and, therefore, seeing the subject matter here is the gospel, whose description John undertakes, without doubt, by this word beginning, John vmderstood the beginning of the gospel.'

This place being express to our purpose, and the matter of great importance, I shall first confirm the truth contended for from thence, and then remove the miserable subterfuge

priraere?—Sunt ea, in quibus Scriptura teslatur de Christo, ipsuin fuisse in princi-pio, fuisse in coelo, fuisse ante vVbralianium, John i. 1. vi. 62. viii. 58.

' Quid vero ad jjiimum respondcs ?—in loco citato iiiliil habetur, de ista pra3-tcternitate, cum liic principii nieiitio fiat, quod pra-'ajternitati cpponitur. Priucipii vero vox in Scripturis fere semper ad subjectam refertur matoriam, ut videre est, Dan. viii. 1. Joli. xv.'27.xvi. 4. Acts xi. 13. cum igitur liic subjecta sit materia Evan-gelium.ciijusdescriptioncmsusccpit Johannes, sine dubio per vocem banc princijiii, principium Evangolii Johannes intellexit.

TESTIMONIES THEREOF VIKDICATED. 295

which our catechists have received from their great apostles, uncle and nephew.

1. That John thus expressly insisting on the Deity of Christ in the beginning of his gospel, intended to disprove and condemn sundry that were risen up in those days, denying it, or asserting the creation, or making of the world to another Demiurgus, we have the unquestionable testimony of the"' first professors of the religion of Jesus Christ, with as much evidence and clearness of truth as any thing can be tendered on uncontrolled tradition : which at least will give some insight into the intendment of the Holy Ghost in the words.

2. That by 6 Xoyog, howsoever rendered, verbum or senno, or on what account soever he be so called, either of being the eternal Word and Wisdom of the Father, or as the great revealer of his will unto us, (which yet of itself is not a sufficient cause of that appellation, for others also reveal the will of God unto us ; Acts xx.27. Heb. i. 1.) Jesus Christ is intended is on all hands confessed, and may be undeniably evinced from the context. This 6 Xoyog, came into the world and was rejected by his own, ver, 11. yea, expressly he was made flesh, and was the only begotten of God, ver. 14.

3. That the whole of our argument from this place, is very far from consisting in that expression,' in the beginning,' though that, relating to the matter whereof the apostle treats, doth evidently evince the truth pleaded for. It is part of our catechists' trade, so to divide the words of Scripture, that their main import and tendence, may not be perceived. In one place they answer to the first words, * in the beginning;' in another to,' he was with God,' and ' he was God ;' in a third to that, ' all things were made by him;' in a fourth (all at a great distance one from another) to, ' the Word was made flesh.' Which desperate course of proceeding, argues that their cause is also desperate, and that they durst not meet this one testimony as by the Holy Ghost placed and ordered for the confirmation of our faitli, without such a bold mangling of the text, as that instanced in.

"» Irenseus ae hseresjib. 3. c. IJ. Epipban. lib. 1. Tom. 2. hseres. 27, 28. 30. &c. lib. 2. Tom. 2. Ha;res. 69. Theodoret. Epitom. Hferet. lib. 2. Euseb. Histor. lib. 3. c. 27. Causam post alios banc scribendi prcecipuam tradunt omiies(veteres) ut veneno in ecclesiam jam turn sparso, authoritate sua?, quae apud oranes Christianura nomen profitentes, non poterat non esse maxima, medicinam faceiet. Grot. Prsefat. ad An-notat. in Evang. Jolian.

4. I shall then insist upon the whole of this testimony as the words are placed in the contexture by the Holy Ghost, and vindicate them from what in several places they have excepted against several parcels of them. Thus then from these words (these divine words, whose very reading reclaimed as eminent a scholar" as the world enjoyed any in his days, from atheism) we proceed.

1. He that was in the beginning, before the creation of the world, before any thing, of all things that are made, was made, who was then with God, and was God, who made all things, and without whom nothing was made, in whom was life, he is God by nature blessed for ever; nor is there in the whole Scripture a more glorious and eminent description of God, by his attributes, name, and works, than here is given of him concerning whom all these things are spoken ; but now all this is expressly affirmed of the ' Word that was made flesh,' that is confessedly of Jesus Christ; therefore,he is God by nature blessed for ever. Unto the several parts of this plain and evident testimony, in several places they except several things, thinking thereby to evade that strength and light, which each part yields to other, as they lie, and all of them to the whole; I shall consider them in order as they come to hand.

1. Against that expression, ' in the beginning,' they except in the place mentioned above, that it doth not signify preeternity, which hath no beginning. But,

1. This impedes not at all the existence of Jesus Christ before the creation, although it denies, that his eternity is expressly asserted. Now to affirm that Christ did exist before the whole creation, and made all things, doth no less prove him to be no more a creature, but the eternal God, than the most express testimony of his eternity doth, or can do.

2. Though eternity have no beginning, and the sense of these words cannot be, 'in the beginning of eternity,' yet eternity is before all things, and ' in the beginning' may be the de-

" Novum Testamentiim divinilns oblatum apcrio. Aliud agenfi exhibet sc mihias-spectu primo augustissiinum illud caput .loliannis Evangelist;r et Apostoli. In priii-cipio erat verbuni. Lego parlciii capitis, et ita coninioveor legens, ut repeiitc diviiii-tatcm argunicnti, ct script! majestateni, auctoritateniquc ; scnscrini, longo infcrvallo oumiljuseloquentiaj humana; viribus pra;euntcin. Ilorrebat corpus : stupcliat animus, ct totiini ilium dicni sic aflicicbar, ut qui esseni, ipse milii incertus viderer esse. Francisc. Junius.

scription of eternity, as it is plainly; Prov. viii. 23. ' From everlasting,' and * in the beginning before the earth was,' are of the same import. And the Scripture saying, that * in the beginning the Word was,' not, 'was made,' doth as evidently express eternity, as it doth in those other phrases of, "'before the world was,' or 'before the foundation of the world,' which more than once it insists on.

3. By ' in the beginning,' is intended before the creation of all things. What will it avail our catechists, if it doth not expressly denote eternity ? Why, the word' beginning' is to be interpreted variously, according to the subject matter spoken of, as Gen. i. 1. wliich being here the gospel, it is the beginning of the gospel that is intended. But,

1. Be it agreed that the word ' beginning' is to be understood according to the subject matter, whereunto it is applied ; that the apostle doth firstly and nextly treat of the gospel, as to the season of its preaching is most absurd. He treats evidently and professedly of the person of the author of the gospel, of the Word that was God, and was made flesh. And that this cannot be wrested to the sense intended, is clear ; for 1. The apostle evidently alludes to the first words of Genesis: ' In the begiiming God created heaven and earth :' and the Syriac translation from the Hebrew, here places n'tz;"in : so here, in the ' beginning the Word made all things.' 2. The following words,' the Word was with God,' manifests the intendment of the Holy Ghost to be, to declare what, and where the Word was before the creation of the world, even with God. 3. The testimony that he was God in the beginning, will no way agree with this gloss : take his being God in their sense, yet they deny, that he was God in the beginning of the gospel, or before his suffering, as hath been shewed. 4. The sense given by the Socinians to this place is indeed senseless. ' In the beginning (say they), that is, when the gospel began to be preached by John Baptist (which is plainly said to be, before the world was made), the Word, or the man Jesus Christ (the Word being afterward said to be made flesh, after this whole description of him, as the Word) was with God, so hidden as that he was known only to God (which is false, for he was known to his mother, to Joseph, to John Baptist, to Simeon, Anna, and to others),

" Jolin xvii. 5.

and the Word was God, that is, God appointed, that he should be so afterward, or made God (though it be said, he was God then, when he was with God) and all things were made by him ; tb.e new creature was made by him, or the world by his preaching, and teaching, and working miracles was made, or reformed' (that is, something was mended by him); such interpretations we may at any time be supplied withal at an easy rate. 5. To view it a little farther. ' In the beginning;' that is,' when John preached Jesus, and said, Behold the Lamb of God ; was the word ;' or Jesus was, that is, he was, when John preached that ho was : ' egregiam vero laudem!' He was, when he was. ' The word was in the beginning ;' that is, Jesus was flesh and blood, and then was afterward made flesh, and dwelt among us, when he had dwelt amongst us. And this is that interpretation which Faustus Socinus receiving from his uncle Lselius first set up upon ; in the strength whereof he went forth unto all the abominations which afterward he so studiously vented.

Passing by those two weighty and most material passages of this testimony, 'the Word was God, and the Word was with God,' the one evidencing his oneness of nature with, and the other his distinctness of personality from, his Father; our catechists, after an interposition of near twenty pages, fix upon ver. 3. and attempt to pervert the express words and intendment of it, having cut it off from its dependance on what went before, that evidently gives light into the aim of the Holy Ghost therein : their words concerning this verse are,

*Q. Declare ''to me with what testimonies they contend to prove that Christ created the heaven and the earth ?

P Exponc igitur niilii, quibus testiinoniis approbarc contciuhint, Cbristum cceluin et terrain crcassc ?—lis, ubi scriptum cxtat, quod per cum omnia facta sint, ot sine CO factum sit nihil, quod factum sit; Jobn i. 3. ct iterum, liuiudus per ij)5um fac-tus est, ver. 10. ct rursus, quod in eo omnia sunt condita, &:c. Col. J. 16. Et quod Deus per eum sajculafecerit, Heb. i. 2. denique ; et ex eo, tu in principle, &c. ver. 10—12.

Qui vero ad prinium testimonium rcspondes.'—Primum, non liabctur in primo tcstinionio crcata sunt, vcrum facta sunt. Deindc, ait Johannes, facta esse per eum ; qui modus loquendi, non eum, qui prima causa sit alicujus rei, verum causam se-cundam aut mediani cxprimit. 1)( iiiquc, vox omnia non pro OTunibus prorsus rebus hie suniitur, scd ad subjectani materiam rcstriiigitur omnino, quod frcqucntissi-mum est in libris divinis, jji-.tsertini ]\'ovi 'I'estanienii, cujus rei cxemphnii singulare extat; 2 Cor. v. 17. in <]uo liabetur scrmo dc re, liuic, de qua Johannes tractat, admoduni simili, ubi dicitur, omnia nova facta esse; cum ccrtuui sit multa extare, qux nova facta non sunt. Cum vero subjccla apud Joannem materia sit Evange-

TESTIMONIES THEREOF VINDICATED. 299

' A. With those, where it is written, that by him all things, and without him was nothing made that was made, and the world was made by him ;' John i. 3. 10. as also Col. i. 16. Heb. i. 2. 10—12.

*Q. But how dost thou answer to the first testimony?

'1. It is not in the first testimony, they were created, but they were made. 2. John says 'they were made by him;' which manner of speaking doth not express him who is the first cause of any thing, but the second or mediate cause. Lastly, the word ' all things,' is not taken for all things universally, but is altogether related to the subject matter, which is most frequent in the Scriptures, especially of the New Testament, whereof there is a signal example, 2 Cor. V. 17. wherein there is a discourse of a thing very like to this, whereof John treats, where it is said, * all things are made new;' when as it is certain, that there are many things which are not made new. Now whereas the subject matter in John is the gospel, it appeareth that this word ' all things,' is to be received only of all those things which belong to the gospel.

' But why doth John add, that without him nothing was made that was made?

' John added these words, that he might the better illustrate those before spoken, ' All things were made by him ;' which seem to import, that all those things were made by the Word, or Son of God, although some of them, and those of great moment, were of such sort, as were not done by him, but the apostles : as the calling of the Gentiles, the abolishing of legal ceremonies. For although these things had their original from the preaching and works of the Lord Jesus, yet they were not perfected by Christ himself, but by his apostles ; but yet not without him. For the apostles administered all things in his name and authority,

liuin, apparet vocera omnia, de iis omnibus, qua3 quoque mode ad Evaiigelium pertinent, accipi debere.

Cur vero addidit Johannes, quod sine eo factum est nihil, quod factum est?—■ Addidit hjee Johannes, ut eo melius illustraret ilia superiora, omnia per ipsum facta sunt, qure earn vim habere videntur, per solum Verbum vel Filiuni Dei omnia ilia facta esse, licet ejus generis quffdam, et quidem magni monienti, non per ipsuni, verum per apostolos facta fuerint: ut est vocatio Gentium, et legalium ceremoniarura abolitio; licet enim ha2C originem ab ipsis sermonibus etoperibus Domini Jesu trax-erint, ad eifectum tamen non sunt perducta per ipsum Christum, sed per ipsius apostolos, non tamen sine ipso. Apostoli enim omnia nomine, ct authoritate ipsius ad-rainistrarunt, ut etiam ipse Dominus ait, sine me nihil facere potestis. Job. xv. 3.

as the Lord himself said. Without me ye can do nothing. John XV. 5.'

Thus to the third verse, of which afterward. We shall quickly see how these men are put to their shifts to escape the sword of this witness, which stands in the way to cut them off in their journeyin'Z" to curse the church and people of God, by denying the Deity of their blessed Saviour.

1. The connexion of the words is wholly omitted, ' He was God, and he was in the beginning: with God, and all things were made by him.' The words are an illustration of his divine nature, by divine power and works. He was God, and he made all things. * He that made all things is God;' Heb. iii. 4. 'The Word made all things;' John i. 3. therefore he is God. Let us see what is answered.

1. It is not said they were created by him, but made. But the word here used by John is the same that in sundry places the Septuagint (whom the writers of the New Testament followed) used about the creation. As Gen. i. 3. Kai fiTTfv 6 3"£oe FfvrjS'/jrw 0wc> ^ai lyevsro (j)C)g. and ver. 6. iyivaTO arspiiofjia: and if, as it is affirmed, he was in the beginning (before all things) and made them all, he made them out of nothing; that is, he created them. To create is but to produce something out of nothing, nothing supplying the term from whence of their production. But,

'2. They are said to be made by him : its St avrov, which denotes not the principal, but mediate, or instrumental cause.'

But it is most evident that these men care not w^hat they say, so they may say something that they think will trouble them whom they oppose.

1. This might help the Arians, who fancied Christ to be created or made before all things; and to have been the instrumental cause, whereby God created all other things; but how this concerns them to insist on, who deny that Christ had any existence at all before the world was some thousands of years old, is not easy to be apprehended.

2. In their own sense this is not to the purpose, but expressly contradictory to what they offer in the last place, by way of answer to the latter part of the third verse. Here they say he is not the principal efficient cause but the second and mediate ; there, that all things were either done by him.

or in his name and authority; which certainly denotes the principal cause of the thing done. But,

3. This very expression is sundry times used concerning God the Father himself, whom our catechists will not therefore deny to have been the principal efficient cause of the things ascribed to him: Rom. xi. 36. from him, and gi avTov 'by him are all things;' 1 Cor. i. 9. ' God is faithful dl ov, by whom you are called :' Gal. i. 1. ' Paul an apostle, not of men, nor by man, but dia 'Irjt70u Xptorou, kcu Qeov Trarpbg, by Jesus Christ, and God the Father;' Ephes. i. 1. dta^eXijixaTog Qeov, 'by the will of God.' So that this also is frivolous : thus far we have nothing to the purpose. But,

'4. All things, are to be referred to the gospel; all things of the gospel whereof John treats; so are the words to be restrained by the subject matter :' but,

1. This is merely begged. John speaks not one word of the gospel as such ; gives no description of it, its nature, or effects; but evidently, plainly, and directly speaks of the Word that was God, and that made all things, describing him in his eternity, his works, his incarnation, his employment, his coming into the world, and his business ; and treats of the gospel, or the declaration of the will of God by Jesus Christ, distinctly afterward, from ver. 14. and forwards.

2. For the expression, 2 Cor. v. 17. 'all things are become new ;' it is expressly restrained to the new creature, to them that are in Jesus Christ, but as to this general expression here, there is no colour why it should be so restrained: the expression itself every where signifying the creation of all things; see Gen. ii. 1, 2. Psal. xxxiii. 6. cxxi. 2. Isa. xxxvii. 16. xliv. l9. Ixii. 2. Jer. xxxii. 17. Actsxiv. IS.xvii. 24. And this is it which they plead to the first part of the verse,' by him all things were made.'

2. The other expression, they say is added to manifest, * that what was done after by the apostles, was not done without him ; and that is the meaning of these words. And without him was nothing made, that was made.' But,

1. Their irpwrov xptvdog, of referring the whole passage to the description of the gospel, whereof there is not the least tittle nor intimation in the text, being removed out of the way, this following figment falls of itself.

2. This gloss is expressly contrary to the text. The 'all

things' here mentioned, are the ' all things' that were made in the beginning of the world ; but this gloss refers it to the things made in the end of the world.

3. It is contradictory to itself; for by.'the beginning,' they understand the beginning of the gospel, at the first preaching of it; but the things, that they say here were made by Christ, are things that were done after his ascension.

4. It is true, the apostles wrought not any miracles, effected no mighty works, but by the presence of Christ with them (though the text cited to prove it ; John xv. 5. be quite of another importance, as speaking of gospel obedience, not works of miracles or conversions) ; but that those works of theirs, or his by them, are here intended, is not offered to proof by our catechists. And this is the sense of the words they give; ' Christ, in the beginning of the gospel, made all things; or all things were made by him; even those which he made by others, after his ascension into heaven :' or thus 'AH things,' that is, some things 'were made/ that is, mended, ' by him,' that is, the apostles, in the beginning of the gospel, that is, after his ascension.'

5. Our sense of the words is plain and obvious, says the apostle ; ' He who was in the beginning, and was God, made all things;' which he first expresseth positively; and then by an universal negative confirms and explains what was before asserted in an universal affirmative, 'without him was nothing made, that was made.' And this is the sum of what they have to except against this part of our testimony, than which nothing can be more vain and frivolous.

2. The tenth verse is by them taken under consideration, and these words therein : ' The world was made by him:' against which this is their procedure.

' Q. Whaf dost thou answer to the second ?

1 Quid vero respondes ad secundum?—Primum, quod liic non scribat Johannes, mundum esse creatuni, sed factum. Deinde, eo loquendi modo utitur, qui niediam causam dcsignat, ait enim, mundum per cum factum. Doniquc, iia^c vox raundus, quemaduiodum ct alia,', quaj prorsus idem in Scripturis valcnt, non solum caelum et terram dcnotat, verum prater alias significationcs, vol genus liunianuni designat, ut locus praiscns ostendit, ubi ait, in mundo crat, et mundus eurn non agnovit, 1 John i. 10. et mundus eurn secutus est, John xii. 19. aut etiam futuram immorlalitatem, ut apparet, Heb. i. 6. ubi ait, et eurn itcrum introducit primogeiiitiim in mundum, ait, ctadorent cum omncs angeli Dei ; quod de futuro mundo accipi apparet c cap. 'J. ejusdem Epistola;, ubi ait, etcnim non angelis subjecit nmndum fulurum, de quo lo-quinnir. At nusquam deco locutus fut^rat, nisi vcr. (i. cap. 1. prceterea, habes locum cap. X. ver. 5. ubi de Cliristo loquens, ait, propterea ingrcdiens in mundum, ait; Imstiam et oblationem noluisti, vcruni corpus adaptasti milii; ubi cum palani sit eurn loqui de mun-

' A. 1. That John doth not write here, that the world was created, but made. 2. He uses the same manner of speech, which signifieth the mediate cause, for he saith, the world was made by him. Lastly, this word munclus, the world, as others of the same import, do not only denote heaven and earth, but besides other significations, it either signifieth human kind, as the present place manifesteth. He was in the world, and the world knew him not: and John xii. 19. or also future immortality, as Heb. i. 6. which is to be understood of the world to come, as it appears from chap.ii. where he saith, he hath not put the world to come into subjection to the angels, of which we speak: but he had nowhere spoken of it, but chap. i. 6. Furthermore, you have a place, chap. X. 5. where, speaking of Christ he saith; Wherefore coming into the world, he saith. Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not have, but a body, &c. Where, seeing it is evident that he speaks of that world into which Jesus being entered, was made our priest, as all the circumstances demonstrate, it appears, that he speaks not of the present, but of the world to come ; seeing, chap. viii. 4. he had said of Christ, if he were on earth he should not be a priest.'

The two first exceptions have been already cashiered : those which follow are of as little weight or consideration. For,

1. It is confessed, that the word 'world'hath in Scripture various acceptations, and is sometimes taken for men in the world : but that it can be so taken, when the world is said to be made or created, when it is equivalent to all things, when it is proposed as a place whereunto any comes, and where he is, as is the state of the expression here, there can nothing more absurd, or foolish be imaoined.

2. Heb. i. 6. speaks not of the world to come; nor is there any place in the Scripture,where the word 'world'doth signify immortality, or the world to come, nor any thing looking that way. Heb. ii. 5. mention is made not simply of the world, but of the world to come ; nor doth that expression of the apostle relate unto that of chap. i. 6. where the word 'world' is used, but to what goes before and after in the

do, in queni ingressus Jesus, sacerdos noster faclus est (ut circumstantije omnes de-monstrant), apparet, non de preesenti, sed de future mundo agi, quandoquidem cap. 3. ver. 4. de Christo dixerat, si in terris esset, ne sacerdos quideiu esset.

DEITY OF CHRIST PROVED, AND

same chapter, where the thing itself is insisted on, in other terms. Nor is the future immortality intended there by the world to come, but the present state of the Christian church, called the 'world to come,' in reference to that of the Jews, which was past, in that use of speech, whereby it was expressed before it came ; as also, chap, vi. 5. Nor is the world to come, life eternal, or blessed immortality; life is to be had in it; but immortality, and the world to come, are not the same : nor is that world ever said to be made ; nor is it any where described as made already, but as to come; as Matt, xii, 32. Luke xviii. 30. xx. 35. Eph. i. 21. nor can it be said of the world to come, that it knew not Christ, as it is of this that he made. Nor can Christ be said to come into that world in the beginning, which he did not until after his resurrection ; nor is the world to come, that whereof it is said in the next verse, which expounds this, he came dg ra 'iSia, ' to his own,' for then,' his own ui 'idioi, knew him not:' so that there is not the least colour, or pretence of this foppery, that here they would evade the testimony of the Holy Ghost withal.

3. Those words, Heb. xi. 5. 'coming into the world he said,' 8cc. do not in the least intimate any thing of the world to come, but express the present world, into which Christ came, w hen God prepared a body for him, at his incarnation, and birth, which was in order to the sacrifice, which he afterward offered in this world, as shall be evidently manifested, when we come to the consideration of the priesthood of Christ.

It remains only that we hear their sense of these words, which they give as followetli.

'Q. But"^ what dost thou understand by these words. The world was made by him ?

' A. A twofold sense may be given of them; 1. That human

■■ Quid vero per hjec, raundus per cum factus est, intelligis?—Duplex eoruin scnsus dari potest: prior, quod genus humanuin j)cr Cliristum rcforinatuni, et quasi dcnuo factum sit, coquod ille generi liuraano, quod pcrierat, etaiternEe mortisubjectunierat, vitam attulit, eainque semi)iternam (quod etiaiii mundo Joliannes exprobrat, qui per Christum ab interitu vindicatus, euni non agiiovcrit, sed spreverit, et rcjecerit). Is cnim mos Hebraici sermonis, quod in cjusmodi loqueridi modis, verba faceru, crearc, idem valeant, quod denuo facere, et denuo crearc, idque propterca, quod verbis, quajcom-posita vocant, ea lingua careat. Posterior vero seiisus est, quod ilia immortalitas, quam expectanius per Christum, quantum ad nos, facta sit: quemadmodum eadem futurum saecuium, liabita ratione nostri, vocatur, licet jam Cbristo et angelis sit pr^esens.

kind was reformed by Christ, and as it were made again, because he brought life, and that eternal to human kind, which was lost, and was subject to eternal death ; (which also John upbraideth the world withal, which being vindicated by Christ from destruction, acknowledged him not, but contemned and rejected him), for that is the manner of the Hebrew speech, that in such terms of speaking, the words, to make, and create, are as much as to make again, or to create again, because that tongue wants those words, that are called compounds. The latter sense is, that that immortality which we expect, is as to us, made by Christ; as the same is called the world to come, in respectof us, although it be present to Christ, and the angels.'

1. That these expositions are destructive to one another' is evident: and yet which of them to adhere unto our cate-chists know not: such good builders are they, for to establish men in the faith. Pull down they will, though they have nothing to offer in the room of what they endeavour to destroy.

2. That the latter sense is not intended, was before evinced. The world, that was made in the beginning, into which Christ came, in which he was, which knew him not, which is said to be made, is a world : is not immortality, or life eternal; nor is there any thing in the context, that should in the least give countenance to such an absurd gloss.

3. Much less is the first sense of the words tolerable. For,

1. It is expressly contradictory to the text. * He made the world ;' that is, he reformed it, and ' the world knew him not;' when the world is not reformed, but by the knowledge of him.

2. To be made, doth no where simply signify to be renewed or reformed, unless it be joined with other expressions, restraining its significancy to such renovation.

3. The world was not renewed by Christ whilst he was in it: nor can it be said to be renewed by him, only on the account of laying the foundation of its renovation in his doctrine. By him the world was made, that is, he preached that doctrine, whereby some in the world were to be reformed. The world that Christ made knew him not: but the renewed world know him.

VOL. vni. X

4. The Hebraism of making, for reforming, is commonly pretended ; without any instance for its confirmation. John wrote in Greek, which language aljounds with compositions above any other in the world, and such as on all occasions he makes use of.

There is one passage more, that gives strength to the testimony insisted on, confirming the existence of Christ in his divine nature, antecedently to his incarnation, and that is, ver. 14. ' The Word was made flesh.' Who the Word is, and what, we have heard. He who w'as in the beginning, who was God, and was with God, who made all things, who made the world, in whom was light and life, he was made flesh. Flesh, so as that thereupon he dwelt amongst men, and conversed with them. How he was, and how he was said to be made flesh, I have declared in the consideration of his eternal Sonship, and shall not again insist thereon. This, after the interposition of sundry questions, our catechists take thus into consideration.

* Q. How' do they prove Christ to have been incarnate?

' A. From those testimonies, where according to their translation it is read, the Word was made flesh; John i.41, See. ' Q. How dost thou answer it ?

* A. On this account, because in that testimony, it is not said (as they speak), God was incarnate, or the divine nature assumed the human. The Word Avas made flesh, is one thing, and God was incarnate, or the divine nature assumed the human, another. Besides, these words, the Word was made flesh, or rather, the Speech was made flesh, may, and ought to be rendered, the Word was flesh. That it may be so ren-

' E qiiibus vero tcstlnioiiiis Scripturas dcmonstrare conantur, Christum (ut loquun-tur) iiicarnaluiii esy ?—Ex Vu, ubi secitnduiii eoruni versioncm legilur, A'erbuni caro factum (.ssc ; John i. 14. ct Phil. ii. 6, 7. 1 Tim. iii. 16, &c. — Qiiomodo ad pri-iiium respoiides?—Ea ratioiie, quod in co testiuionio non habeatur Dcum (ut lo-quuntur) iiicarnatum esse, aut quod natura divina assumpscrit Imnianam. Aliudeiiiiu est, A'eibum caro facluni est, aliud, Deus incartiatus est (ut loquuntur) vel natura divina assumjiserit liuniaiiani. Pra?tcrea, li?ec verba, Verbuni caro factum est, vel polius, Sermo caro factus est, possunt, et dibent ila reddi, Sernio caro fuit. Posse ita reddi, e testimoniis, in quibus vox iyeuro (qiuu liic per factum est traiislala est) verbo fuit reddita iiivenitur, apparet; ut in cudem, cap. v. 6. et Luca; xxiv. 19. Fuit homo missus a Deo, &c. Et, Qui fuit vir, propheta, 6cc. Debere vero reddi j)er verbuni fuit, ordo verborum Johannis docet, qui valde inconvenienter ioquutus fuisset, sermoiiem carneni factum esse, id est, ut adversarii interprctantur, naturain divinam assumpsisse humanam, postquam ea jam de iiio sermone cxposuisset, qua; iiativitatem hominis Jesu Christ! subsccuta sunt; ut sunt h;iic ; Johainiem Baptistam de iilo testatum esse; ilhiin in mundo fuisse ; a suis non fuissc reccptum; quod lis, a quibus leceptus fuisset, potestatcni dedcrit, ut filii Dei liercut.

dered, appears from the testimonies, in which the word lyiv£To (which is here translated) was made, is found rendered by the word, was ; as in this chap. ver. 6. and Luke xxiv. 19, &c. Also that it ought to be so rendered, the order of John's words teacheth, who should have spoken very inconveniently, the Word was made flesh, that is, as our adversaries interpret it, the divine nature assumed the human, after he had spoken those things of the Word, which followed the nativity of the man Christ Jesus, such as are these: John bare witness of him; he came into the world; he was not received of his own; that to them that received him, he gave power to become the sons of God.'

This is the last plea they use in this case; the dying groans of their perishing cause are in it; which will provide them neither with succour, or relief. For,

1. It is not words, or expressions, that we contend about. Grant the thing pleaded for, and we will not contend with any living about the expressions, wherein it is by any man delivered. By the incarnation of the Son of God, and by the Divine nature assuming the human, we intend no more than what is here asserted, the Word, who was God, was made flesh.

2. All they have to plead to the thing insisted on, is, that the word lyivero, may, yea ought to be translated,' fuit,* *was,' and not' factus est,' * was made. But,

1. Suppose it should be translated was, what would it avail them ? He that was a man, was made a man. In that sense it expresses what he was, but withal denotes how he came so to be. He who was the Word before, was also a man ; let them shew us any other way, how he became so, but only by being made so, and upon a supposition of this new translation, they may obtain something. But,

2. How will they prove, that so much as it may be rendered by ' fuit,' 'was.' They tell you it is so in two other places in the New Testament; but doth that prove that it may so much as be so rendered here? The proper sense, and common usage of it is, 'was made;' and because it is once or twice used in a peculiar sense, may it be so rendered here, where nothing requires that it be turned aside from its most usual acceptation ; yea much enforcing it thereunto.

3. That it ought to be rendered by * fuit,' 'was,' they plead

X 2

the mentioning before of things done after Christ's incarnation (as we call it), so that it cannot be, he was made flesh; but,

1. Will tliey say, that this order is observed by the apostle, that that which is first done, is first expressed, as to all particulars? What then becomes of their interpretation, who say the Word was made God by his exaltation, and made flesh in his humiliation; and yet how much is that, which in their sense was last expressed, before that which went before it? Or will they say, in him was the life of man, before he was made flesh? When the life of man, according to them, depends on his resurrection solely, which was after he ceased to be flesh in their sense. Or what conscience have these men, that in their disputes will object that to the interpretation of others, which they must receive, and embrace for the establishing of their own?

2. The order of the words is most proper; John having asserted the Deity of Christ, with some general concomitants and consequences of the dispensation, wherein he undertakes to be a Mediator; in his fourteenth verse enters particularly upoa a description of his entrance upon his employment, and his carrying it on by the revelation of the will of God ; so that without either difficulty or straining, the sense and intendment of the Holy Ghost falls in clearly in the words.

3. It is evident, that the word neither may, nor ought to be translated according to their desire. For,

1. It being so often said before, that the Word was, the Word is still j/v, and not lytvtTo ; in the beginning the Word tvas, and the Word ivas God, and the W^ord ivas with God. The same was; he u'as in the world, he ifcs the light; still the same word; so that if no more were intended, but what was before expressed, the terms would not be changed without exceedingly obscuring the sense ; and therefore, lyivero must signify somewhat more than j/i^.

2. The word iyivsro applied to other things in this very place, denotes their making, or their original, which our catechists did not question in the consideration of the places where it is so used ; as ver.3. 'all things were t7iade by him, and without him was nothing made, that was made, and ver. 10. the world was rnadf; by him.'

3. This phrase is expounded accordingly in other places, as Rom. i. 3. tov yevofiivov Ik GiripfiaTog Aaj3(8 Kara aapKa, ' made of the seed of David according to the flesh ;' and Gal. iv. 4. ytvojuevov tic yvvaiKoq, ' made of a woman ;' but they think to salve all by the ensuing exposition of these words.

' Q. How* is that to be understood, the Word was flesh ? ' A. That he by whom God perfectly revealed all his will, who is therefore,called ' Sermo' by John, was a man, subject to all miseries, and afllictions, and lastly to death itself. For the Scripture useth the word flesh in that sense, as is clear from those places, where God speaks, My Spirit shall not always contend with man, seeing he is flesh ; Gen. vi. 3. and Peter, All flesh is grass ; 1 Pet. i. 24.'

This is the upshot of our catechists exposition of this first chapter of John, as to the person of Christ. Which is, 1. Absurd, upon their own suppositions ; for the testimonies produced affirm every man to be flesh: so that to say he is a man, is to say he is flesh ; and to say that man was flesh, is to say that a man was a man, inasmuch as every man is flesh.

2. False, and no way fitted to the intendment of the Holy Ghost; for he was made flesh antecedently to his dwelling amongst us; which immediately follows in the text; nor is his being made flesh suited to any thing in his place, but his conversation with men, which answers his incarnation, not his mediation ; neither is this exposition confirmed by any instance from the Scriptures, of the like expression used concerning Jesus Christ; as that we urge is, Rom. i. 3. Gal. iv. 4. and other places. The place evidently affirms, the Word to be made something that it was not before, when he was the Word only; and cannot be affirmed of him, as he was man; in which sense he was always obnoxious to miseries and death.

And this is all which our catechists in several places have thought meet to insist on, by way of exception or opposition to our undeniable and manifest testimonies from

' Qua ratioiie illud intelligendum est, Sermonem carnem fiiisse ?—Quod is, per quein Deus vuluntatein suuin ouiuem perfecte exposuissel, et |)ropterea a Joliaiine Sernio appellatus fuisset, homo fuerit, omnibus niiseriis, et alHictionibus, ac uiorti denique subjectus. Eteiiiui vocem caro eo sensuScriptura usurpat, ut ex lis locis per-epicuum est, ubi Deus loquitur. Non conteiidet spiiitus nicus cum homine in aater-sium, quia caro est, Gen. vi. 3. Et Pctrus, omnis caro ut ra-iiuni; 1 Pet. i. ",'4.

this first chapter of John, unto the great and sacred truth contended for ; which I have at large insisted on, that the reader from this one instance, may take a taste of their dealing in the rest; and of the desperateness of the cause which they have undertaken, driving them to such desperate shifts, for the maintenance and protection of it; in the residue I shall be more brief.

John vi. 62. is in the next place taken into consideration. The words are, * What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before r' What we intend from hence, and the force of the argument from this testimony insisted on, will the better appear, if we add unto it those other places of Scripture, wherein the same thing is more expressly and emphatically affirmed, which our catechists cast (or some of them) quite into another place, on pretence of the method wherein they proceed, indeed to take off from the evidence of the testimony, as they deal with what we plead from John the first; the places I intend are;

John iii. 13. ' And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man, who is in heaven.'

Ver. 31. ' He that cometh from above, is above all. He that cometh from heaven, is above all.'

John viii. 23. ' Ye are from beneath, I am from above.'

John xvi. 28. * I am come forth from the Father, and am come into the world ; and again I leave the world, and go to the Father.*

Hence we thus argue. He that was in heaven before he was on the earth, and who was also in heaven, whilst he was on the earth, is the eternal God. But this doth Jesus Christ abundantly confirm concerning himself; therefore he is the eternal God blessed for ever.

In answer to the first place our catechists thus proceed.

' Q. What" answerest thon to the second testimony: John vi. 62.

' A. Neither is here any mention made expressly of pre-eter-nity; for in this place the Scripture witnesseth, that the Son

" Ad secundum autcm quid respoudes?—Neque liic uUam praj-aBtcrnitatis men-lionrm factani cxpressc ; nam hoc in loco firniin hoiiiiiiis, id est, liominem in cociis fuisse testatur Scriptura, qucni citra uilaiu conlrovcrsiam prE-a-teriiuiu non cxlitissc certain c&t.

of man, that is, a man, was in heaven, who without all controversy was not eternally pre-existent.' So they.

1. It is expressly affirmed, that Christ was in heaven, before his coming into the world. And if we evince his pre-existence to his incarnation, against the Socinians, the task will not be difficult to prove that pre-existence to be in an eternal Divine nature against the Arians. It is sufficient as to our intendment in producing this testimony, that it is affirmed, that Christ ^v Trportpov in heaven, before his coming forth into the world ; in what nature we elsewhere prove.

2. It is said indeed that the Son of man was in heaven, which makes it evident, that he who is the Son of man, hath another nature, besides that wherein he is the Son of man. wherein he is the Son of God. And by affirming that the Son of man was in heaven before, it doth no more assert that he was eternal, and in heaven in that nature, wherein he is the Son of man, than the affirmation that God redeemed his church with his own blood, doth prove, that the blood shed was the blood of the Divine nature. Both the affirmations are concerning the person of Christ. As he who was God, shed his blood as he was man ; so he who was man, was eternal, and in heaven, as he was God. So that the answer doth merely beg the thing in question ; viz. * that Christ is not God and man in one person.

3. The insinuation here of Christ's being in heaven as man, before his ascension, mentioned in the Scripture, shall be considered, when we come to the proposal made of that figment by Mr. Biddle in his chapter of the prophetical office of Christ. In answer to the other testimonies recited, they thus proceed towards the latter end of their chapter, concerning the person of Christ.

' Q. What '^ answerest thou to John iii. 13. x. 36. xvi. 28. xvii. 18.

* Ubivero Scriptura de Christo ait, quod de cceIo descendit, a pafreexivit, et in mundum venit. Job. iii. 13. x. 36. xvi. 28. xvii. 18. quid ad bcec respondes i

Ex lis non probari divinam naturam liinc apparere, quod primi testimonii verba, descendit de coelo, possint figiirate accipi, quemadmodum, Jac. i. 17. Onine datum bunuin et donura perfectuiii desursuin est, descendens a Patre iuininum : et Apoc. xxi. 2. 10. Vidi civitateui saiictani, Hierusalem novaiii, descendenteni de coelo a Deo, &c. Quod si proprie accipi debeant, quod nos perlibenter adniittiiiius, apparet non de alio ilia dicta, quam de filio honiinis, qui cum personam humanam necessario habeat, Deus nafura esse non potest. Porro, quod Scriptura testatur de Christo, quod Pater eiim miserit in mundum, idem de Apostolis Cliristi legimus in iisdem verbis citatis jupcrius. Quemadmodum me misisti in mundum, et ego misi cos in mundum j Job.

'ThataDivine nature is nothere proved, appeareth,because the words of the first testimony, he came down from heaven, may be received figuratively, as James i. 17. Every good and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down f/om the Father of lights : and Rev. xxi. 2. 10. I saw the holy city Jerusalem coming down from God. But if the words be taken properly, which we willingly admit, it appears, that they are not spoken of any other than the Son of man, who seeing he hath necessarily an human person, he cannot by nature be God. Moreover, for what the Scripture witnesseth of Christ, that the Father sent him into the world, the same we read of the apostles of Christ in the same words above alledged : as John xvii. 18. As thou hast sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world. And these words, Christ came forth from the Father, are of the same import with he descended from heaven. To come into the world is of that sort, as the Scripture manifests to have been after the nativity of Christ; John xviii. 37. where the Lord himself says : For this I am born, and come into the world, that I inight bear witness to the truth: and 1 John iv. 1. It is written, many false prophets are gone forth into the world. Wherefore, from this kind of speaking, a divine nature in Christ cannot be proved ; but in all these speeches only what was the divine original of the office of Christ, is described.'

1. That these expressions are merely figuratively to be expounded, they dare not assert; nor is there any colour given that they may be so received from the instances produced from James i. 17. and Rev. xxi. 2. for there is only mention made of descending, or coming down, which word we insist not on by itself, but as it is conjoined with the testimony of his being in heaven before his descending; which takes off all pretence of a parity of reason in the places compared.

2. Ail that follows is a perfect begging of the thing in

xvii. 18. Ea vpro verba, quod Cliristus a Patre cxicrit, idem valciit, (luod de coelo descfiidit. Venire vero in nuinduni, id cjnsiiiodi est, (luod Scriptiira post nativitatera Ctirist: extitisse oslendit; Julm xviii. 37. ubi ipse Doiiiiniis ait, ICj^o in lioc natiis sum, etin mmidMn) veni, ut testimonium jjerliiheam verilati. Kt 1 .loTi. iv. 1. Scrip-turn est, nuiitos falsos Pro|)lietas oxiisse in niiinduiii. Qiiaie ex ejiisiiiodi loqiiendi niodis natiira diviiia in Cliristo pruhari non potest. In onjiiilxis vero his locutioni-bus, quam divinum muneris Cliristi jirinuipium fuerit, dunlaxaf dcscribitur.

question; because Christ is the Son of man, it follows that he is a true man ; but not, that he hath the personality of a man, or a human personality. Personality belongs not to the essence, but the existence of a man. So that here they do but repeat theirown hypothesis, in answer to an express testimony of Scripture against it. Their confession of the proper use of the word, is but to give colour to the figment formerly intimated, which shall be in due place (God assisting) discovered.

3. They utterly omit, and take no notice of that place, where Christ says, he so came from heaven, as that he was still in heaven ; nor do they mention any thing of that, which we lay greatest weight on, of his affirming that he was in heaven before ; but merely insist on the word descending, or coming down, and yet they can no other way deal with that neither, but by begging the thing in question.

4. We do not argue merely from the words of Christ's being sent into the world, but in this conjunct consideration, that he was so sent into the world, as that he was in heaven before, and so came forth from the Father, and was with him in heaven before his coming forth, and this our catechists thought good to oversee.

5. The difference of Christ's being sent into the world, and the apostles by him, which they parallel, as to the purpose in hand, lies in this, that Christ was so sent of the Father, that he came forth from the Father, and was with him in heaven before his sending, which proves him to have another nature, than that wherein he was sent: the similitude alledged consists quite in other things. Neither,

6. Doth the Scripture in John xviii. 37. testify, that Christ's sending into the world was after his nativity, but only that the end of them both, was to bear witness to the truth. And indeed, I was born, and came into the world, are but the same, the one being exegetical of the other. But his being born, and his coming into the world, is in the testimonies cited, plainly asserted in reference to an existence that he had in heaven before. And thus as our argument is not at all touched in this answer, so is their answer closed as it began, with the begging of that which is not only questioned, but sufficiently disproved; namely, that Christ was in his human nature taken up into heaven and instructed in

the will of God, before his entrance upon his prophetical office.

And this is the whole of what they have to except against this evident testimony of the Divine nature of Christ. He was in heaven, with the Father, before he came forth from the Father, or was sent into the world ; and Kara aX\o koi a'XAo, was in heaven, when he was in the earth, and at his ascension returned thither where he was before. And so much for the vindication of this second testimony.

John vi. 62. is the second place I can meet with in all the annotations of Grotius, wherein he seems to assert the union of the human nature of Christ with the eternal Word : if he do so. It is not with the man that I have any difference, nor do I impose any thing on him for his judgment; I only take liberty, having so great cause given, to discuss his annotations.

There remains one more of the first rank, as they are sorted by our catechists, for the proof of the eternity of Christ, which is also from John viii. 58, ' Before Abraham was I am,' that they insist on.

* In y this place the pre-eternity of Christ is not only not expressed, being it is one thing to be before Abraham, and another to be eternal, but also it is not so much as expressed, that he was before the virgin IVIary. For these words may otherwise be read ; namely. Verily, verily I say unto you, before Abraham was made I am; as it appears from those places in the same Evangelist, where the like Greek phrase is used, chap. xiii. 19. xiv. 29.

y In lidc loco non solum non expriniitur pias-feternifas Cliristi.cum aliiid sit, ante Abraliamuni fuisse, aliud, prse-aeteriiiiiu ; verum iie hoc quicJem exprcssuni est, ipsiim ante IMariain vir(;ineni fuisse. Eteniniea verba aliter legi posse(niiiiiruni hac rationc. Amen, Amen, dice vobis, priusquara Abraham fiat, ego siun) apparet ex iis locis apud eiinciem evangeiistani, ubi siuiilis et eadeni lociitio graeca habefiir, cap. xiii. 19. etuiodo (lico vobis, priiis(]uam fiat, ut cum factum fuerit credatis. Et cap. xiv. 29. et nunc dixi vobis ])riusquam fiat, &c.—Qua; vero ejus senlentia foret lectionis?— Adnioduin egregia : etenim aduioiiet Christus Judwos, qui cum in seriuone capere volcbant, ut duni tempus iiaberent, credercnt ipsum esse numdi juceni, antequam diviiia gratia, quaru Christus iis offercbat, ab iis toilerclur, et ad Gentes transfer-retur. Quod vero ea verba, ego sum, sint ad eum modum supph'nda, ac si ipse subjerissct iis, ego sun> lux nuimli, superius e principio ejus oralionis, ver. 12. constat et hinc, (juod Christus bis seipsuni iisdem verbis, ego sum, lucem mundi vo-caverit, ver. V4. 28. ea vero verba, prius(]uam Abraham fiat, id significare quod diximus, e ncjtatioue nomiuis Abrahaui deprolicmii potest; constat inter omnes Abralianuim notare patrem M)ullaruin gentium. Cum vero Abram non sit factus j)rius Abraham, (juani Dei gratia, in Christo manifestata, in multas gentes redundaref, (piippe (juod Abrabaiuus uuius taiitum pentis aniea pater fuerit, apparet scutcnliani horuui vcrboruni, ([u-im attuliiuus, esse ipsissiniam.

* Q. What then would be the sense of this reading ?

* A. Very eminent. For Christ admonisheth the Jews,who would have ensnared him in his speech, that whilst they had time, they should believe in him the light of the world, before the divine grace which Christ offered to them, should be taken from them, and be carried to the Gentiles. But that these words, * I am,' are to be supplied in that manner, as if himself had added to them, I am the light of the world, appears, because that in the beginning of his speech, ver. 12. he had twice in these words, * I am,' called himself the light of the world ; ver. 24, 25. and that these words, before Abraham be, do signify that which we have said, may be perceived from the notation of that word Abraham; for it is evident, that Abraham notes the father of many nations : seeing then that Abram was made Abraham, before the grace of God, manifested in Christ, redounded to many nations, for Abraham before was the father of one nation only, it appears that that is the very sense of the words which we have given.'

If our adversaries can well quit themselves of this evidence, I believe they will have no small hopes of escaping in the whole trial. And if they meet with judges so partially addicted to them and their cause, as to accept of such manifest juggling, and perverting of the Scriptures, I know not what they may not expect or hope for. Especially, seeing how they exalt and triumph in this invention; as may be seen in the words of Socinus himself, in his answer to Erasmus Johannes, p. 67. For whereas Erasmus says, ' * I confess in my whole life, I never met with any interpretation of Scripture more wrested, or violently perverting the sense of it.' The other replies. * I hoped rather that thou wouldst confess, that in thy whole life thou hadst never heard an interpretation more acute, and true than this, nor which did savour more of somewhat divine, or evidenced

'■ Fateor me per omnem vitam meam non magis contortam scripturae interpretati-onem autlivisse ; ideoque earn penitus improbo. Eras. Johan. Cum primuni fatendi verbum in tuis verbis animadvert), sperabam te potius nullam in tiia vita scripture iiiterpretationem audivisse, qufe hac sit acutior aut veriorj quaeque magis divinuni quid sapiat, et a Deo ipso patefactam fuisse prae se ferat. Ego quideni certe noii leves conjecturas liabeo, ilium, qui primus Klate nostra earn in luceni pertulit (hie autem is fuit,qui primus quoque sententiam de Christi origine, quani ego constanter defendo renovavit) precibus muitis ab ipso Cliristo impetrasse. Hoc profecto affir-niare ausim, cum Deus illi viro permuita, aliis prorsus tunc teuiporis incognita, patefe-cerit, vix quidquani inter ilia omnia esse quod iiiterpretatione hac divinius vider queat. Socin. disput. cum Eras. Jolian. arg. 4. p. 67.

more clearly its revelation from God. I truly have not light conjectures, that he who brought it first to light in our age (now this was he, who in this age renewed the opinion of the original of Christ, which I constantly defend) (that is, his uncle Loelius) obtained it of Christ by many prayers. This truly I dare affirm, that whereas God revealed many things to that man, at that time altogether unknown to others, yet there is scarce any thing amongst them all, that may seem more divine, than this interpretation,'

Of this esteem is this interpretation of these words with them. They profess it to be one of the best, and most divine discoveries, that ever was made by them ; whereto for my part I freely assent; though withal, I believe it to be as violent a perverting of the Scripture, and corrupting of the word of God, as the world can bear witness to.

1. Let the Christian reader, without the least prejudicial thoughts from the interpretation of this, or that man, consult the text, and context. The head of the discourse, which gives occasion to these words of Christ concerning himself, lies evidently and undeniably in ver. 51. * Verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man keep my saying, he shall never see death:' upon this the Jews rise up against him, as one that boasted of himself above measure, and preferred himself before his betters : ver- 52. ' Then said the Jews unto him, now we know that thou hast a devil; Abraham is dead, and the prophets, and thou sayest, if a man keep my sayings he shall never taste of death ;' and ver. 53. ' Art thou greater than our father Abraham, who is dead, and the prophets are dead, whom makest thou thyself to be.' Two things are here charged on him by the Jews. First in general, that he preferred, exalted, and honoured himself. 2. In particular, that he made himself better then Abraham their father. To both which charges, Christ answers in order in the following words : to the first, or general charge of honouring himself; ver. 54, 55. 'Jesus answered, if I honour myself, my honour is nothing; it is my Father that honoureth me, of whom ye say, that he is your God. Ye have not known him, but I know him, and if 1 should say I know him not, 1 shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying.' His honour he had from God, whom they professed, but knew not. 2. To that of Abraham he replies, ver. 56. 'Your fu-

ther Abraham rejoiced to see my day; and he saw it, and was glad.' Though Abraham was so truly great, and the friend of God, yet his great joy was from his belief in me ; whereby he saw my day. To this the Jews reply, labouring to convince him of a falsehood, from the impossibility of the things that he had asserted, ver. 57. 'Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?' Abraham was dead so many hundred years before thou wast born ; how couldst thou see him, or he thee ? To this in the last place our Saviour replies, ver. 58. 'Verily, verily, I say unto you, before Abraham was, I am.' The Jews knowing that by these words he asserted his Deity, and that it was impossible on any other account to make good, that he who in their esteem was not fifty years old (indeed but a little above thirty), should be before Abraham, as in a case of blasphemy, they take up stones to stone him, ver. 59. as was their perpetual manner, to attempt to kill him under pretence of blasphemy, when he asserted his Deity,as John V. 18. ' Therefore thought

the Jews the more to kill him, because he said, that God

was his Father, making himself equal with God.'

This naked and unprejudicate view of the text, is sufficient to obviate all the operous and sophistical exceptions of our catechists, so that 1 shall not need long to insist upon them. That which we have asserted maybe thus proposed. He who in respect of his human nature, was many hundred years after Abraham, yet was in another respect existing before him; he had an existence before his birth, as to his divine nature. Now this doth Christ expressly affirm concerning himself. And nothing else is pretended but only his Divine nature, wherein he should so exist. They say then,

1. That these words do not signify pre-eternity, but only something before Abraham. It is enough, that his existence so many hundred years before his nativity is evidently asserted; his eternity from thence will evidently be concluded, and they will not deny, that he may as well be eternal, as be before Abraham. But,

2. The words may be rendered,' priusquam Abraham fiat, ego sum ;' ' before Abraham be made.' But 1. They may be so rendered, is no proof at all that they ought to be so: and, as was before observed, if this be sufficient to evade the sense

of a place, that any word in it may otherwise be rendered, because it is, or maybe so in some other place, nothing certain can be concluded from any testimony of the Scriptures whatever. But that ihey may not be so rendered is evident. 1. From the context, as before declared. 2. From the opposition between lyu) ft/xt, * 1 am,' and ' Abraham was,' which evidently denotes a time past, as it stands in comparison withwhat Christ says of himself. And 3. The words in such a construction as this, require an interpretation as to the time past. And 4. because this interpretation of the words corrupts the whole sense of the place, and wrests it contrary to the design and intendment of our Saviour. But then they say,

' 3. The sense is excellent; for before Abraham be made, isasmuch as before he be Abraham, or the father of many nations, which he was when the Gospel w^as preached to the conversion of the Gentiles. I am, that is, I am the light of the world, which you should do well to walk in, and attend unto.'

1. That this interpretation in general is altogether alien, and strange from the scope of the place, the Christian reader, upon the bare view of it, will be able to judge. 2. It is false. 1. Because Abraham was the father of many nations, Jews, and proselytes, before the preaching of the Gospel, as Gen. XV. 5. 2. It is false, that Abraham was not Abraham, until alter the ascension of Christ, and preaching of the Gospel to the Gentiles. He was made Abraham, from his first enjoyment of his name, and seed in Isaac, and is constantly so called. 3. It is frivolous ; for if Christ was, before Abram was made Abraham, we obtain what we plead for, for he was made so, when God gave him that name. But, it should be, before Abram be made Abraham, or there is no sense in the words ; nor then neither, unless Abraham be taken as a common appellative, for the father of many nations, and not a proper name, whereof in Scripture there is not any example. 4. It is horribly wrested, 1. In making the words, 'I am,' eliptical; whereas there-js neither need of, nor colour for such a pretence. 2. In supplying the feigned elipsis with a word at such a distance, as from ver. 12, to ver. 58. 3. In making Christ to say, he is the liglit of the world, before the preaching of the Gospel to the Gentiles,

when the * world' is every where in the Gospel taken quite in another sense, for the Jews and Gentiles, and not for the Jews only, which according to this interpretation it must be. 4. It leaves no reason of the following attempt of the Jews to stone him, upon the particular provocation of this assertion, he having before affirmed himself to be the light of the world, which they were not moved at. There is indeed no end of the falsities, follies, and corruptions of this perverting, and corrupting of the word of God.

For the grammatical vindication of the words, and the translation of the word yivta'^ai, in a sense of that which is past, there is no occasion administered by our catechists, and therefore I shall not trouble the reader therewith.

And of the first sort of testimonies, which they except against, and their exceptions, thus far.

A little animadversion upon the catechists good friend Grotius, shuts up this discourse and chapter. In the end he agrees with them, but fixes on a new medium for the accomplishment of it, not daring to espouse an interpretation so absurd in itself, and so abhorrent from the common sense of all men, that ever professed the name of Christ. He takes then another course, yet no less aiming than they, to disappoint this evidence of the pre-existence of Christ before his nativity: * Trptv A|3paa/x yevecr^'at, antequam esset,^ saith he, * before he was :' and gives many instances to prove the propriety of so translating that expression. ''Eyw elfxi: praesens pro imperfecto: eram: Syrus. lyil) ireXev Nonnus: sic in Grseco ;' Psal. xc. 2. Trplv to. 6pr} yevri^iivai av a.' very good, before Abraham was, or was born, Christ was, as in that of the psalm, ' before the mountains were made, thou art.* And a little to help a friend at so good a work; it is no new thing for this evangelist to use the present for the preterimperfect tense : as chap. xiv. 9. toctovtov xpovov fit^ v}.iCjv lifxi, KOL ovK tyvojKaQ /tie" 'I am so long,' for ' I was,' or ' I have been so long with you :' Sec. And chap. xv. 27. tin aV dpxng jxtr Ifiov lart' ' because ye have been with me from the beginning ;' Thus far then we are agreed : but how should this be, that Christ thus was, before Abraham was, * Fuerat,' saith he,'autem ante Abrahamum Jesus, divina constitutione.' In God's appointment Jesus was before Abraham was born : yea and so was Grotius, and Socinus,

and every man in the world, 'for known unto God are all his ■works from the foundation of the world.' And this is that great privilege it seems, that our Saviour vindicates to himself, without any occasion, to no purpose, insisting on that which is common to him with all the elect of God in the best sense of the words. Of that other text of Scripture, John xvii. 5, which together with this he labours to corrupt, I shall speak afterward. I shall only add, that our great doctors do not in this business agree. Grotius here makes no mention of Socinus's gloss : and Socinus before-hand rejects this of Grotius, as absurd and fond : and as such let it pass; as having no occasion given from the words foregoing, nor colour from the matter, nor phrase of words, no significancy to the business in hand.

CHAP. IX.

The pre-eternity of Christ farther evinced. Sundry texts of Scripture vindicated.

In the consideration of the ensuing testimonies I shall content myself with more brief observations upon, and discoveries of the corruption of our adversaries, having given a large testimony thereof in the chapter foregoing. Thus then they proceed.

' Q. What* are the testimonies of Scripture wherein they think, that this pre-eternity of Christ is not indeed expressed, but yet may thence be proved ?

' A. These which seem to attribute to the Lord Jesus some things from eternity, and some things in a certain and determinate time.'

Let the gentlemen take their own way and method ; we shall meet with them at the first stile, or rather brazen-wall, which they endeavour to climb over.

' Q. What'' are the testimonies which seem to attribute some things to the Lord Jesus from eternity ?

=> Qua; vero sunt tcstimonia Scriptunv, in quibiis putant, non cxprinii quiilcin pr<x'-n;teriiilatciu Chrisli, ex iis lamen cfTici posse ?—Ea tjua; videntur Dotiiino Jcsu ciuasdani res aUribuere, ab wtcriio; quasdam vero tempore certo ot definito.

'' Qua:naiii sunt tesliiuonia, (pia; Douiiuo Jesu ab a>terno res quasdam attribucre videntur?—Sunt ea, ex qulbus coiiantur exstruere Christum ab ajtcrno ex essentia patris geuitum.

* A. They are those, from which they endeavour to confirm that Christ was begotten from eternity of the essence of his Father.'

These are some of the places wherein this property of the Godhead, eternity, is ascribed to our Saviour; it is confessed.

' Q. Buf^ from what places do they endeavour to prove that Christ v/as from eternity, begotten of the essence of his Father ?

' A. From these chiefly, Mich. v. 2. Psal. ii. 7. and ex. 10. Prov. viii. 23.'

These are only some of the testimonies that are used to this purpose. 2. It is enough to prove Christ eternal, if we prove him begotten of his Father, for no such thing can be new in God. 3. That he is the only begotten Son of the Father, which is of the same import with that here opposed by our catechists, hath been before declared and proved, chap. 6.

* Q. Buf^ how must we answer these testimonies? ' A. Before I answer to each testimony, it is to be known, that this generation of the essence of the Father is impossible. For if Christ were begotten of the essence of his Father, either he took his whole essence, or but part: part of his essence he could not take, for the divine essence is impartible : nor the whole, for it being one in number is incommunicable.'

And this is the fruit of measuring spiritual things by carnal; infinite by finite ; God by ourselves ; the object of faith, by corrupted rules of corrupted reason. But 1. that which God hath ^ revealed to be so, is not impossible to be so ; let God be true and all men liars: that this is revealed hath been undeniably evinced. 2. What is impossible in finite, limited essences, may be possible and convenient to that which is infinite and unlimited ; as is that whereof we

« Ex quil)us vero locis exstruere conantur, Christum ab fetemo ex essentia Patris genitum?—Ex his potlssimum. Mich. v. 2. Psal. ii. 7. ex. 10. Prov. viii. 23.

'^ Qui vero ad hajc testifSonia respondendum est ?—Antequam ad singula testi-roonia respondeam, sciendum est, earn ex essentia Patris gencrationem esseimpos-sibilem. Nam si Christus ex essentia Patris genitus fuisset, aut partem essentise sumpsissct, aut totam. Essentise partem sumere non potuit, eo quod sit impartibilis divina essentia; neque totam, cum sit una numero, ac proinde inconimunicabiUs.

« Nisi Scriptura dixisset, non licuisset dicere, sed ex quo scriptum estdici potest Kabb. Ruben, apud Gaiat. lib. 3.

VOL. VIII. Y

speak. 3. It is not impossible, in the sense wherein that word must here be used, if any thing be signified by it. It is not, it cannot be so, in limited things, therefore not in things infinite; we cannot comprehend it, therefore it cannot be so; but the nature of the thing, about which it is, is inconsistent with it; this is denied, for God hath revealed the contrary. 4. For the parting of the divine essence, or receiving a part of the divine essence, our catechists might have left out, as having none to push at with it, none standing in the way of that horn of their dilemma. 5. We say then, that in the eternal generation of the Son, the whole essence of the Father is communicated to the Son, as to a personal existence in the same essence, without multiplication or division of it; the same essence continuing still one in number; and this without the least shew of impossibility in an infinite essence. All the arguments that lie ao;ainst it beino; taken from the properties and attendencies of that which is finite.

Come we to the particular testimonies: The first is Mich. v. 2. * But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall come forth unto me that is to be a ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting, or the days of eternity.'

* Q. How *^ must this first testimony of the Scripture be answered ?

' A. This testimony hath nothing at all of his generation of the essence of his Fatlier : and a pre-eternal generation it no way proves. For here is mention of beginning, anddays, which in eternity have no place. And these words which in the vulgar are from the days of eternity, in the Hebrew are from the days of seculi the days of an age. And 'dies seculi' are the same with ' diesantiqui,'as Isa. Ixiii. 9,11. INIal. iii.4. The sense of this place is, that Christ should have the original of his nativity from *\;he beginning, and from the an-

f Qui tainenad priiiiuin ScripturaR testimonium respondendum est?—Id testimonium de generationc ex essentia Patris niliil prorsus liabet; generationcm vcro prse-aetcrnam nulla probat ratione ; liic enim nientio fit initirct dicrum, qure in seternitate locum noil habent, ct verba hxc, quai in Vulgata leguntiir, a diebus rcternitatis, in Hjebraeo extant, a diebus seculi: dies vcro seculi idem quoil dies antiqui notant, ut Es. Ixiii. 9. 11. ]\Ial. iii. 4. Scntcntia vero loci hujus est, Ciiristuni originem nativitatis suae ab ipso principio et annis antii";uis ducturum,id est, ab eo tempore, quo Dcus in populo suo regem stabilivit, quod reipsa in Davide factum est, qui et BethlelieiDila fuit, et autor stirpis, et familiai Christi.

TESTIMONIES THEREOF VINDICATED. 323

cient years, that is, from that time wherein God established a king among his people ; which was done really in David, who was a Bethlehemite, and the author of the stock, and family of Christ.'

Ans. 1. Who necessitated our catechists to urge this place to prove the generation of Christ, when it is used only to prove his generation to be eternal: the thing itself being proved by other testimonies in abundance. That he was begotten of the Father is confessed : that he was begotten of the essence of his Father was before proved. Yea that which is here called ^ his going forth, is his generation of his Father, or somewhat else that our adversaries can assign • that it is not the latter shall immediately be evinced.

2. Here is no mention of the'' beginning ; and those who in the latter words reject the Vulgar edition, cannot honestly insist on the former from thence, because it serves their turn. Yet how that word is sometimes used, and in what sense it may be so, where eternity is intended, hath been declared in the last chapter.

3. That days are not used with, and to express eternity, in Scripture, though strictly there be no days, nor time in eternity, is absurd negligence and confidence to affirm. Job X. 5. ' Are thy days as the days of man ? Are thy years as man's days ?' Hence God is called ' the ancient of days ;' Dan. vii. 9. ' Thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail;' Heb. i. 12.

4. For the word Gnolam, translated ' seculi:' it hath in the Scripture various significations. It comes from a' word signifying to hide ; and denotes an unknown hidden duration. Principally ' perpetuum, eternum, sempiternum :' that which is pre-eternal and eternal. Sometimes a very long time. Gen. ix. 12, and ver. 16. that is perpetual : so Gen. xvii. 13. and in other places, with a reference to the sovereignty of God ; Gen. xxi. 33. It is ascribed to God as a property of his, and signifies eternal: Jehova Gnolam : so Psal. Ixxxix. 2. as also Isa, xlv. 17. Let all places where the word in Scripture, in this sense is used, be reckoned up (which are above 300), and it will appear, that in far the greatest number of

' &>V latere, abscondere, occultare. 2 Chron. Ix. 2. Levit. iv. xiii. in Niphal la-tuit, absconditus, occultatus fuit: iiiHiphil abscoiidit, celavit, occultavit. inde na"?l^ Virgo, quia viro occulta. Gen. xxiv. 4^i.

Y 2

them, it signifies absolutely eternity. In the places of Isa. Ixiii. 9, 11. and Mai. iii. 4. a long time indeed is signified : but yet that which reaches to the utmost of the thing, or matter treated of. And upon the same rule where it is put absolutely it signifies eternity. So doth diojv in the New Testament; by which the Septuagint often render Gnolam, whence ttjoo xpovwv aiMviwv, may be ' from eternity/ 2 Tim. i. 9. Tit. i. 2. Wherein also with a like expression to that under consideration, the times of eternity are mentioned, though perhaps with a peculiar respect to something at the beginning of the world. This then is here expressed. He that was in the fulness of time born at Bethlehem, had his goings forth from the Father from eternity.

5. The pretended sense of our adversaries is a bold corruption of the text. For 1. it applies that to David, and his being born at Bethlehem, which the Holy Ghost expressly applies to Jesus Christ; Matt. ii. 6. and John i. 46. 2. The goings forth of Christ in this sense, are no more from everlasting, than every other man's, who is from Adam : w^hen yet this is peculiarly spoken of him, by way of incomparable eminency. 3. They cannot give any one instance of the like expression; that his goings forth are from eternity, should signify, he had his original from an ancient stock. 4. If only Christ's original of the tribe of Judah, and of the house of David were intended, why was not that expressed in plain terms, as it is in other places, and as the place of his birth, viz. Bethlehem, is in this ? So that we have already met our catechists, and stopt them at this wall, their attempt at it being very faint and absurd : and yet this is the sum of what is pleaded by Socinus against Wieck, cap. 7. p. 424. Smalcius against Smiglecius, chap. 26. Osterod insti-tut. chap. 7. with the rest of them. He then, who was born at Bethlehem in the fulness of time, of the house of David as*" concerning the flesh, had also his goings forth, his birth or generation of the Father, of old, from the days of eternity; which is that which this testimony confirms.

Grotius on this place (according to his wont) outgoes his companions one step at least (as he was a bold man at conjectures), and applies this prophecy to Zerubbabel. ' Natus ex Bethlehemo Zorababel recte dicitur, quod ex Davidis

^ Rom. i. 3.

femilia esset, quae orta Bethlehemo.' ' Zerubbabel is rightly-said to be born at Bethlehem, being of the family of David, which had its original from Bethlehem.'

That Zerubbabel is here at all intended, he doth not attempt to prove, either from the text, context, circumstances of the place, design of the prophecy, or any thing else, that might give light into the intendment of the Holy Ghost. That it belongs properly to Christ we have a better interpreter to assure us than Grotius, or any of his rabbins. Matt. ii. 5. I know that in his annotations on that place he allows the accomodation of the words to Christ: but we. cannot allow them to be spoken of any other, the Holy Ghost expressly fitting them to him. And if Zerubbabel, who was born at Babylon, may be said to be born at Bethlehem, because David, from whom he descended, was born there ; what need all that labour and trouble, that our Saviour might be born at Bethlehem ? If it could not be said of Christ, that he was born at Bethlehem, though he were of the lineage of David unless he had actually been born there indeed: certainly Zerubbabel, who was born at Babylon, could not be said on the account of his progenitor five hundred years before, to be born there.

For the second part of this text, or the words we insist on for the proof of our intention, he useth the same shift in the same words with our catechists : ' origo ipsi ab olim, a temporibus longis : id est originem trahit a domo illustri an-tiquitus, et per quingentos annos regnatrice. His original is from of old, from a long time : that is, he hath his original from an ancient illustrious house, that had reigned 500 years.'

Of the sense of the words I have spoken before. I shall only add, that the use of this note is to confute the other. For if his being born at Bethlehem signify his being of the family of David, and nothing else, he being not indeed born there, what need this addition, if these obscure words signify no more but what was spoken before ? Yea and herein the learned man forsaketh his masters, all generally concluding, that it is the Messiah who is here alone intended. The Chaldee paraphrast expressly puts in the name of Messiah. His words are, ' out of thee shall the Messiah come forth before me.' And some of them do mystically

interpret hedem of the mind of God, from whence the Word, or Wisdom of God is brought forth. Because, as they say, the word denotes the first numeration of the crown, or of that name of God which signifies his essence.

The second is Psal. ii. 7. * The Lord hath said unto me, thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee.'

' Q. To ' this second what is to be answered ?

* A. Neither in that is there any thing of generation of the essence of the Father, nor of a pre-eternal generation. For the word 'to day' signifying a certain time, cannot denote pre-eternity. But that God begot him, doth not evince that he was begotten of his essence ; which appears from hence, that the same words. This day have I begotten thee, are in the first sense used of David ; who was begotten neither from eternity, nor of the essence of the Father. 2. Because the apostle Paul brings these words to prove the resurrection of Christ; Acts xiii. 33. And the author to the Hebrews cites them for the glorifying of the Lord Jesus, Heb. i. 5. and V. 5. And lastly from hence, that it is manifest that God otherwise begets than by his essence, seeing the Scripture declares believers to be begotten of God, as is to be seen, John i. 13. 1 John iii. 9. James i. 18.'

1. There is mention in these words of Christ's generation of his Father ; of being begotten of him before his incarnation, this being spoken of him under the Old Testament; and to deny that there is any such thing in the text, as that which upon this consideration we urge it to prove, is only to beg the thing in question,

2. ' To day,' being spoken of God, of him who is eternal, to whom all time is so present, as that nothing is properly yesterday, nor to-day, does not denote necessarily such a proportion of time, as is intimated. But is expressive of an act eternally present, nor past, nor future.

3. It cannot be proved that the words are spoken at all

' Ad secundum vero quid ?—Neque jn ca de gencratione ex essentia Patris, nee de generatione pree-seterna prorsus quicquani haberi; etcnim vox hodie, cum certum tempus designet, prK-aeternitatem denotare nun potest: quod vero Deus cum genu-erit, non evincit eum ex essentia ejus genitum : id quod patet ex eo, quod li:ec cadem verba, ego hodie genui te, primo sensu de Davide dieantur, quern constat ncque ab seterno, ncc ex essentia Dei genitum. Deinde, quod Pauius Apostolus eadcni verba ad approbandam Ciiristi resurrcclionem aftVrat. Act. xiii. 3.3. et Autor ad Hebrsos ad giorilicationem Domini Jesu citet, Heb. i. 5. v. 5. Denique, ex ea re, quod constet Deuni alitor quani e.\ essentia generare, duui a Deo genitos crcdentes Scripturapro-nunciat, ut videre est. Johan, i. 13. iii. 9. Jac. i. 18.

TESTIMONIES THEREOF VINDICATED. 327

of David, so much as typically : nor any thing else in that psalm, from ver. 7. to the end. Yea, the contrary is evident from every verse following; especially the 12th, where ' kings and rulers are called to worship him,' of whom he speaks, and threatened with destruction if they do not; and they are pronounced blessed who ' put their trust' in him : which cannot be spoken of David; God declaring them to be cursed who put their trust in man ; Jer. xvii. 5—7.

4. It is granted that the apostle makes use of these words, when he mentions the resurrection and exaltation of Christ: not that Christ was then begotten, but that he was then declared to be the only begotten Son of God : his resurrection and exaltation being manifestations of his Sonship, not causes of his filiation, as hath been at large declared. So the sun is said to arise when it doth first to us appear.

5. True,' God hath other sons, and believers are said to be begotten of God,' but how ? By regeneration, and turning from sin ; as in the places quoted is evident. That Christ is so begotten of God, is blasphemous once to imagine. Besides, he is the only begotten Son of the Father, so that no other is begotten with a generation of the same kind with him. It is evident then by this testimony, and from these words, that Christ is so the Son of God as no angels are his sons in the same kind; for that the apostle produceth these words to prove, Heb. i. 5. *For unto which of the angels said he at any time, thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee;' and again, * I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son.' Now the angels are the sons of God by creation; Job i. 6. xxxviii. 7. He is also such a Son, and so begotten, as believers are not. For they are begotten by regeneration from sin, and adoption into the family of God. Therefore, Christ who is the Son of God in another kind than angels and men, who are so by creation, regeneration, and adoption, is the natural Son of God by eternal generation; which is also proved from this place.

In this whole psalm™ Grotius takes no notice of Jesus Christ: indeed in the entrance he tells us, that a mystical and abstruse sense of it may belong to Christ, and so the rabbins acknowledge, and so the apostle took it. But

■^ Sensus primus e.t apertus ad Davidera pertinet; mjsticus et abstrusior ad Mes-siam : quo modo sumpsere A post. Annot. in ver. 1.

throughout the wh.ole doth he not make the least application of it to Christ, but merely to David, although so many passages of it are urged in the New Testament to have their accomplishment in Christ, and the things which concerned him. These words, * Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee,' he says may be thus rendered, * O fili mi, hodie (id est hoc tempore), ego te genui; novam vitam, scilicet regalem tibi contuli:' but that the words may not aptly be so translated, that they are not so rendered by the apostle (Heb. i. 5.) he knew well enough. >3K nriK >3D, is jUius mens tu, not fdi mi; nor doth the rendering of it by the vocative, any way answer the words going before. * I will declare the decree, the Lord hath said unto me, thou art my Son:' that is the thing I will declare. 2. That 'hodie'should be 'hoc-tempore,'relating to any certain time of David's reign, cannot be reconciled to the apostle's application of that expression on sundry occasions, as hath been manifest. 3. I have given thee a 'new or a regal life,'is somewhat an uncouth exposition of' genui te ;' without warrant, without reason or argument; and it is inconsistent with the time of the psahn's writing, according to Grotius himself. He refers it to 2 Sam. viii. when David had been king over Israel many years.

To serve his hypothesis, the two last verses are miserably wrested. The command of worshipping Christ; ver. 12. is a command of doing homage to David. And the last verse is thus glossed, ' beati omnes qui confidunt in eo, i. e. qui fidei ejus regis (id est, mea?) se permittunt.' ' They are blessed,' says David,' who commit themselves to my faith and care :' doubtless the thought of any such thino- was as remote from the heart of the holy man, as this gloss is from the sense of the place. That they are blessed who trust in the Lord, that is, 'commit themselves to his care,' he every Avhere declareth ; yea, this he makes always the property of a blessed man : but that they are so who trust in him, not the least word to that purpose did the holy person ever utter : he knew they were cursed of God, who put their trust in man. The word here is >Din from nDil ' to repair to any one for protection;' and it is used to express our trusting in God. Psal. xviii. 30. as also Psal. xxxi. 19, on which men are frequently pronounced blessed ; but that it should be

applied to David, and a blessing annexed thereunto, we were to learn.

The third testimony of Psal. ex. 10. we pass over with our adversaries, as not to the purpose in hand ; being a mistake of the vulgar Latin.

The 4th is Prov. viii. 23. ' I was set up from everlasting, from the beoinnino; or ever the earth was.'

• Q. What" dost thou answer to this testimony? ' A. That thou mayest understand the matter the better, know, that from this place they thus dispute. The Wisdom of God is begotten from eternity ; Christ is the Wisdom of God ; therefore he is begotten from eternity; 1 Cor. i. 24. That this argument is not firm appears from hence, that 1. Solomon treats of wisdom, simply and absolutely considered, without the addition of the word, God; Paul not simply and absolutely, but with the addition of the word, God. 2. Solomon treats of wisdom, which neither is a person, nor can be, as appears from the diverse effects ascribed to this wisdom, chap. 7, 8, 9. amongst which are these words : By me kings rule; and princes decree righteousness ;' and in the beginning of the chapter, he brings in wisdom sending her maidens, and inviting all to her. But Paul treateth of that wisdom which is a person. 3. The words which are rendered from everlasting, in the Hebrew are ' a seculo;' but that from everlasting, and * a seculo,' are diverse ; Isa. Ixiv. 4- Jer. ii.20. Luke i. 70. with many like places do declare.'

1. Our argument hence is. Christ the second person of the Trinity is spoken of, Prov. viii. 22. under the name of Wisdom. Now it is said expressly there of Wisdom, that it was * begotten from everlasting,' and therefore the eternal generation of Christ is hence confirmed. Our reasons are, 1. Because the things here spoken of can be applied to no

" Ad quartum vero quid ?—Ut rem melius accipias, sclto eos ex hoc loco ad eura moduni argunientari: Sapientia Dei ab aeterno est genita : Christus est Dei sapien-tia : ergo ab ceterno est genitus; 1 Cor. i. 2-1. Id argumentum firnium non esse liinc patet; primura, quod Soloraon agat de sapientia siiiipliciter, et absolute consi-derata, sine additione vocis Dei: Paulus vero non siiiipy.,.ter et absolute ; sed cum additione, nerape.Dei. Deinde, Solomon agit de sapientia, qu» neque est persona, nee esse potest, ut e variis eflfectis, quae huic sapientice attribuit, apparet, et hoc 7, 8, 9. cap. ex quibus sunt ca, Per me reges regnant, et principes justa decemiint: et initio, cap. 9. introducit sapientiam omnes ad se invitantera, et mittentem virgines suas. Paulus vero agit de sapientia, quaj persona est. Tertio, verba haec, quEB sunt reddita ab setcrno, in Ilebrffio extant, a seculo: aliud vero esse ab ffiterno, aliud a seculo, indicant loci, Isa. kiv. 4. Jer. ii. 20. Luke i. 70. et alii permulti similes.

other. 2. Because the very same things are affirmed of Christ; John i. 1. 3. Because Christ is the Wisdom of God, and so called in the Scripture; not only in the expression of 6 Xoyog, but fii)TU)Q, 1 Cor. i. 30. 2. That by Wisdom, Solomon intended the Wisdom of God, and that that word may be supplied, is most evident from what is spoken of it. Let the place be read. 3. Christ is called not only ' the wisdom of God,' but also wisdom absolutely and simply; and that not only Prov. i. 20. but Matt. xi. 19. 4. The wisdom that Solomon treats of, is evidently a person, and such things are ascribed thereunto, as can be proper to none but a person : such are those ver. 30, 31. * I was by him, one brought up with him, I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him, rejoicing in the habitable part of the earth,' 8cc. That it is the same wisdom spoken of chap. vii. and here, is not evident. Yet is there not any thing in that attributed to it, but what suits well unto a person. Much less in the beginning of the 9th chapter, the invitation there being such as may be made by a person only. It is a person who sends out messengers to invite to a banquet, as Christ doth in the gospel. 'Kings rule, and princes decree judgment' by the authority of a person ; and without him they can do nothing.

3. The word translated, * from everlasting,' is the same with that considered before, Mich. v. 2. 2. The words following do so evidently confirm the meaning of the word to be as expressed, that it is marvellous the gentlemen durst venture upon the exception in this place. ' The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old; that is, before the creation, as is at large expounded, ver. 23—29.

And this is all, the whole sum of what any of our adversaries, or rather the adversaries of Jesus Christ, have to object in their cause against these testimonies ; whence we thus argue.

He who was begotten of God the Father with an eternal generation, is eternal; and so consequently God ; but so is Jesus Christ begotten of God the Father, with an eternal generation. Therefore he is eternal, and God blessed for ever.

To clear what hath been spoken, I shall close my considerations of this text of Scripture with a brief parallel.

TESTIMONIES THEREOF VINDICATED. 331

between what is spoken in this place of Wisdom, and what is asserted of Jesus Christ in the New Testament.

1. It is Wisdom that is spoken of; so is Christ, Mat. xi. 19. 1 Cor. i. 24. Col. ii. 3. 2. 'Wisdom was set up from everlasting/ ver. 23. 'Grace is given in Christ, rrpo xpovojv m(Dvi(i)v, from everlasting.' 2 Tim. i. 9. ' He is the beginning,' Col. i. 5. ' the first and last.' Rev. i. 17. 3. ' The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way,' says Wisdom, ver. 23. ' In the beo'inning was the Word, and the Word was with God;' John i. 1, 2. 4. * Before the mountains w^ere settled, before the hills were brought forth;' ver. 25. ' He is the first born of every creature ;' Col. i. 15. * He is before all;' ver. 17. 5. ' I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him ;' ver. 30. ' This is my beloved Son, in whom 1 am well pleased ;' Matt. iii. 17. ' The only begotten Son is in the bosom of the Father;' John i. 18. 6. 'Byrne kings reign, and princes,' &.c. ver. 15, 16. * He is the Prince of the kings of the earth;' Rev. i. 5. 'The King of kings, and Lord of lords;' Rev. xix. 16. 7. 'Rejoicing in the habitable part of the earth, and my delights were with the sons of men;' ver. 31. ' For the Word was made flesh, and dwelt amongst us, and we saw his glory, as the glory of the only begotten Son of God.' 8. Compare also ver. 34. with John xiii. 17. Luke xi. 28. John x. 9. And ver. 35, and 36. with John vi. 44. 47. and many the like instances might be given.

Grotius takes no notice of Christ in this place, yea he seems evidently to exclude him from being here intended; his first note on ver. 1. is, * Haecde ea sapientia, quseinlege apparet, exponunt Hoebrsei; et sane ei, si non soli, at prae-cipue haec attributa convenium.' ' The Hebrews expound these things of that wisdom which appears in the law; and truly these attributes agree thereunto, if not only, yet chiefly.' Of this assertion he gives no reason. The contrary is evident from what is above said and proved. The authority of the modern rabbins in the exposition of those places of Scripture, which concern the Messiah, is of no value. They do not only as their forefathers, err, not knowing the Scriptures ; but maliciously corrupt them, out of hatred to Jesus Christ. In the meantime" one no less versed in the Hebrew authors, than our annotator, expounding this place, from

" Mercer in loc. v. 22.

*nec dubito, hinc Johannem auo;ustum illud et mag-nificum Evangelii sui initium sumpsisse, In principio eratverbura : nam verbum et sapientia idem sunt, et secundam Trinitatis personam indicant.' ' I doubt not but that John took that reverend and lofty entrance of his gospel. In the beginning WRS, the Word from hence : for the Word and Wisdom are the same, and denote the second person of the Trinity.'

Before I proceed to those that follow, I shall add some of them which are produced, and insisted on usually, for the same end and purpose with those mentioned before, and which in other places are excepted against by the catechists, •with whom we have to do ; but properly belong to this head.

Of those is John xvii. 5. ' And now O Father glorify me with thine own self, with the glory which I had with thee, before the world was.' To this they put in their exceptions towards the end of the chapter under consideration; saying,

*Q. What " answerest thou to this?

'A. Neither is here a divine nature proved. For that one may have glory with the Father before the world was made, and yet not be God, appeareth from that of 2 Tim. i. 9. where the apostle says of believers, that grace was given unto them before the world began. Besides it is here written, that Jesus asked this glory, which is repugnant to the divine nature. But the sense of the place is, that Christ asked God, that he would really give him that glory which he had with God in his decree before the world was.'

A divine glory proves a divine nature. This Christ had from eternity, for he had it before the world began; therefore he had a divine nature also. It is the manifestation of his glory, which he had eclipsed and laid aside for a season, that here he desires of God. Phil. ii. 9—12. He glorified his Father by manifesting the glory of his Deity, hisname, to others ; and he prays the Fatlier to glorify him, as he had glorified him on the earth. 2. There is not the same reason

P Quid ad lioc respondes?—Nequeliinc naturam divinam probari. Posse enirn aliqucm gloriam Iiabere antctjuam iiuiiidiis ficrct, npiid l^atrcni, ncc tamen liinc effici eum esse Dci:mi, apparot, i! Tim. i. '1. uhi ait A|iO!-toliis de credentibus, illis datatn fuissc, gratiam, ante tempora secularia. Prii'tcri'a, liic scripluni est, Jesuiii rogare Iianc gioriain, (jiuui natur.v Divinx ]>rorsus rcpugiiat. l^oci vero senteiilia est : Christum rogare Dcuiii, ut ei gioriain rcipsa del, (]uani liabuerit ajjud Deuui in ip-sius dccreto ante(iuain in\indus ficret.

TESTIMONIES THEREOF VINDICATED. 333

of what is here asserted of Christ, and what is said of the elect, 2 Tim. i. 9. Christ here positively says, he had (^xov) ' glory with his Father before the world was ;' nor is this any where, in any one tittle in the Scripture expounded, to be any otherwise, but in a real having of that glory. The grace that is given to believers, is not said to be before the world was, but Trpo X9^^^^ aicjviwv, which rnay denote the first promise. Gen. iii. 15. as it doth Tit. i. 2. and if it be intended of the purpose of God, which was from eternity (as the words will bearj it is so expounded in twenty places.

3. Though the divine nature pray not, yet he who was in the form of God, and humbled himself to take upon him the form and employment of a servant, might, and did pray: the Godhead prayed not, but he who was God prayed.

4. For the sense assigned, let them once shew us in the whole book of God, where this expression,' 1 had'(££;^ov) may be possibly interpreted, ' I had it in purpose,' or ' I was predestinated to it;' and not' I had it really,' and * indeed,' and they say something to the purpose. In the meantime they do but corrupt the word of God (as many do) by this pretended interpretation of it. 5. If predestination only be intended, here is nothing singular spoken of Christ, but what is common to him with all believers; when evidently Christ speaks of something that belonged to him eminently. 6. The very express tenor of the words will not admit of this gloss, (let what violence can be used): Kal vvv So^acroy jU£, av Trarep, irapa asavrt^, ry So^y y ^'X*'^^ "^9^ "^^^ '''^^ Koafiov uvai, irapa aoi. The glory that I had vv'ith thee, let me have it manifested with thee, now ray work is done.

Grotius falls in with our catechists ; ' ry So^p y £<x^v, des-tinatione tua; ut 1 Pet. i. 20. Kev. xiii. 8. sicut Ephes. i. 3, 4. et infra, ver. 24. Simile legendi genus ; sic legem fuisse ante mundum dicunt Hiebrsei.' Again, ' irapa o-ot, refer ad illud ax*^^' ^^ intellige ut diximus in decreto tuo.'

But what intends the learned man by those places of 1 Pet. i. 20. Rev. xiii. 8. ? Is it to expound the thing that he supposes to be expressed ? Or to intimate that the phrase here used is expounded by the use of it in those other places. If the first, he begs that to be the sense of this place, which is the sense of them, though neither the scope of the places, nor the sense of the words themselves will bear it. If the

latter, it is most false; there is not one word, phrase, nor expression, in any one of the places pointed unto, at all coincident with them here used. Besides, the two places mentioned are of very different senses ; the one speaking of God's purpose, appointing Christ to be a Mediator; the other of the promise given presently after the fall. 2. We grant, that Christ in respect of his human nature was predestinated unto glory; but that he calls God's purpose * his glory,' 'the glory which he had,' ' which he had with God,' wherewith he desires to be glorified with him again,' is to be proved from the text or context, or phrase of speech, or parallel place, or analogy of faith or somewhat, and not nakedly to be imposed on us. Let Prov. viii. 22. 30. Phil, ii. 6—10. be consulted, as parallel to this place; Eph. i. 3, 4. speaks indeed of our predestination in Christ, that we should be holy, and so come to glory ; but of the glory, that Christ had before the world was, it speaks not. Yea, ver. 3. we are said to be actually blessed, or to have the heavenly blessings, when we do enjoy them, which we are elected to, ver. 4. What the Jews say of the law, and the like, we must allow learned men to tell us, that they may be known to be so, although the sense of the Scripture be insesnibly darkened thereby.

To the same purpose is that of Peter, 1st epistle i. 10, 11. ' Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you; searching what or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified before hand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.' To which add that more clear place, 1 Pet. iii. 18—20. 'quickened by the Spirit, by which also he went and preached unto the spirits that were in prison, which sometime were disobedient in the days of

Noah.' He who was in the days of the prophets of old, and in the days of Noah, so long before his being born according to the flesh, he was from everlasting; or had an existence antecedent to his incarnation ; but this is expressly affirmed of our Saviour. It was his Spirit that spake in the prophets; which if he were not, it could not be; for of him who is not, nothing can be afllrmed. He preached by his Spirit in the days of Noah to the spirits that are in prison.

Of this latter place our catechists take no notice ; about the first they inquire.

* Q. What '^ answerest thou to this ?

' A. Neither is a divine nature proved from hence. For the Spirit which was in the prophets, may be said to be the Spirit of Christ, not that he was given of Christ, but because he fore-declared the things of Christ, as Peter there speaks ; he testified before hand of the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. Which manner of speaking we have, 1 John iv. 6. Hence know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error. Where it is not called the spirit of truth and error, because truth and error as persons do bestow the spirit, but because the spirit of truth speaks the things of truth, and the spirit of error the things of error.'

1. It is confessed, that if the Spirit that was in the prophets, was the Spirit of Christ, then he hath a divine nature : for the only evasion used is, that it is not, or may not (possibly) be so meant in this place, not denying, but that if it be so, then the conclusion intended follows. 2. That this place is to be interpreted by 1 John iv. 6. there is no colour nor pretence. Christ is a person ; he was so, when Peter wrote. Truth and error are not; and the spirit of them is to be interpreted according to the subject matter. 3. The Spirit in other places is called the Spirit of Christ, in the same sense as he is called the Spirit of God; Rom. viii. 9. Gal. iv. 6. 4. The Spirit of Christ is said directly, to take of him, and shew it to his apostles, John. xvi. 15. and so he did to the prophets. They may as well on the pretence of 1 John iv. 6. deny him to be the Spirit of God the Father, as the Spirit of Christ, as being of him, and sent by him.

And thus far of the testimonies proving the pre-existence of Christ unto his incarnation, and so consequently his eternity; whence it follows, that he is God over all blessed for ever, having this evidence of his eternal power and Godhead. Sundry others of the same tendency will fall under consideration in our progress.

q Quid ad hoc respondes ?—Neque hinc naturam in Christo divinam effici. Nam hie Spiritus, qui in Prophetis erat, Christi dici potest, non quod a Christo datus fue-rit, sed quod ea qupe Christi fuerunt, prasnunciarit, ut ibidem Petrus ait, prsenun-cians illas in Christum passiones, et post hffic glorias. Quem loquendi raodum etiam, 1 Job. iv. 6. habes; Hinc cognoscimus Spirituni veritatis, et Spirituni erroris: ubi non propterea Spiritus veritatis et erroris Spiritus dicitur, quod Veritas et error, tan-quam personse, eum Spirituni conferant; verum eo, quod Spiritus veritatis loquatur quae veritatis sunt, et Spiritus erroris quae sunt erroris.

CHAP. X.

Of the names of God giveii tmto Christ.

In the next place, as a third head, our catechists consider the scriptural attributions of the names of God, unto our Saviour Jesus Christ. Whence this is our argument.

He who is Jehovah, God, the only true God, he is God properly by nature. But Jesus Christ is Jehovah, the true God, &.C. Therefore he is God properly by nature.

The proposition is clear in itself; of the innumerable testimonies which are, or may be produced to confirm the assumption, our catechists fix upon a very few, namely, those which are answered by Socinus against Wieck the Jesuit, whence most of their exceptions to these witnesses are transcribed. To the consideration of these they thus proceed.

' Q. What"" are those places of Scripture, which seem to attribute something to Christin acertain and definite time?

* A. They are of two sorts, whereof some respect the names, others the works which they suppose in the Scriptures to be attributed to Christ.

'Q. Which are they that respect the names of Christ? ' A. Those where they suppose in the Scripture that Christ is called Jehovah, &c. Jer. xxiii.6. Zach. ii.8. 1 John v. 20. Jude 4. Tit. ii. 13. Rev. i. 18. iv. 8. Acts xx. 28. 1 John iii. 16.'

The first testimony is Jer. xxiii. G.^in these words : 'In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely, and this is his name whereby he shall be called, Jehovah our righteousness.' To which add the next, Zech. ii. 8,

Before I come to consider their exceptions to these texts in particular, some things in general may be premised, for the better understanding of what we are about; and what from these places we intend to prove and confirm.

^ Quteuam ea loca Scriptiira3 quaj videiitiir Christo qusedam tempore certo et defi-nito attribuere?—Ea sunt duplicia; quorum alia noniina, alia facia rcspiciunt, qua; Cbristo a Scriptura atlribui opiiiantur.—Qu;i;n;uii sunt (]u:v Cluisti nomina rcspiciunt?—Ea, ubi arbilrantur Jesum a Scriptura \ocari Jeliovam ; Domiiium exercituuni; Dfiuui veruni; solum verum; Deum niagnuui; ])oniiiiuui Deuiu ()ninipoteiitem,qui fuit, qui est, ct qui venturusest; Dcuni qui acquisivit proprio sanguine Ecclesiam; Dcuni qui animeui posuit pro nobis. Jer. xxiii. 6. Zacb. ii. 8. 1 Job. v. 20. Jude 4. Tit, ii. 13. Apoc. i.8. iv. 8. Act. xx, 28. 1 Job. iii. \6.

1. The end of citing these two places, is to prove, that Jesus Christ is in the Old Testament called Jehovah; which is by them denied; the granting of it being destructive to their whole cause.

2. It is granted, that Jehovah is the proper and peculiar name of the one only true God of Israel: a name as far significant of his nature and being as possibly we are enabled to understand : yea so far expressive of God, that as the thing signified by it is incomprehensible, so many have thought the very word itself to be ineffable, or at least not lawful to be uttered. This name God peculiarly appropriates to himself in an eminent manner; Exod. vi. 2. 9. so that this is taken for granted on all hands, that he whose name is Jehovah, is the only true God, the God of Israel; whenever that name is used properly, without a trope or figure, it is used of him only. What the adversaries of Christ except against this, shall be vindicated in its proper place,

3. Our catechists have very faintly brought forth the testimonies, that are usually insisted on in this cause ; naming but two of them; wherefore I shall take liberty to add a few more to them, out of the many that are ready at hand. Isa. xl. 3. 'The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, prepare ye the way of Jehovah, make straight in the desert a highway for our God.' That it is Christ who is here called Jehovah, is clear from that farther expression in Mai. iii. 1. and the execution of the thing itself; John i. 23. Matt. iii. 3. Mark. i. 2, 3. Isa. xlv. 22—25. ' Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is none else. I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear. Surely, shall one say, in the Lord Jehovah have I righteousness and strength : even to him shall men come, and all that are incensed against him, shall be ashamed. In Jehovah shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and shall glory.' The apostle expressly affirms all this to be spoken of Christ; Rom. xiv. 11, 12, &c. Hos. xiii. 14. is also applied to Christ, 1 Cor. xv. 64, 55. He that would at once consider all the texts of the Old Testament, chiefly ascribing this name to Christ, let him read Zanchius ' de tribus Elohim,' who hath made a large collection of them.

VOL. VIII. z

Let us now see what our catechists except against the first testimony.

' Q. What'' dost thou answer to the first testimony?

' A. First, that hence it cannot be necessarily evinced, that the name of Jehovah is attributed to Christ. For these words. And this is his name whereby they shall call him, the Lord our righteousness, may be referred to Israel, of whom he spake a little before; In his days shall Judah be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely, Sec. as from a like place may be seen in the same prophet, chap, xxxiii. 15, 16. where he saith, In those days, and at that time, will I cause the branch of righteousness to grow up unto David, and he shall execute judgment and righteousness in the land. In those days shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely; and this is the name wherewith she shall be called, the Lord our righteousness; for in the Hebrew it is expressly read, they shall call her; which last words are referred of necessity to Jerusalem; and in this place answereth to Israel, which is put in the first place : it seems therefore likely, that also in the first place, these words, they shall call him, are referred to Israel. But although we should grant, that the name of Jehovah may be referred unto Christ, yet from the other testimonies it appears, that it cannot be asserted, that Christ is called Jehovah simply : neither doth it thence follow, that Christ is really Jehovah. Whether therefore these last words in this testimony of Jeremiah be understood of Christ, or of Israel, their sense is, thou Jehovah our one God wilt justify us; for at that time when Christ was to appear, God would do that in Israel.'

^ Quid verotu ad ea ordine respondes, ac ante omnia ad priinurn?—Prinium,quod ex eo confici non possit necessario nomeu Jehovae Chrisfo attribui. Ea eniin verba ; Et hoc est nonien ejus, quo vocabunt euni, Jehovali justitia nostra, referri possuntad Israelem, de quo paulo superius eodera versu loquitur: In diebus ejus servabitur Juda, ct Israel habitabit secure, et hoc est noiiien ejus, &;c. ut e loco siniili conspici potest apud cundem Prophetam, cap. xxxiii. 1.5,16. ubi ait, in diehus illis, ct in illo tempore, faciam utexistat Davidi surculus justitia?, ct faciei judicium ct justitiam in terra. In diebas illis servabitur Juda et Jerusalem habitabit secure, et hoc (supple nomen) quo vocabunt cam, Jehovah justitia; nostra. Etenira in Ha;br<eo expresscle-gitur, vocabunt cam, quam voceni posteriorem ad Hierusalem referri prorsus est ne-cesse; el hoc quidem loco Israeli, qui in priori loco positus est, respondet. A'idetur igitur prorsus verisimile, quod in priori etiaui loco, hoBC verba, vocabunt eum, ad Israelem referantur. At licet conccdamus, nomen Jehovre ad Christum posse referri, ex altero tanien testinionio apparct asseri non posse, Jehovani simpliciter Christum vocari: neque ex eo sequi, Christum reipsa esse Jehovam : sive igitur de Christo, sive de Israelc postrema verba in testinionio Hiereraiae accipiantur, sententia ipsprum est, turn Jehovam unum Deum nostrum nos justificaturum. Etenim illo tempore, cum Christus appariturus esset, Deus id in Israele facturus erat.

TESTIMONIES THEREOF VINDICATED. 339

The sum of this answer is ; 1. It may be these words are not spoken of Christ, but of Israel. 2. The same words are used of that which is not God. 3. If they be referred to Christ, they prove him not to be God. 4. Their sense is, that God will justify us in the days of Christ. Of each briefly.

1. The subject spoken of all along is Christ; he is the subject matter of whatever here is affirmed. ' I will rise up a righteous branch to David, he shall be a king, and he shall reign, and his name shall be called the Lord our righteousness.' 2. Why are these words to be referred to Israel only, and not also to Judah, (if to any but Christ) they being both named together, and upon the same account, (yea and Judah hath the pre-eminence, being named in the first place) and if they belong to both, the words should be, ' this is their name, whereby they shall be called.' 3. Israel was never called our righteousness, but Christ is called so upon the matter in the New Testament sundry times, and is so ; 1 Cor. i. 30. so that without departing from the propriety of the words, intendment, and scope of the place, with the truth of the thing itself, these words cannot be so perverted. The violence used to them is notoriously manifest.

2. The expression is not the same in both places. Neither is Jerusalem there called the ' Lord our righteousness ;' but he who calls her, is the ' Lord our righteousness ;' and so are the words rendered by Arias Montanus, and others. And if what Jerusalem shall be called be intimated, and not what his name is that calls her, it is merely by a metonymy, upon the account of the presence of Christ in her; as the church is called Christ improperly, 1 Cor. xii. 12. Christ properly is Jesus only. But the words are not to be rendered, 'this is the name whereby she shall be called,' but this is the 'name whereby he shall call her, the Lord our righteousness;' that is, he who is the Lord our righteousness shall call her to peace and safety, which are there treated on. Christ is our righteousness, Jerusalem is not.

3. It is evident that Christ is absolutely called Jehovah in this, as well as in the other places before mentioned, and many more. And it thence evidently follows, that he is Jehovah, as he who properly is called so, and understood by that name. Where God simply says, his name is Jehovah, we believe him : and where he says, the name of the branch

z 2

of the house of David is Jehovah, we believe him also. And we say hence that Christ is Jehovah, or the words have not a tolerable sense : of this again afterward.

4. The interpretation given of the words is most perverse, and opposite to the ntieaning of them. The prophet says not, that' Jehovah the one God shall be our righteousness,' but the • branch of David shall be the Lord our righteousness.' The subject is the branch of David, not Jehovah. The branch of David shall be called ' the Lord our righteousness ;' that is, 'the Lord shall justify us, when the branch of David shall be brought forth :' who could have discovered this sense but our catechists and their masters, whose words these are. It remaineth then, that the branch of David, who ruleth in righteousness, is Jehovah our righteousness : our righteousness, as being made so to us; Jehovah, as being so in himself.

Grotius expounds this place, as that of Micah v. 2. of Zerubbabel, helping on his friends with a new diversion, which they knew not of. Socinus,*^ as he professes, being not acquainted with the Jewish doctors, though some believe him not. And yet the learned annotator cannot hold out as he begins, but is forced to put out the name Zerubbabel, and to put in that of the people, when he comes to the name insisted on : so leaving no certain design in the whole words, from the beginning to the ending.

Two things doth he here oppose himself in, to the received interpretation of Christians. 1. That it is Zerubbabel who is here intended. 2. That it is the people who is called the ' Lord our righteousness.'

For the first, thus he on ver. 5. * Germen justum, a righteous branch : Zorubbabelem qui nnif ut hie appellatur, ita et Zechariae, vi. 12. nimirum quod velutsurculus renatus esset ex arbore Davidis quasi prcecisa. Justitiae nomine commen-datur Zerubbabel etiam apud Zechariam, ix. 9. Zerubbabel who is here called the branch, as also Zech. vi. 12. because as a branch he arose from the tree of David which was as cut off. Also Zerubbabel is commended for justice or righteousness, Zech. ix. 9.'

That this is a prophecy of Christ, the circumstances of

f Sociii. dc Servat. p. ,■>. cap. I. Franz, do Sacrif. p. 786.

TESTIMONIES THEREOF VINDICATED. 341

the place evince. The rabbins were also of the same mind, as plentiful collections from them are made to demonstrate it, by Joseph de Voysin,pug. fid. par. 3. dist. 1. cap. 4. And the matter spoken of, can be accommodated to no other, as hath been declared. Grotius's proofs that Zerubbabel is intended, are worse than the opinion itself. That he is called the branch, Zech. vi. 12. is most false : he who is called the branch there, is a king and a priest. ' He shall rule upon his throne, and he shall be a priest/ which Zerubbabel, was not; nor had any thing to do with the priestly office, which in his days was administered by Joshua. More evidently false is it, that he is spoken of Zech. ix. 9. which place is precisely interpreted of Christ, and the accomplishment, in the very letter of the thing foretold, recorded Matt. xxi. 5. The words are, 'rejoice greatly O daughter of Sion, shout O daughter of Jerusalem, behold thy king cometh to thee, he is just, and having salvation, lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.' That a man professing Christian religion, should affirm any one but Jesus Christ to be here intended, is somewhat strange.

Upon the accommodation of the next words to Zerubbabel, 'a king shall reign and prosper,'&c. I shall not insist; they contain not the matter of our present contest, though they are pitifully wrested by the annotator, and do no ways serve his design.

For the particular words about which our contest is, this is his comment. And this is the name whereby they shall call him : ' nempe populum :' * namely the people :' they shall call the people.' How this change comes,' in his days Judah shall be saved, and this is the name whereby he shall be called,' that is, the people shall be called, he shews not. That there is no colour of reason for it, hath been shewed; what hath been said need not to be repeated. He proceeds. 'Dominus justitia nostra,' i. e. ' Deus nobis benefecit, God hath done well for us, or dealt kindly with us.' But it is not about the intimation of goodness, that is in the words; but of the signification of the name given to Jesus Christ, that here we plead. In what sense Christ is the Lord our righteousness appears, Isa. xlv. 22—25. 1 Cor. i. 30.

The second testimony is Zech. ii. 8. in these words: ' For thus saith the Lord of hosts; After the glory hath he

sent me unto the nations which spoiled you : for he that toucheth you, toucheth the apple of his eye: for, behold, I will shake mine hand upon them,' &c. ver. 9—12.

Briefly to declare what this witness speaks to, before we permit him to the examination of our adversaries : the person speaking, is, the Lord of hosts: 'thus saith the Lord of hosts:' and he is the person spoken of; 'after the glory,'saith he, (or after this glorious deliverance of you my people from the captivity wherein you were among the nations) 'hath he sent me,' even me the Lord of hosts hath he sent. * Thus saith the Lord of hosts, he hath sent me ;' and it was to the nations, as in the words following; and who sent him ? ' ye shall know, that the Lord of hosts hath sent me;' the people of Israel shall know, that the Lord of hosts hath sent me the Lord of hosts to the nations : but how shall they know that he is so sent? He tells them ver. 11. it shall be known by the conversion of the nations: 'many nations shall be joined to the Lord in that day;' and what then? 'They shall be my people;' mine who am sent; my people, the people of the Lord of hosts that was sent; that is, of Jesus Christ, and I, saith he, whose people they are, ' will dwell in the midst of them,' (as God promised to do), ' and thou shalt know the Lord of hosts hath sent me :' I omit the circumstances of the place. Let us now see what is excepted by our catechists.

' Q. What*^ dost thou answer to this second testimony?

* A. The place of Zachary they thus cite. This saith the Lord of hosts; after the glory hath he sent me to the nations which spoiled you; for he that toucheth you, toucheth the apple of mine eye ; which they wrest unto Christ; because here as they suppose, it is said, that the Lord of hosts is sent from the Lord of hosts. But these things are not so; for it is evident that these words, After the glory he hath

J Ad secundum vcro quid respondcs?—Locum Zecharias ad Imnc niodum citant: hoc dicit Dominus exercituum ; Post gloriam niisit me ad gentes, quae vos spoliaruut: qui enim vos tarigit, tangit pupillam oculimei,&c. Qu<e ad Christum torqueiit, quod liic, ut arbitraiitur, dicatur, Dominum exercituum luissuiii esse a Domino exercituum. Verum ea hie non liabentur; quod hinc perspieuum est, quod ea verba, post gloriam misil me &c. sunt ab alio prolata, nempe ab aiigelo, qui cum Zecharia ct alio angelo colloqucbatur.ut idemeodemcapile pauloante planum est,a versu quarto initio facto, ubi is angehis loqucns introducitur. Quod idem ea ex re videro est, quod ca qnaj citant verba, hoc dicit Dominus exercituum, in lla-breeo legantur, sic dicit Dominus exercituum ; item ilia, tangit pupillam ocnii mei, legantur pupillam oculi ejus, qua; noil ad Dominum exercituum, sed ad legatum referri nccesse est.

sent me, are spoken of another, namely, of the angel, who spake with Zechariah, and the other angel; the same is evident in the same chapter a little before, beginning at the fourth verse, where the angel is brought in speaking; which also is to be seen from hence, that those words which they cite. This saith the Lord of hosts, in the Hebrew may be read. Thus saith the Lord of hosts; and those, Toucheth the apple of mine eye, may be read. The apple of his eye; which of necessity are referred to his messenger, and not to the Lord of hosts/ These gentlemen being excellent at cavils and exceptions, and thereunto undertaking to answer anything in the world, do not lightly acquit themselves more weakly, and jejunely in any place than in this. For,

1. We contend not with them about the translation of the words, their exceptions being to the vulgar Latin only; we take them as they have rendered them. To omit that therefore,

2. That these words are spoken by him, who is called the angel, we grant; but the only question is, who is this angel that speaks them ; it is evident from the former chapter and this, that it is ' the man, who was upon the red horse ;' chap. i. 8. who is called Angelus Jehovse, ver. 11. and makes intercession for the church, ver. 12. which is the proper office of Jesus Christ; and that he is no created angel, but Jehovah himself, the second person of the Trinity, we prove, because he calls himself the Lord of Hosts; says he 'will destroy his enemies with the shaking of his hand ;' that he will convert a people, and make them his people, and that he will dwell in his church, and yet unto all this he adds three times, that he is ' sent of the Lord of Hosts.' We confess then all these things to be spoken of him, who was sent, but upon all these testimonies conclude, that he who was sent was the Lord of Hosts.

Grotius interprets all this place of an angel, and names him to boot. Michael it is; but who that Michael is, and whether he be no more than an angel, that is, a messenger, he inquires not. That the ancient* Jewish doctors interpreted this place of the Messiah, is evident. Of that no notice here is taken, it is not to the purpose in hand. To the reasons already offered, to prove that it is no mere crea-

'' Bereschith Rab. ad Gen. xxv. 28.

ture that is here intended, but the Lord of Hosts, who is sent by the Lord of Hosts, I shall only add my desire, that the friends and apologizers for this learned annotator, would reconcile this exposition of this place to itself, in those things which at first view present themselves to every ordinary observer. Take one instance. Ye shall know that the Lord of Hosts hath sent me, that is, Michael. And I will dwell in the midst of thee ; * Templum meum ibi habebo.' ' I will have my temple there.' If he who speaks be Michael, a created angel, how comes the temple of Jehovah to be his ? and such let the attempts of all appear to be, who manage any design against the eternal glory of the Son of God.

The third testimony is 1 John v. 20. 'And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ; this is the true God and eternal life.'

' Q. What^dost thou answer to this?

' A. These words,This is the true God,I deny tobe referred to the Son of God. Not thatldenyChristtobe true God; but that that place will not admit those words to be understood of Christ; for here he treats not only of the true God, but of the only true God, as the article added in the Greek doth declare. But Christ, although he be true God, he is not yet of himself that one God, who by himself, and upon the most excellent account is God, seeing that is only God the Father. Nor doth it avail the adversaries, who would have those words referred to Christ, because the mention of Christ doth immediately go before those words, this is the true'God. For pronoun relatives as this and the like, are not always referred to the next antecedent, but often to that

f Quid respondes ad tcitium?—Tu hoc testimonio, scirausfilium Dei vcnisse, &c. Haec verba, hie est verus Deus, nego refcrri ad Dei Filiutn ; won quod negeni Christum esse veruni deum ; sed quod is locus ea de Christo accipi non admittat. Ete-nim liic agitur non solum de vero Deo ; sed de illo uno vero Deo, ut articulus in Grscco additus iiidicat. Cliristus vero etsi verus Deus sit, non est tamen ilie ex se iinus Deus, qui per se et perfectissima ratione Deus est, cum is Deus tantum sit Pater. Nee vero quiccjuani juvat adversarios, qui proplerea ha;c ad Christum refcrri volunt, quod verba. Hie est verus Deus, et Cliristi mentio proxime anteccsserit. Etenim pronomina relativa, ut hie et siuiilia, non semper ad proxime antecedentia, verum sajpenumero ad id, de quo potissimum sermo est, referuiitur, ut patet ex liic locis; Act. vii. 19, 20. et X. 6. ii. Joh. 7. e quibus locis apparct pronomen relativum hie non ad proxime antecedentes personas, sed ad remotiores referri.

which is chiefly spoken of; as Acts vii. 19, 20. John ii. 7. from which places it appears, that the pronoun relative, this, is referred not to the next, but to the most remote person.'

1. It is well, it is acknowledged, that the only true God is here intended; and that this is proved by the prefixed article ; this may be of use afterward.

2. In what sense these men grant Christ to be a true God, we know; a made God, a God by office, not nature ; a man deified with authority ; so making two true Gods, contrary to innumerable express texts of Scripture, and the nature of the Deity.

3. That those words are not meant of Christ, they prove, because he is not the only true God, but only the Father; but friends ! these words are produced to prove the contrary ; as expressly affirming it; and is it a sufficient reason to deny it, by saying, 'He is not the only true God, therefore, these words are not spoken of him ;' when the argument is, these words are spoken of him, therefore he is the only true God.

4. Their instances prove, that in some cases a relative may relate to the more remote antecedent, but that in this place, that mentioned ought to do so, they pretend not once to urge; yea the reason they give is against themselves ; namely, that it refers to him chiefly spoken of, which here is eminently, and indisputably Jesus Christ. In the places by them produced, it is impossible from the subject matter in hand, that the relative should be referred to any but the remoter antecedent, but that therefore here we must offer violence to the words, and strain them into an incoherence and transgress all rules of construction, (nothing enforcing to such a procedure) is not proved.

5. In the beginning of the twentieth verse it is said,' the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding;' and we are said to be ' in him,' even ' in Jesus Christ,' on which it immediately follows, ovtoq, ' this, this Jesus Christ is the true God and eternal life.'

6. That Jesus Christ is by John peculiarly called 'life,' and 'life eternal,' is evident both from his gospel, and this epistle ; and without doubt, by the same term, in his usual manner. He expresses here the same person; chap. i. 2.

'The Son of God is life, eternal life, he that hath the Son, hath life; we are in him, the Son Jesus Christ, this is the true God, and eternal life ;' so he began, and so he ends his epistle.

And this is all our adversaries have to say against this most express testimony of the divine nature of Jesus Christ; in their entrance whereunto they cry, hail master, as one before them did (he is a true God), but in the close betray him (as far as lies in them) by denying his divine nature.

Even at the light of this most evident testimony the eyes of Grotius dazzled, that he could not see the truth ; his note is/- ovrog lariv 6 d\i]divog ^tog ' is nempe quem lesus monstravit, colendumque docuit, non alius.' ovrog ssepe refertur ad aliquid prsecedens non ufxi(jioq. Acts viii. 19. X. 6.* The very same plea with the former; only Acts viii. 19. is mistaken for Acts vii. 19. the place urged by our catechists, and before them by Socinus against Wicke, to whom not only they, but Grotius is beholden. That citation of Acts X. 6. helps not the business at all; ovTog is twice used, once immediately at the beginning of the verse, secondly being guided by the first, the latter is referred to the same person, nor can possibly signify any other. Here is no such thing. Not any one circumstance to cause us, to put any force upon the constructure of the words; the discourse being still of the same person without any alteration ; which in the other places is not.

Of the next testimony, which is from those words of Jude, ' denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ,' ver. 4. (not to increase words) this is the sum. There being but one article prefixed to all the words, it seems to carry the sense, that it is wholly spoken of Christ. The catechists reckon some places, where one article serves to sundry things, as Matt. xxi. 12. but it is evident, that they are utterly things of another kind, and another manner of speakin-y, than what is here; but the judgment hereof, is left to the reader; it being not indeed clear to me, whether Christ be called SfffTrorr/c any where in the New Testament, though he be Lord and God, and the true God, full often.

The second of Titus 13. must be more fully insisted on ; ' Looking for the blessed hope, and the glorious appearance of the great God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ.'

TESTIMONIES THEREOF VINDICATED, 347

' Q. What*" dost thou answer to this ?

'A. In this place they strive to evince by tv^^o reasons, that the epithet of the great God is referred to Christ. The first is the rule forementioned, of one article prefixed to all the words: the other, that we do not expect that coming of the Father, but of the Son. To the first you have an answer already, in the answer to the fourth testimony ; to the other I answer, Paul doth not say, expecting the coming of the great God, but expecting the appearance of the glory of the great God. But now the words of Christ shew, that the glory of God the Father may be said to be illustrated, when Christ comes to judgment; whereas he saith, that he shall come in glory, that is, with the glory of God his Father, Matt, xvi, 27. Mark viii. 38. Besides, what inconvenience is it, if it shall be said, that God the Father shall come (as they cite the words out of the vulgar), when the Son comes to judge the world .'' Shall not Christ sustain the person of the Father, as of him from whom he hath received this office of judging ?'

About the reading of the words, with them we shall not contend; it is the original we are to be tried by, and there is in that no ambiguity. That iTrt^aveta rijc So^rjc the 'appearance of the glory,' is an Hebraism, for the ' glorious appearance,'cannot be questioned. A hundred expressions of that nature in the New Testament, may be produced to give countenance to this. That the blessed hope looked for, is the thing hoped for, the resurrection to life and immortality, is not denied. Neither is it disputed whether the subject spoken of be Jesus Christ, and his coming to judgment. The subject is one ; his epithets here two. 1. That belonging to his essence in himself, he is ' the great God.'

B Ad quintum quid respondes ?—Quintum testimonium est: Expectantes bea-m spem, &c. Quo in loco epitlieton Magni Dei ad Cliristum referri duabiis rati-nibus evincere conantur : prior est, superiusde articulo uiio prfefixa regula. Poste-"^ior, quod adventum non expectemus Patris, sed Fili. Verum ad primum argumen-*ura responsum habes in responsione ad quartum festiraoniimi. Ad alterura respon-deo, Paulum non dicere, Expectantes adventum Magni Dei, verum dicere, Expectantes apparitionem glorijE Magni Dei. Posse vero dici gloriam Dei patris illustra-tam iri, cum Christus ad judicium venerit, verba Cliristi ostendunt, eum ait, quod venturus sit in gloria, id est, cum gloria; Dei Patris sui. Matt. xxvi. 27. JMark viii. 38. Praeterea, quod est inconveniens si dicatur, Deus pater venturus (prout illi e vulgata citant) cum Filius ad mundum judicandum venerit 1 An Christus Dei patris personam, in judicio mundi, tanquani ejus, a quo munus judicandi accepit, non sus-tinebit ?

DEITY OF CHRIST PROVED, AND

2. That of office unto us : 'he is our Saviour.' That it is Christ which is spoken of, appears, 1. from the single article that is assigned to all the words : tov imtydXov Qeov kuX Swt)!-pog r]fiu)v 'IricFov Xpiarov, which no less signifies one person, than that other expression, 6 0f6c kol TdTr]p 'h]<rov Xpierrov, ' The God and Father of Jesus Christ:' should I say, that one person is here intended, and not two (God, and the Father of Jesus Christ being the same), our catechists may say, no ; for it is found in another place, that there is but one article prefixed, where sundry persons are after spoken of. But is it not evident in those places, from the subject matter, that they are sundry persons, as also from the several conditions of them mentioned, as in that of Matt. xxi. 12. ' He cast out the sellers and buyers.' The proper force then of the expression enforces this attribution to Jesus Christ. 3. Mention is made t7)q eirKpaveiag, of the glorious appearance of him, of whom the apostle speaks. That Christ is the person spoken of, and his employment of coming to judgment, primarily and directly, is confessed. This word is never used of God the Father, but frequently of Christ, and that in particular, in respect of the thing here spoken of. Yea it is properly expressive of his second coming, in opposition to his first coming, under contempt, scorn, and reproach, 1 Tim. vi. 14. 'Keep this commandment',^e\p£ Trig iTTKpavdag tov XpicTTov : 2 Tim. iv. 8. * Which the Lord the righteous Judge shall give me at that day, and not to me only, but to them that love t?jv liri(j)dvuav avrov. Neither (as was said) is it ever used of the Father, but is the word continually used to express the second coming of Jesus Christ; sometimesTrapoutria hath the same signification, and is therefore never ascribed to the Father. 3. It is not what mat/ be said to be done, whether the glory of the Father may be said to be illustrated by the coming of Christ, but what is said. * The glorious appearance of the great God,' is not the manifestation of his glory, but his glory is manifested in his appearance. 4. It is true, it is said, that Christ shall come ' in the glory of his Father,' Matt. xvi. 21. Mark viii. 38, but it is no where said, that the glory of the Father shall come or appear. 5. Their whole interpretation of the words will scarce admit of any good sense; nor can it be properly said, that two persons come, when only one comes.

though that one have glory and authority from the other. 6. Christ shall also judge in his own name, and by the laws, which as Lord he hath given. 7. There is but the same way of coming, and appearance of the great God and our Saviour, which if our Saviour come really and indeed, and the great God only because he sends him ; the one comes, and the other comes not ; which is not doubtless they both come.

Grotius agrees with our catechists : but says not one word more for the proof of his interpretation, nor in way of exception to ours, than they say : as they say no more than Socinus against Bellarmine, nor he much more than Erasmus before him : from whom Grotius also borrowed his consent of Ambrose, which he urges in the exposition of this place; which, were it not for my peculiar respect to Erasmus, I would say were not honestly done, himself having proved that comment under the name of Ambrose, to be a paltry, corrupted, depraved, foisted piece ; but Grotius hath not a word but what hath been spoken to.

The next testimony mentioned is Rev. i. 8. 'I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.' To which is added that of chap. iv. 8. ' Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come.'

' Q. What" sayest thou to this ?

* A. This place, they say, refers to Christ, because they suppose none is said to come but only Christ, for he is to come to judge the quick and dead. But it is to be noted, that that word, which they have rendered 'to come,' may equally be rendered, 'is to be ;' as John xvi. 13. Where the Lord

'' Quid ad sextum respondes ?—Euin vero locum propterea ad Christum refe-' unt, quod arbitrentur neralnem venturum, nisi Christum. Is enim venturus est ad jvi dicandum vivos et mortuos. Veruni tenendum est, earn vocem quam illi reddidere, vc nturus est, reddi ffique posse, futurus est, ut Johan. xvi. 13. ubi Dominus ait de SpL-f'tu, quern Apostolis proraittebat, quod illis esset futura annunciaturus, et Act. xviii. 21. ubi legimus, diem festum futurura : in quibus locis duobus, vox Grjeca est l^'xp-fjiivos- Deinde, quis est qui nesciat, cum prius dictum sit, qui erat, et qui est, et poste"rius hoc, quod additum est, per futurum esse reddi debere, et ubique de exis-tentia ea oratio accipiatur; et non in prioribus duobus membris de existentia, in postre mo de adventu. Nee est quisquam qui non animadvcrfat hie describi seter-nitatem Dei, quse tempus prceteritum, praesens, et futurura comprehendit. Bed quod crassum errorem hunc detegit, est quod Apoc. i. 4, 5. legimus : Gratia vobis, et pax ab eo, qui est, et qui erat, et qui futurus est, et a septem spiritibus, qui sunt ante faciem throni ejus, et a Jesu Christo, qui est testis fidelis. E quo testimonio apparet, Jesu m Christum ab eo, qui est, qui erat, et qui futurus est, vel, ut illi cre-dunf, venturus, esse longe allum.

says of the Spirit, which he promised to the apostles, that he should shew them thinos to come : and Acts xviii. 21. we read, that the feast day was ' to be,' in which place the Greek word is l^yon^voq. Lastly, who is there that knows not, that seeing it is said before, which was and is, this last which is added, may be rendered 'to be,' that the words in every part may be taken of existence, and not in the two former mention of existence, in the latter of coming. Neither is there any one who doth not observe, that the eternity of God is here described, which comprehendeth time past, present, and to come. But that which discovers this gross error, is that, Rev. i.4, 5. where we read, Grace be to you, and peace from him which is, which was, and which is to come ; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne, and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness. From which testimony it appears, that Jesus Christ is quite another from him, which is, and was, and is to be, or as they think, is to come.'

1. There is not one place which they have mentioned, wherein the word here used, ip)(ofi£vog, may not properly be translated ' to come,' which they seem to acknowledge at first to be peculiar to Christ : but 2. these gentlemen make themselves and their disciples merry by persuading them, that we have no other argument to prove these words to be spoken of Christ, but only because he is said to be 6 Ipy^ofuvot;, which yet, in conjunction with other things, is not without its weight, being as it were a 'name of the Messiah, Matt, xi. 3. from Gen. xlix. 10. though it may be otherwise applied. 3. They are no less triumphant doubtless in their following answer, that these words describe the eternity of God, and therefore belong not to Christ; when the argument is, that Christ is God, because amongst other things these words ascribe eternity to him : is this an answer to us, who not only believe him, but prove him eternal ? 4. And they are upon the same pin still, in their last expression, that these words are ascribed to the Father, ver. 4. when they know that the argument which they have undertaken to answer, is, that the same names are ascribed to the Son, as to the Father, and therefore he is God equal with him. Their

' "£a»{, lav iX&)) Z avjoKiirai. Gen. xlix. x. c-h it i i^y^ofxivct. Matt. xi. 3.

TESTIMOKIES THEREOF VINDICATED. 351

answer is, this name is not ascribed to Christ, because it is ascribed to the Father. Men must beg, when they can make no earnings at work. 5. We confess Christ to be ' alius,' * another/ another person from the Father; not another God, as our catechists pretend.

Having stopped the mouths of our catechists, we may briefly consider the text itself. That by this expression, *who is, and who was, and who is to come,' the apostle expresses that name of God, Ehejeh, Exod. iii. 14. which as the rabbins say, is of all seasons, and expressive of all times, is evident. To which add that other name of God, Almighty, and it cannot at all be questioned, but that he, who is intended in these words, is the ' only true God.' 2. That the words are here used of Jesus Christ, is so undeniable from the context, that his adversaries thought good not once to mention it; ver. 7. His coming is described in glory: ' Behold he cometh with clouds, and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him, and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him :' whereupon himself immediately adds the words of this testimony, ' I am Alpha and Omega ;' for, 1. They are words spoken to John by him who gave him the revelation, which was Jesus Christ; ver. 1. 2. They are the words of him that speaks on to John, which was Jesus Christ; ver, 18. 3. Jesus Christ twice in this chapter afterward gives himself the same title; ver. 11. ' I am Alpha and Omega;' and ver. 17. * I am the first and the last;' but who is he ? 'I am he that liveth, and was dead ; and behold I live for evermore, Amen : and have the keys of hell and death;' ver. 18. He gave the revelation ; he is described ; he speaks all always ; he gives himself the same titles twice again in this chapter.

But our catechists think they have taken a course to prevent all this, and therefore have avoided the consideration of the words, as they are placed, chap. i. 8. considei'ing the same words in chap. iv. 8. where they want some of the circumstances, which in this place give light to their application. They are not there spoken by any that ascribes them to himself, but by others are ascribed, ' to him that sits on the throne/ who cry (as the * seraphims,' Isa. vi. 3.) ' Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God Almighty, which is, which was, and which is to come.' But yet there wants not evidence to

evince, that these words belong immediately in this place also to Jesus Christ. For, L They are the name (as we have seen) whereby not long before he reveals himself. 2. They are spoken of him, who ' sits on the throne,' in the midst of the Christian churches here represented. And if Christ be not intended in these words, there is no mention of his presence in his church, in that solemn representation of its assembly, although he promised to be in the ' midst' of his, * to the end of the world.' 3. The honour that is here ascribed to him that is spoken of, is because he is a^iog, ' worthy,' as the same is assigned to the lamb, by the same persons, in the same words; chap. v. 12. So that in both these places it is Jesus Christ who is described; ' He is, he was, he is to come (or as another place expresses it, * the same yesterday, to day, and for ever,') the Lord God Almighty.'

I shall not need to add any thing to what Grotius hath observed on these places. He holds with our catechists, and ascribes these titles and expressions to God, in contradistinction to Jesus Christ, and gives in some observations to explain them: but for the reason of his exposition, wherein he knew that he dissented from the most of Christians, we have ouSt yp*^' so that I have nothing to do, but to reject his authority; which upon the experience I have of his design, I can most freely do.

Proceed we to the next testimony, which is Acts xx. 28. ' Feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.' He who purchased the church with his blood, is God : but it was Jesus Christ, who purchased his church with his blood; Eph. v. 25—27. Tit. ii. 14. Heb. 9. 14. therefore he is God.

' Q. What'' dost thou answer to this ?

'A. I answer, the name of God is not necessarily in tliis place referred to Christ, but it may be referred to God the Father: whose blood the apostles call that which Christ

'' Quid ad septimuin rcspondes ?—Respondeo, nomen Dei hoc loco non referri ad Christum necessario, sed ad ipsuin Deuni Patrein referri posse, cujus apostohis.cuni sanguinem, quern Christus fudit, sanguiiiem vocat, eo genere loquendi, ct cam ob causara, quo genere ioqucndi, ft quam ob causani propheta ait, cum qui tangit popu-lum Dei, tangcre pupillam oculi Dei ipsius. Eteiiiiii suniuja, qure est inter Deum Patrcm et Christum conjunctio, eisi essentia sint prorsus diversi, in causa est, cur Cliristi sanguis, sanguis ipsius Dei Patris dicatur: prajsertim si quis expendat quate-nus is est pro nobis fusus. Etenim Christus est agnus Dei, qui tollit peccata niundi. Unde sanguis in eum finera fusus, ipsius Dei sanguis jure vocari potest. Nee vero priKtcrcundum est siicntio, quod iu editionc Syriaca loco Dei Icgatur Christi.

shed, in that kind of speaking, and for that cause, with which God, and for which cause the prophet says, he who toucheth you, toucheth the apple of the eye of God himself. For the great conjunction that is between Father and Son, although in essence they are altogether diverse, is the reason, why the blood of Christ is called the blood of God the Father himself, especially if it be considered as shed for us. For Christ is the Lamb of God, that takes away the sins of the world. Whence the blood shed to that purpose may be called the blood of God himself. Nor is it to be passed by in silence, that in the Syriac edition, in the place of God, Christ is read.'

There is scarce any place, in returning an answer where-unto, the adversaries of the Deity of Christ do less agree among themselves, than about this. Some say the name of God is not here taken absolutely, but with relation to office, and so Christ is spoken of, and called 'God by office :' so Socin. ad Bellar. et Wieck. p. 200. &:c. Some, that the words are thus to be read : ' Feed the church of God, which Christ hath purchased by his own blood :' so Ochinus and Lailius Socinus, whom Zanchius answers:' De tribus Elohim.' lib. 3. cap. 6. p. 456.

Some fly to the Syriac translation, contrary to the constant consenting testimony of all famous copies of the original, all agreeing in the word ^tov, some adding tov Kvpiov: so Grotius would have it; affirming that the manuscript he used had tov Kvpiov ; not telling them that it added ^eou, which is the same with what we affirm. And, therefore, he ventures at asserting the text to be corrupted, and in short writing, ^ov to be crept in for xpoO, contrary to the faith, and consent of all ancient copies ; which is all he hath to plead. 2. Our catechists know not what to say ; ' necessarily this word God is not to be referred to Christ: it may be referred to God the Father.' Give an instance of the like phrase of speech, and take the interpretation. Can it be said that one's blood was shed, when it was not shed, but another's, and no mention that that others blood was shed? 3. If the Father's blood was shed, or said truly to be shed, because Christ's blood was shed; then you may say, that God the Father died, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and God the Father rose from the dead ; that he was VOL. viii. 2 A

dead, and is alive. That that blood that was shed, was not Christ's, but some body's else, that he loved, and was neav unto him. 4. There is no analogy between that of the prophet, of the 'apple of God's eye,' and this here spoken of. Uncontrollably a metaphor must there be allowed; here is no metaphor insisted on 5 but that which is the blood of Christ, is called the blood of God, and Christ not to be that God, is their interpretation. There diverse persons are spoken of, God and believers : here one only, that did that which is expressed. And all the force of this exposition lies in this, there is a figurative expression in one place, the matter spoken of requiring it, therefore here must be a figure admitted also, where there is not the same reason : what is this but to make the Scripture a nose of wax? This work of ' redeeming the church with his blood,' is ever ascribed to Christ, as peculiar to him, constantly without exception; and never to God the Father : neither would our adversaries allow it to be so here, but that they know not how to stand before the testimony wherewith they are pressed.

5. If because of the conjunction that is between God the Father and Christ, the blood of Christ may be called the ' blood of God the Father;' then the hunger and thirst of Christ, his dying and being buried, his rising again, maybe called the hunger and thirst of God the Father, his sweating, dying, and rising. And he is a strange natural and proper Son, who hath a quite different nature and essence from his own proper Father, as is here aflirmed.

6. Christ is called the Lamb of God, as answering and fulfilling all the sacrifices, that were made to God of old : and if the blood of Christ may be called the blood of God the Father, because he appointed it to be shed for us; then the blood of any sacrifice was also the blood of a man, that appointed it to be shed, yea, of God, who ordained it. The words are, tKKXitaiav ^eov, i]v mpuTroiiiaaTo S/ti tou iSiov aifia-Tog- if any words in the world can properly express, that it is one and the same person intended, that it is his own blood properly, that bought the church with it, surely these words do it to the full. Christ then is God.

The next place they are pleased to take notice of, as to this head of testimonies, about the name of God, is 1 John iii. IG. 'Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he

TESTIMONIES THEREOF VINDICATED. 355

laid down his life for us.' He who laid down his life for us, was God : that is, he was so when he laid down his life for us, and not made a God since.

* Q. To' the eighth what sayest thou ?

* A. First take this account, that neither in any Greek edition, but only the Complutensis, nor in the Syriac, the word God is found ; but suppose that this word were found in all copies, were therefore this word He to be referred to God ? Not doubtless; not only for that reason which we gave a little before, in answer to the third testimony, that such words are not always referred to the next person ; but moreover, because John doth often in this epistle refer the Greek word kKeivog to him who was named long before, as in the 3rd, 5th, and 7th verses of this chapter.'

1. Our catechists do very faintly adhere to the first exception about the word ^wv in the original, granting that it is in some copies, and knowing that the like phrase is used elsewhere, and that the sense in this place necessarily requires the presence of that word. 2. Supposing it as they do, we deny, that this is a very just exception which they insist upon, that a relative may sometimes, and in some cases, where the sense is evident, be referred to the remote antecedent, therefore it may, or ought to do so in any place, contrary to the propriety of grammar, where there are no circumstances, enforcing such a construction, but all things requiring the proper sense of it. It is allowed of only where several persons are spoken of immediately before, which here are not; one only being intimated, or expressed. 4. They can give no example of the word God, going before, and iKHvog following after, where iKtXvog is referred to any thing or person more remote : much less here where the apostle having treated of God, and the love of God, draws an argument from the love of God, to enforce our love of one another. 5. In the places they point unto, l/citi/oc in every one of them is referred to the next and immediate

' Ad octavum vero quid ?—Primum igitur sic habeto ; neque in Greeca editione ulla (excepta Complutensi), nee in editione Sjriaca, vocem Deus haberi. Veruni etiamsi hjEC vox haberetur in oranibiis exeniplaribus, num idcirco ea vox iile, ad Deuni erit referenda? Non certe; non solum ob eani causam, quara pauIo superius attulinius, in lesponsione ad testimonium tertium; quod verba ejusraodi non semper ad propin-quiores personasreferantur: verum etiam quod lueXw; vocem GiEecuni Johannes in hac epistoia saepe ad eum refert, qui longe antea nominatus fuerat, ut et 3i 5. et 7, veisii ejusdem capitis in Graeco apparet.

antecedent, as will be evident to our reader upon the first view.

Give them their great associate, and we have done. ''Ekhvoq hie est Christus ut supra ver. 5. subintelligendum hie autem est, hoc Christum fecisse Deo sic decernente nos-tri causa quod expressum est, Rom. iv. 8/ That tKiivog is Christ is confessed ; but the word being a relative, and expressive of some person before mentioned, we say it relates unto ^£ov, the word going immediately before it. No, says Grotius, but * the sense is. Herein appeared the love of God, that by his appointment Christ died for us.' That Christ laid down his life for us by the appointment of the Father, is most true ; but that that is the intendment of this place, or that the grammatical construction of the words will bear any such sense, we deny.

And this is what they have to except to the testimonies, which themselves choose to insist on, to give in their exceptions to, as to the names of Jehovah, and God, being ascribed unto Jesus Christ: which having vindicated from all their sophistry, I shall shut up the discourse of them with this argument, which they afford us for the confirmation of the sacred truth contended for. He who is Jehovah, God, the only true God, &c. He is God by nature: but thus is Jesus Christ God; and these are the names the Scripture calls and knows him by: therefore he is so, God by nature, blessed for ever.

That many more testimonies to this purpose may be produced, and have been so, by those who have pleaded the Deity of Christ, against its opposers, both of old and of late, is known to all that enquire after such things. I content myself, to vindicate what they have put in exceptions unto.

CHAP. XI.

Of the work of creation assigjied to Jesus Christ, ^c. The confii-mation of his eternal Deity from thence.

The Scriptures which assign the creating of all things to Jesus Christ, they propose as the next testimony of his Deity, whereunto they desire to give in their exceptions. To these they annex them, wherein it is affirmed, that * he

TESTIMONIES THEREOF VINDICATED. 357

brought the people of Israel out of Egypt/ and that he was ' with them in the wilderness,' with one particular out of Isaiah, compared with the account given of it in the gospel, about the prophets seeing the glory of Christ. Of those which are of the first sort, they instance in John i. 3. 10. Col. i. 16. Heb. i. 2. 10—12. verses.

The first and second of these, I have already vindicated in the consideration of them, as they lay in their conjuncture with them going before in ver. 1. proceed we there fore to the third, which is Col. i. 16. ' For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible, and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers; all things were created by him, and for him. And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.'

1. That these words are spoken of Jesus Christ, is acknowledged. The verses foregoing prevent all question thereof. * He hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son, in whom we have redemption though his blood, even the forgiveness of sins : who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature : for by him were all things;' &c.

2. In what sense Christ is the ' image of the invisible God,' even the 'express image of his Father's person,' shall be afterward declared. The other part of the description of him belongs to that which we have in hand. He is irpwroTOKog TTao-rjc KTLaeijjg, ' the firstborn of every creature :' that is, before them all; above them all ; heir of them all; and so none of them. It is not said, he is irpioTOKTiaTog, first created, but irpwTOTOKog, the firstborn; now the term' first,'in the Scripture, represents either what follows, and so denotes an order in the things spoken of, he that is the first being one of them, as Adam was the first man : or it respects things going before, in which sense it denies all order or series of things in the same kind. So God is said to be the first, Isa. xli. 4. because before him there is none, Isa. xliii. 11. And in this sense is Christ the firstborn ; so the firstborn, as to be the 'only begotten Son of God,' John i. 14. This the apostle proves, and gives an account of, in the following verses; for the clearing of his intendment wherein, a few things may be premised.

1. Though he speaks of him who is Mediator, and de-

scribes him, yet he speaks not of him as Mediator; for that he enters upon ver. 18. ' And he is the head of the body the church;' &c.

2. That the things, whose creation are here assigned unto Jesus Christ, are evidently contradistinguished to the things of the church, or new creation, which are mentioned ver. 18. Here he is said to be the 'firstbjDrn of every creature;' there the ' firstborn from the dead.' Here to make all things ; there there to be the 'head of the body the church.'

3. The creation of all things, simply, and absolutely, is most emphatically expressed. 1. In general; 'by him all things were created.' 2. A distribution is made of those all things, into all things that are in heaven, and that are in earth; which is the common expression of all things that were made at the beginning; Exod. xx. 11. Acts iv. 24. 3. A description is given of the things so created, according to two adjuncts, which divide all creatures whatever, whether they are visible, or invisible. 4. An enumeration is in particular made of one sort, of things invisible, which being of greatest eminency and dignity, might seem, if any, to be exempted from the state and condition of being created by Jesus Christ; ' whether they be thrones,' &c. 5. This distribution and enumeration being closed, the general assumption is again repeated, as having received confirmation from what was said before : ' all things were created by him:' of what sort soever, whether expressed in the enumeration foregoing or no ; all things were created by him : they were created for him, dg avrov : as it is said of the Father, Rom. xi. 36. which Rev. iv. 11. is said to be, 'for his will and pleasure.' 6. For a farther description of him, v. 17. his pre-existence before all things, and his providence in supporting them, and continuing that being to them, which he gave them by creation, is asserted. And 'he is before all things,and by him all things exist.'

Let us consider then what is excepted hereunto, by them with whom we have to do. Thus they,

* Q. Whaf" dost thou answer to this place ?

* Quid ad tcrtiiim ?—Practcr id, qiiod ct lioc testimonium loquaturde Chrisfo, lan-quam media et secunda causa, vcrbuiu crcata sunt, non solum dc vetcrc, veruni ctiaui de nova creationc in Scriptura usurpari constat : cujus rei cxciupia iiabcs Ephes. ii. 10. 1.5. Jacob, i. 18. Pra;tfrea, ca verba, omnia ia cociis, ct in terra, non

TESTIMONIES THEREOF VINDICATED. 359

' A. Besides this, that this testimony speaks of Christ, as of the mediate and second cause, it is manifest, the words' were created' are used in Scripture, not only concerning the old, but also the new creation ; of which you have example, Eph. ii. 10.15. James i. 18. Moreover, that these words. All things in heaven and in earth, are not used for all things altogether, appearethnot only from the words subjoined a little after, ver. 20. where the apostle saith, that by him are all things reconciled in heaven and in earth, but also from those words themselves, wherein the apostle said not, that the heavens and earth were created, but all things that were in heaven and in earth.'

* Q. But how dost thou understand that testimony ?

* A. On that manner, wherein all things that are in heaven and in earth were reformed by Christ, after God raised him from the dead; and by him translated into another state and condition, and this whereas God gave Christ to be head to angels and men, who before acknowledged God only for their Lord.'

What there is either in their exceptions, or exposition, of weight to take off this evident testimony, shall briefly be considered.

The first exception of the kind of causality, which is here ascribed to Christ, hath already been considered and removed, by manifesting the very same kind of expression, about the same things, to be used concerning God the Father. 2. Though the word creation, be used concerning the new creation, yet it is in places where it is evidently and distinctly spoken of, in opposition to the former state, wherein they were, who were so created. But here, as was above demonstrated, the old creation is spoken of, in direct distinction from the new, which the apostle describes and expresses in other terms, ver. 20. If that may be called the new creation, which lays a foundation of it, as the death of Christ doth of regeneration. And unless it be in that cause

usurpari pro omnibus prorsus, apparet non solum es verbis paulo inferius subjectis, V. 20. ubi Apostolus ait, quod per eum reconciliata sint omnia in coelis et in terra, verura etiara ex iis ipsis verbis, in quibus Apostolus non ait, coelum et terram creata esse, verum ea omnia qute in corIIs et in terra sunt.—Qui vero istud testimonium in-telligisl—-Ad eum modum, quo per Christum omnia, quae sunt in coelis et in terra postquam eum Deus a mortuis excitavit, reforniata sunt, et in alium statum et con-ditionem translata ; id vero cum Deus et angelis et hominibus Christum caput de-derit, qui antea tantum Deuni solum pro domino agnoverunt.

the work of the new creation is not spoken of at all in this place. 3. Where Christ is said ' to reconcile all things to himself that are in heaven and earth,' he speaks plainly and evidently of another work, distinct from that which he had described in these verses; and whereas reconciliation supposes a past enmity, the all things mentioned in the 20th verse, can be none, but those which were sometime at enmity with God. Now none but men, that ever had any enmity against God, or were at enmity with him, were ever reconciled to God. It is then men in heaven and earth, to whose reconciliation in their several generations, the efficacy of the blood of Christ did extend, that is there intended. 4. Not heaven and earth are named, but all things, in them, as being most immediately expressive of the apostle's purpose, who naming all things in general, chose to instance in angels and men: as also insisting on the expression, which is used concerning the creation of all things in sundry places, as hath been shewed; though he mentions not all the words in them used. For the exposition they give of these words, it is most ridiculous; for 1. The apostle doth not speak of Christ, as he is exalted after his resurrection, but describes him in his divine nature and being. 2. To translate out of one condition into another, is not to create the thing so translated, though another new thing it may. When a man is made a magistrate, we do not say he is made a man, but he is made a magistrate. 3. The new creation which they here affirm to be spoken of, is by no means to be accommodated unto angels. In both the places mentioned by themselves, and in all places where it is spoken of, it is expressive of a change from bad to good, from evil actions to grace, and is the same with regeneration or conversion, which cannot be ascribed to angels, who never sinned, norlost their first habitation. 4. The** dominion of Christ over angels and men is no where called a new creation ; nor is there any colour or pretence why it should be so expressed. 5. The new creation is in Jesus Christ, 2 Cor. v. 17. but to be in Christ, is to be implanted into him by the Holy Spirit by believing, which by no means can be accommodated to angels. 6. If only the dominion

'' Ea qua in ctrlis sunt personpe (qujE subjectas sunt Chrislo), sunt angeli, iique tarn boni quara niali: quae in coelis sunt, et persona- non sunt, omnia ilia continent qune-cunque extra angelos vel sunt, vel etiam esse possunt. Smal. dc Divin. Chrisli cap. 16. (ic Regno Christi super Angelos.

of Christ be intended, then whereas Christ's dominion is according to our adversaries, (Smal. de Divin. Christi. cap. 16.) extended over all creatures, men, angels, devils, and all other things in the world, then men, angels, devils, and all things are new creatures. 7. Socinus says, that by principalities, and powers, devils are intended: and what advancement may they be supposed to have obtained by the new creation? The devils were created, that is, delivered. There is no end of the folly and absurdities of this interpretation: I shall spend no more words about it. Our argument from this place stands firm and unshaken.

Grotius abides by his friends in the interpretation of this place, wresting it to the new creature, and the dominion of Christ over all; against all the reasons formerly insisted on, and with no other argument than what he was from the Soci-nians supplied withal. His words on the place are. "^It is certain, that all things were created by the Word, But those things that go before shew that Christ is here treated of, which is the name of a man. As Chrysostom also understood this place : but he would have it, that the world was made for Christ, in a sense not corrupt: but on the account of that which went before, tKTia^n is better interpreted, were ordained, or obtained a certain new state.' So he, in almost the very words of Socinus. But,

1. In what sense all things were created by the Word, and what Grotius intends by the Word, I shall speak elsewhere. 2. Is Christ the name of a man only? Or of him who is only a man ? Or is he a man only as he is Christ? If he would have spoken out to this, we might have had some light into his meaning, in many other places of his annotations. The apostle tells us that Christ ' is over all, God blessed for ever;' Rom. ix. 5. And that Jesus Christ was ' declared to be the Son of God by the resurrection from the dead ;' Rom. i. 3. If Christ denote the person of our Mediator, Christ is God, and what is spoken of Christ, is spoken of him who is God. But this is that which is aimed at; the Word, or Wisdom of God, bears eminent favour towards that man Jesus Christ: but that he was any more than a man, (that is, the

<^ Certum est, per Verbum creata omnia. Sed qua; praecedunt, ostendunt hie de Christo agi, quod liominis iiomeii est, quomodo etiam Chrj'sostomus hunc accepit locum. Sed ille infelligitmundura creatura propter Christum, sensu non maio: sed propter id quod pr?ecessit, rectius est ixTkV&n hie inteppretari, ordinata sunt, novum quendam statum sunt consccuta.

union of the natures of God and man in one person) is denied. 3. The words before are so spoken of Christ, as that they call him the Son of God, and the image of the invisible God, and the first born of the creation : which though he was, who was a man, yet he was not, as he was a man. 4. All the arguments we have insisted on, and farther shall insist on (by God's assistance) to prove the Deity of Christ, with all the texts of Scripture wherein it is plainly affirmed, do evince the vanity of this exception,' Christ is the name of a man, therefore the things spoken of him are not proper and peculiar to God.' 5. Into Chrysostom's exposition of this place I shall not at present enquire, though I am not without reason to think he is wronged : but that the word here, ' created,' may not, cannot be rendered ordained, or placed in a new state and condition, I have before sufficiently evinced ; neither doth Grotius add any thing to evince his interpretation of the place, or to remove what is objected against it.

1. He tells us, that of that sense of the word ktiZ^iv, he hath spoken in his prolegomena. And urges, Eph. ii. 10. 13. iii. 9. iv. 24. to prove the sense proposed. 1. It is confessed, that God doth sometimes express the exceeding greatness of his power, and efficacy of his grace, in the regeneration of a sinner, and enabling him to live to God, by the word create; whence such a person is sometimes called the new creature, according to the many promises of the Old Testament, of creating a new heart in the elect, whom he would take into covenant with himself. A truth which wraps that in its bowels, whereunto Grotius was no friend. But that this new creation can be accommodated to the things here spoken of, is such a figment, as so learned a man might have been ashamed of. The constant use of the word in the New Testament, is that which is proper, and that which in this place we insist on; as Rom. i. 25. 1 Tim. iv. 3. Rev. iv. 11. 2. Eph. ii. 10. speaks of the new creature in the sense declared, which is not illustrated by ver. 13. which is quite of another import. Chaj). iv. 24. is to the same purpose. Chap. iii. 9. the creation of all things, simply, and absolutely, is ascribed to God ; which to wrest to a new creation there is no reason, but what arises from opposition to Jesus Christ, because it is ascribed also to him.

2. The latter part of the verse he thus illustrates, or rather obscures ; 'to. Travra 8t avrov : intellige omnia quae ad novam creationem pertinent/ How causelesly, how without ground, how contrary to the words, and scope of the place, hath been shewed ; ' koL hq avTov iKTiarai : propter ipsum, ut ipse omnibus prseesset;' Rev. v. 13. Heb. ii. 8. This is to go forward in an ill way. 1. What one instance can he give of this sense of the expression opened ? The words, as hath been shewed, are used of God the Father, Rom. xi. 36. and are expressive of absolute sovereignty, as Rev. iv. 11. 2. The texts cited by him to exemplify the sense of this place, (for they are not instanced in to explain the phrase, which is not used in them) do quit evert his whole gloss : in both places the dominion of Christ is asserted over the whole creation ; and particularly in Rev. v. 13. ' things in heaven, earth, under the earth, and in the sea,' are recounted. I desire to know whether all these are made new creatures, or no? If not; it is not the dominion of Christ over them, that is here spoken of; for he speaks only of them that he created.

Of the 17th verse he gives the same exposition; * koI av-ToglcTTt irpb Travrwv : id est, A et Q, ut ait Apocal. i.-8. Trpo irdvTwv, intellige ut jam diximus.' Not contented to pervert this place, he draws another into society with it; wherein he is more highly engaged than our catechists, who confess that place to be spoken of the eternity of God ; * koL ra Travra Iv avrCo o-uviOTjjKE" et htec vox de veteri creatione ad novam traducitur ; vid. 2 Pet. iii. 5.' Prove it by any one instance ; or if that may not be done, beg no more in a matter of this importance. In Peter it is used of the existence of all things by the power of God, in and upon their creation ; and so also here, but spoken with reference to Jesus Christ, who is ' God over all blessed for ever.' And so much for the vindication of this testimony.

Heb. i. 2. is nextly mentioned. ' By whom also he made the worlds.'

That these words are spoken of Christ, is not denied. They are too express to bear any exception on that account. That God is said to make the world by Christ, doth not at all prejudice what we intend from this place. God could no way make the world by Christ, but as he was his own eternal Wisdom, which exempts him from the condition of a crea-

ture. Besides, as it is said, that God made the world by him, denoting the subordination of the Son to the Father, and his being his Wisdom, as he is described, Prov. viii. So also the Word is said to make the world, as a principal efficient cause himself; John i. 3. and Heb. i. 10. The word here used is aliovag. That aUov is of various acceptations in the New Testament, is known. A duration of time, an age, eternity, are sometimes expressed thereby. The world, the beginning of it, or its creation, as John ix. 32. In this place it signifies not time simply and solely, but the things created in the beginning of time, and in all times; and so expressly the word is used, Heb. xi. 2. the framing ahovuyv, is the creation of the world, which by faith we come to know. ' The worlds,' that is, the world, and all in it, was made by Christ. Let us now hear our catechists.

* Q. How*^ dost thou answer to this testimony ?

* A. On this manner, that it is here openly written, not that Christ made, but that God by Christ made the worlds. It is also confessed, that the word ' secula,' may signify not only the ages past and present, but also to come. But that here it signifies things future is demonstrated from hence, that the same author affirmeth, that by him whom God appointed heir of all things, he made the worlds. For Jesus of Nazareth was not made heir of all things before he raised him from the dead; which appears from hence, because then all power in heaven and in earth was given him of God the Father, in which grant of power, and not in any other thing, that inheritance of all things is contained.'

1. For the first exception, it hath been sufficiently spoken to already; and if nothing else but the pre-existence of Christ unto the whole creation be hence proved, yet the cause of our adversaries is by it destroyed for ever. This exception might do some service to the Arians, to Socinians it will do none at all. 2. The word * secula' signifies not things future any where. This is gratis dictum, and cannot be proved by

'• Qui respondes ad quartuni tcstimoniiiiii ?—Eo |)acto, quod hie palam scriptiiiii sit, non, Christum fecisse, scd, Deuni per Clirisluni fecisse secula. Vocem vero secula noil solum prajsentia et pr.Tctcrita, veruui ctiain futura significare posse, in con-fesso est. Hie vero dc futnris agi id deiiionstrat, quod idem autor afliriiiet, per cum, quern hajredein universorum constitucrit Deus, ctiam secula esse coiulita. Nam Jesus Nazarenus non prius eonstitutus hares universorum fuit, quain eum Deus a mortuis cxcitavit. Quod hinc patct, quod turn demum omnis potcstas in corIo et in terra cidem data a Deo Patre fucrit, cujus potestatis donatione, ct non alia ic, ista universorum liajrcdiiascontinelur.

any instance. ' The world to come' may do so, but the ' world' simply doth not. That it doth not so signify in this place is evident from these considerations. 1. These words, *by whom he made the world,' are given as a reason why God made him heir of all things ; even because by him he made all things ; which is no reason at all, if you understand only heavenly things by the worlds here ; which also removes the last exception of our catechists, that Christ was appointed heir of all things antecedently to his making of the worlds; which is most false ; this being given as a reason of that; his making of the world, of his being made heir of all things. Besides, this answer, that Christ made not the world until his resurrection, is directly opposite to that formerly given by them to Col. i. 16. where they would have him to be said to make all things, because of the reconciliation he made by his death ; ver. 20. 2. The same word or expression in the same epistle is used for the world in its creation, as was before observed chap. xi. 2. which makes it evident, that the apostle in both places intends the same. 3. 'Aiojv is no where used absolutely for the world to come; which being spoken of in this epistle is once called oikov-fi£vr}v Trjv julXXoucrav, chap. ii. 5. and dih)va fxiWovra, chap, vi. 5. but no where absolutely diojva, or diCJvac. 4. The * world to come' is no where said to be made ; nor is this expression used of it. It is said chap. ii. to be put into subjection to Christ, not to be made by him; and chap. vi. the powers of it are mentioned, not its creation. 5. That is said to be made by Christ, which he upholds with the word of his power; but this is said simply to be all things; * he up-holdeth all things by the word of his power,' ver. 3. 6. This plainly answers the former expressions insisted on. * He made the world,' ' he made all things,' &c. So that this text also lies as a two edged-sword, at the very heart of the Socinian cause.

Grotius seeing that this interpretation could not be made good, yet being no way willing to grant, that making of the world is ascribed to Christ, relieves his friends with one evasion more than they were aware of. It is that Bl 6v, by whom, is put for 8i ov, for whom, or for whose sake. And £7rotr}(T£ is to be rendered by the preterpluperfect tense, 'he had made :' and so the sense is, God made the world for

Christ; which answereth an old saying of the Hebrews ; 'That the world was made for the Messiah.'

But what will not great wits give a colour to? Grotius is not able to give me one instance in the Avhole New Testament, where Si ov is taken for Si ov; and if it should be so any where, himself would confess that it must have some cogent circumstance to enforce that construction, as all places must have where we go off from the propriety of the word. 2. If Si ov be put for Si ov; Sla must be put for elc, as in the ojDinion of Beza it is once in the place quoted by Grotius ; and so signify the final cause, as he makes Si ov to do. Now the Holy Ghost doth expressly distinguish between these two, in this business of making the world : Rom. xi. 36. Si avTov, Koi liQ avTov to. Travra. So that doubtless in the same matter, one of these is not put for the other. 3. Why must £7roirj(T£ be ' condiderat,' and what example can be given of so rendering that aoristus? If men may say what they please, without taking care to give the least probability to what they say, these things may pass. 4. If the apostle must be supposed to allude to any opinion or saying of the Jews, it is much more probable that he alluded in the word aiiovaQ, which he uses, to the threefold world they mention in their liturgy; the lower, middle, and higher world, or souls of the blessed. Or the fourfold mentioned by Rab. Alschech ; ' Messias prosperabitur vocabulum est quod quatuor mundos complectitur: qui sunt mundus inferior, mundus angelorum, mundus sphaerarum, et mundus supremus,' &c. but of this enough.

Though this last testimony be sufficient to confound all gainsayers, and to stop the mouths of men of common ingenuity, yet it is evident, that ourcatechists are more perplexed witli that which follows in the same chapter, which therefore they insist longer upon, than any one single testimony besides : with what success comes now to be considered.

The words are,Heb. i. 10—12. 'And, Thou, Lord in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth ; and the heavens are the works of thy hands. They shall perish, but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment; and as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed; but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.' That these words of the psalmist are spoken

concerning Christ, we have the testimony of the apostle, af)-plying them to him, wherein we are to acquiesce. The thing also is clear in itself, for they are added in his discourse of the deliverance of the church, which work is peculiar to the Son of God ; and where that is mentioned, it is he who eminently is intended. Now very many of the arguments, wherewith the Deity of Christ is confirmed,are wrapped up in these words. 1. His name Jehovah is asserted. And thou ' Lord,' for of him the psalmist speaks, though he repeat not that word. 2. His eternity and pre-existence to his incarnation. ' Thou Lord in the beginning ;' that is, before the world was made. 3. His omnipotence, and divine power, in the creation of all thino;s ; ' thou hast laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the works of thy hands.' 4. His immutability; ' thou art the same, and thy years fail not;' as Mai. iii. 6. 5, His sovereignty and dominion over all; ' as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed.' Let us now see what darkness they are able to pour forth upon this sun, shining in its strength.

*Q.^ What dost thou answer to this testimony?

' A. To this testimony I answer, that it is not to be understood of Christ but of God. But because this writer refers

^ Ad quintum quid respondes?—Ad id testimonium id respondeo, quod non de Christo, verum de Deo accipiendum sit. Quia vero idem scriptor illud ad Filium Dei referat, expendendum est sermonera in testimonio, non de una re sed de duabus potissimura haberi expresse : una est ccKli et terrie creatio ; altera rerum creatarum abolitio. Quod vero is autor priorem ad Christum non referat hinc perspicuum est, quod in eo capite praestantiam Christi demonstrare sibi proposuerit; non earn, quani a seipso habeat, verum eam quam haereditavit, et qua prsestantior angelis ettectus sit, ut e ver. 4. cuivis planum est: cujus generis pra?stantia cum creatio cceli et terras non sit, nee esse possit, apparet manifeste.non in eum finem testimonium ah eo scriptore allatum, ut Christum creasse ccthim et terram probaret. Cum igitur prior ad Christum referri nequeat, ap])aret posteriorem tantum ad eum rcferendem esse, id vero propterea, quod Deus coelum et terram per eum aboliturus sit, tum cum judicium extremum per ipsumest exccutiirus. Quo quidem tantopere prffistantia Christi prne angelis conspicua futura est, ut ipsi angeli sint ei ea ipsa in re ministraturi. Quae posterior oratio, cum sine verbis superioribus, in quibus fit cceli terraeque meiitio, in-telligi non potuerit, cum sit cum iis per vocem ipsi copjuncta, et eadem ilia verba priora idem autor commemorare necesse habuit. Nam si alii scriptores sacri ad eum moduni citant testimonia Scriptura;, nulla adacti necessitate, niulto raagis huic necessitate conipulso, id faciendum fuit.—Ubi vero Scriptores Sacri id fecerunt?—Inter alia niulta testimonia, habes Matt. xii. 18—21, ubi nimis apertum est versiculum 19. tantum ad propositum Evangelista; Matthsei pertinere, cum id voluerit probare, cur Christus, ne palam fieret, interdiceret. Deinde, 7\.cts ii. 17—21^. Ubi etiam tantum ver. 17, 18. ad propositum Petri Apostoli faciunt, quod quidem est, ut Spiritum Sanctum esse efFusum supra discipulos doceat: et ibidem ver. 25—28. Ubi palam est, versum tantum 27. ad propositum facere, quandoquidem id approbet apostolus, Christum a morte detineri fuisse impossibile. Denique in hoc ipso capite, ver. 9. ubi verba haec, dilexisti justitiara et odio habuisti iniquitatem, apparet nihil pertinere ad rem quam probat apostolus, qufe est, Christum praestantiorem factum angelis.

it to the Son of God, it is to be considered, that the discourse in this testimony is expressly about, not one, but two things chiefly : the one is the creation of heaven and earth; the other the abolishino- of created thing's. Now that that author doth not refer the first unto Christ, is hence evident, because in that chapter he proposeth to himself to demonstrate the excellency of Christ above the angels, not that which he hath of himself, but that which he had by inheritance, and whereby he is made better than the angels, as is plain to any one, ver. 4. of which kind of excellence seeing that the creation of heaven and earth is not, nor can be, it appeareth manifestly, that this testimony is not urged by this writer to prove that Christ created heaven and earth. Seeing therefore the first part cannot be referred to Christ, it appeareth, that the latter only is to be referred to him : and that because by him God will abolish heaven and earth, when by him he shall execute the last judgment: whereby the excellency of Christ above angels shall be so conspicuous, that the angels themselves shall in that very thing serve him. And seeing this last speech could not be understood without those former words, wherein mention is made of heaven and earth, being joined to them by this word ' they,' therefore the author had a necessity to make mention of them also. For if other holy writers do after that manner cite the testimonies of Scripture, compelled by no necessity, much more was this man to do it being com])elled tliereunto.

* But where have the divine writers done this ?

* Amongst many other testimonies take. Matt, xii. 18— 21. where it is most manifest, that only ver. 19. belongeth to the purpose of the evangelist, when he would prove, why Christ forbid, that he should be made known. So Acts vii. 17—21. where also ver. 17, 18. only do make to the apostle's purpose, which is to prove, that the Holy Ghost was poured forth on the disciples. And there also, ver. 25—28. where ver. 27. only is to the purpose : the apostle proving only, that it was impossible that Christ should be detained of death. Lastly, in this very chapter, ver. 9. where these words, ' thou hast loved righteousness and hated iniquity,' are used; it is evident, that they belong not to the thing which the apostle proveth; which is, that Christ was made more excellent than the angels.'

That in all this discourse there is not any thing considerable, but the horrible boldness of these men in corruj3ting and perverting the word of God, will easily to the plainest capacity be demonstrated ; for which end, I otFer the ensuing animadversions.

1. To say these things are not spoken of Christ, because they are spoken of God, is a shameless begging of the thing in question ; we prove Christ to be God, because these things are spoken of him, that are proper to God only.

2. It is one thing in general that is spoken of, namely, the Deity of Christ, which is proved by one testimony from Psal. cii. concerning one property of Christ, viz. his almighty power, manifested in the making all things, and disposing of them in his sovereign will, himself abiding unchangeable.

3. It is shameless impudence in these gentlemen to take upon them to say, that this part of the apostle's testimony, which he producfth is to his purpose, that not; as if they were wiser than the Holy Ghost, and knew Paul's design better than himself.

4. The foundation of their whole evasion is most false ; viz. that all the proofs of the excellency of Christ above angels, insisted on by the apostle, belong peculiarly to what he is said to receive by inheritance. The design of the apostle is to prove the excellency of Christ, in himself, and then in comparison of angels; and therefore, before the mention of what he received by inheritance, he affirms directly, that by him God made the world. And to this end it is most evident, that this testimony, that he created heaven and earth, is most directly subservient.

5. Christ also hath his divine nature by inheritance; that is, he was eternally begotten of the essence of his Father, and is thence by right of inheritance his Son, as the apostle proves from PsaL ii. 5.

6. Our catechists speak not according to their own principles, when they make a difference between what Christ had from himself, and what he had from inheritance. For they suppose he had nothing but by divine grant, and voluntary concession, which they make the inheritance here spoken of. Nor according to ours, who say not, that the Son, as the Son, is a seipso, or hath any thing a seipso; and so know not what they say.

VOL. YIII. 2 B

7. There is not then tlie least colour or pretence of denying this first part of the testimony to belong to Christ. The whole is spoken of to the same purpose, to the same person, belongs to the same matter in general: and that first expression is, if not only, yet mainly, and chiefly effectual to confirm the intendment of the apostle; proving directly that Christ is better and more excellent than the angels, in that he is Jehovah, that made heaven and earth ; they are but his creatures; as God often compares himself with others. In the psalmist the words respect chiefly the making of heaven and earth, and these words are applied to our Saviour. That the two works of making and abolishing the world, should be assigned distinctly unto two persons, there is no pretence to affirm. This boldness indeed is intolerable.

8. To abolish the world is no less a work of almighty power, than to make it: nor can it be done by any but him that made it; and this confessedly is ascribed to Christ. And both alike belong to the asserting of the excellency of God above all creatures, v/hich is here aimed to be done.

9. The reason given why the first words, which are nothing to the purpose, are cited with the latter, is a miserable begging of the thing in question. Yea tl.e first words are chiefly and eminently to the apostle's purpose, as hath been shewed. We dare not say only, for the Holy Ghost knew better than we, what was to his purpose, though our cate-chists be wiser in their own conceits than be. Neither is there any reason imaginable, why the apostle should rehearse more words here out of the psalm, than were directly to the business he had in hand; seeing how many testimonies he cites, and some of them very briefly, leaving them to be supplied fiom the places whence they are taken.

10. That others of the holy writers do urge testimonies not to their purpose, or beyond what they need, is false in itself, and a bold imputation of weakness to the penmen of the Holy Ghost. The instances hereof given by our adversaries, are not at all to the purpose which they are pursuing. For.

1. In no one of them is there a testimony cited, whereof one part should concern one person, and another another, as IS here pretended : and without farther process this is sufficient to evince this evasion of impertinency •' for nothing

will amount to the interpretation they enforce on this place, but the producing of some place of the New Testament, where a testimony is cited out of the Old, speaking throughout of the same person, whereof the one part belongs to him, and the other not: although that, which they say doth not belong to him, be most proper for the confirmation of what is affirmed of him, and what the whole is brought in proof of.

2. There is not any of the places instanced in by them, w^herein the whole of the words is not directly to the purpose in hand, although some of them are more immediately suited to the occasion on which the whole testimony is produced; as it were easy to manifest by tlie consideration of the several places.

3. These words, 'thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity,' are not mentioned to prove immediately the excellency of Christ above angels, but his administration of his kingdom, on which account he is so excellent, among others ; and thereunto they are m.ost proper.

And this is the issue of their attempt against this testimony, which being thus briefly vindicated, is sufficient alone of itself to consume with its brightness all the opposition, which from the darkness of hell or men, is made against the Deity of Christ.

And yet we have one more to consider, before this text be dismissed. Grotius is nibbling at this testimony also. His words are ; 'Again,*" that which is spoken of God he applies to the Messiah; because it was confessed among the Hebrews, that this world was created for the Messiah's sake (whence I should think that l^sf.iaXiM<Tag is rightly to be understood, thou wast the cause why it was founded ; and the works of thy hands, that is, it was made for thee), and that a new and better world should be made by him.' So he.

This is not the first time we have met with this conceit. And I wish that it had sufficed this learned man to have framed his Old Testament annotations, to rabbinical tradi-

f Rursuni, quod de Deo dictum fuerat Messiaj aptat; quia constabat inter Hp-brffios, et muiulum hunc Messife causa coudiluin (unde l&E^uiXi'ojj-a? recle jiitelli»i putem, causa fuisti cur fundaretur; ct opus mainmni tuaruu), id est propter te f;ic-tnm: n- bj? Hehrajis et Clialda^is ctiam projjter significat), et fore, ut nevus raundus lueliorque condatur per ipsuin.

■ 2 B 2

tions, that the new might have escaped. 'Butjacta est aha. I say tlieii, that tlie apostle doth not apply that to one person, which was spoken of another; but asserts the words in the psalm to be spoken of him, concerning whom he treats ; and thence proves his excellency, which is the business he hath in hand. It is not to adorn Christ with titles, which were not due to him (which to do were robbery), but to prove by testimonies that were given of him, that he is no less than he affirmed him to be, even ' God blessed for ever.' 2. Let any man in his right wits consider this interpretation, and try whether he can persuade himself to receive it; fB'E/.ttXfwo-oc <yv Kvpi£, ' for thee O Lord were the foundations of the earth laid ; and the heavens are the works of thy hands;' that is,' they were made for thee.' Any man may thus make quidlibet ex quolihet; but whether with due reverence to the word of God, I question. 3. It is not about the sense of the Hebrew particles that we treat (and yet the learned man cannot give one clear instance of what he affirms), but of the design of the Holy Ghost in the psalm, and in this place of the Hebrews, applying these words to Christ. 4. I marvel he saw not that this interpretation doth most desperately cut its own throat, the parts of it being at an irreconcilable difference among themselves. For in the first place he says, the words are spoken of God, and applied to the Messiah, and then proves the sense of them to be such, as they cannot be spoken of God at all, but merely of the Messiah, for to that sense doth he labour to wrest both the Hebrew and Greek text. Methinks the words being spoken of God, and not of the Messiah, but only fitted to him by the apostle, there is no need to say that, 'thou hast laid the foundations of the earth,' is, that it was ' laid for thy sake ;' * and the heavens are the works of thy hands;' that is, they were * made for thee ;' seeing they are properly spoken of God. This one rabbinical figment, of the world's being made for the Messiah, is the engine whereby the learned man turns about, and perverts the sense of this whole chapter. In brief, if either the plain sense of the words, or the intenthnent of the Holy Ghost in this place, be of any account; yea, if the apostle deals honestly and sincerely, and speaks to what lie doth i)ropose, and urges that which is to his purpose, and doth nut falsely

apply that to Christ which was never spoken of him, this learned gloss is directly contrary to the text.

And these are the testimonies given to the creation of all things by Christ, which our catechists thought good to produce to examination.

CHAP. XII.

All-ruling and disjwsinff Providence assigned nnto Christ, and his eternal Godhead thence farther confirmed, tcith other testimonies thereof.

That Christ is that God who made all things, hath been proved by the undeniable testimonies, in the last chapter insisted on. That as the greatand wise Creator of all things, he doth also govern, rule, and dispose of the things by him created, is another evidence of his eternal power and Godhead ; some testimonies whereof, in that order of procedure, which by our catechists is allotted unto us, come now to be considered.

The first they propose is taken from Heb. i. 3. where the words spoken of Christ are ^spwv re to. iravTu tco pnfjLan Ti]Q ^vvdinecog avrov, 'upholding all things by the word of his power,'

He who * upholdeth all things by the word of his power,' is God. This is ascribed to God as his property ; and by none, but by him who is God by nature, can it be performed. Now this is said expressly of Jesus Christ: 'who being the brightness of his Father's glory, and express image of his person, upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had himself purged our sins,' &c.

This place, or the testimony therein given to the divine power of Jesus Christ, they seek thus to elude.

'The^* word here 'all things,' doth not*, no more than in many other places, signify all things universally without

^ Hie verbum, omnia, non raiims quam in pliiribus aliis locis, non omnia in uni-vetsum sine uUa exceptione designare ; verum ad ea tantum, quffi ad Christi reg-iium pertineant, referri; de quibus vere dici potest, Dominum Jesura omnia verbo virtutis sua; portare.id est, conservaie. Quod vero vox, omnia, hoc loco ad eadun-taxat referatur, ex ipsa materia sirbjccta satis apparet. Piffiterea, verbum, quo hie utitur scriptor, portare, magis gubernaiuli vel administrandi rationem quam conser-vandi significat, qucmadmodum ilia, quaj anncxa sunt, verbo virtutis suae, innuere vidtaitur.

exception, but is referred to those things only, which belong to the kingdom of Christ; of which it may truly be said, that the Lord Jesus beareth, that is, conserveth * all things,' by the word of his power. But that the word ' all things,' is in this place referred unto those things only, ap-peareth sufficiently from the subject matter itself of it. Moreover, the word which this writer useth, to' bear,' doth rather signify governing and administration, than preservation, as these words annexed ' by the word of his power^' seem to intimate.'

This indeed is jejune,and almost unworthy of these men, if any things may be said so to be. For 1. why is ra Travra here, the'things of the kingdom of Christ?' It is the express description of the person of Christ, as the 'brightness of his Father's glory, and the express image of his person,' that the apostle is treating of, and not at all of his kingdom as Mediator. 2. It expressly answers the worlds that he is said to make, ver. 2. which are not the things of the kingdom of Christ; nor do our catecliists plead them directly so to be. This term 'all things,' is never put absolutely, for all the things of the kingdom of Christ. 3. The subject matter here treated of by the apostle, is the person of Jesus Christ, and the eminency thereof. The medium whereby he proves it to be so excellent, is his almighty power in creating and sustaining of all things. Nor is there any subject matter intimated, that should restrain these words to the thinos of the kingdom of Christ. 4. The word cpipwv, neither in its native signification, nor in the use of it in the Scripture, gives any countenance to the interpretation of it, by governing or administering; nor can our catechists give any one instance of that signification there. It is properly to ' bear, to carry, to sustain, to uphold.' Out of nothing Christ made all things, and preserves them by his power from returning into nothing. 5. What insinuation of their sense they have from that expression, 'by the word of his power,'I know not. By the' word of his power,' is by ' his powerful word.' And that that word or command is sometimes taken for the efiectual strength and efficacy of God's dominion, put forth for the accomplishing of his own purposes, I suppose needs not much proving. Grotius would have the words, Siivafiig avToi), to refer to the power of the Father; Christ upholdeth

all things by the word of his Father's power; without reason or proof; nor will the grammatical account bear that rendition of the relative mentioned.

About that which they tirge out of Jude 15. I shall not contend. The testimony from thence relies on the authority of the Vulgar Latin translation, which as to me, may plead for itself.

Neither of what is mentioned from 1 Cor. x. shall I insist on any thing, but only the 9th verse, the words whereof are : * Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents.' The design of the apostle is known. From the example of God's dealing with the children of Israel in the wilderness upon their sin and provocations, there being a parity of state and condition between them and Christians, as to their spiritual participation of Jesus Christ, ver. 2—4. he dehorts believers from the ways and sins whereby God was provoked against them. Particularly in this verse, he insists on the tempting of Christ, for which the Lord sent fiery serpents among them, by which they were destroyed; Num. xxi. 6. He whom the people tempted in the wilderness, and for which they were destroyed by serpents, was the Lord Jehovah. Now this doth the apostle apply to Christ; he therefore is the Lord Jehovah. But they say,

'From*^ those words it cannot be proved that Christ was really tempted in the wilderness; as from the like speech if any one should so speak, may be apprehended. Be not refractory to the magistrates, as some of our ancestors were; you would not thence conclude straightway, that the same singular magistrates were in both places intended. And if the like phrases of speech are found in Scripture, in which the like expression is referred to him, whose name was expressed a little before, without any repetition of the

b Ex lis verbis doceri non potest, apostolum affirinarc, Christum in deserfo re-vera tentatiim fuisse; iit e simili oratione, siquis ita diccret, deprchcndi potest. Ne sitis refractaiii inagistratiii, qiicniadmodum (juidain niajoruni nostroriim fiieruiit; non illico concluderes eundein iiiuncro niagistratum utrobique designari. Quod si re-periuntur in Scripluris ejusmodi ioquendi modi, in quibiis siiiiilis oratio ad eiim, cujus nomen paulo ante exprcssum est, sine ulla illius ejiisdcin rcpetitione referalur, turn I)oc ibi sit, nbi ullus alius pra;ter cum, ciijiis expressum est nomeii, subinlciligi possit: ut exeniplum ejus rei habes in iilo testimonio, Deut. vi. 16. Non tentabis Do-minum Deum tuum, qucniadmodniii tentasti in loco tenlatioiiis. Veruni in ea oratione apostoli, dc qua aginuis, potest subintejiigi alius praiter Christum, ut Moses, Aaron, &c. de quo vide, Num. xxi. 5.

same name, it is there done where another besides him who is exjoressed, cannot be understood: as you have an example here of Deut. vi. 16. you shall not tempt the Lord your God as you tem])ted him in Massah. But in this speech of the apostle of which we treat, another besides Christ may be understood, as Moses or Aaron; of which see Numb. xxi. 5.'

1. Is there the same reason of these two expressions, *do not tempt Christ as some of them tempted/ and 'be not refractory against the magistrates, as some of them were?* Christ is the name of one singular individual person, wherein none shareth at any time, it being proper only to him. Magistrate is a term of office, as it was to him that went before him, and will be to him that shall follow after him.

2. They need not to have puzzled their catechumens with their long rule, which I shall as little need to examine: for none can be understood here but Christ. That the word, * God/ should be here understood, they do not plead ; nor if they had a mind thereunto, is there any place for that plea. For if the apostle had intended God, in distinction from Christ, it was of absolute necessity that he should have expressed it. Nor if it had been expressed, would the apostle's argument been of any force, unless Christ had been God equal to him, who was so tempted.

3. It is false that the Israelites tempted Moses, or Aaron, or that it can be said they tempted them ; it is God they are everywhere said to tempt; Psal. Ixxvii. 18. 24. cvi. 14. Heb. iii. 9. It is said indeed that they murmured against Moses, that they provoked him, that they chode with him; but to tempt him, which is to require a sign, and manifestation of his divine power, that they did not, nor could be said to do ; Numb. xxi. 3.

Grotius tries his last shift in this place, and tells us from I know not what ancient manuscript, that it is not, 'let us not tempt Christ,' but * let us not tempt God.* ' Error comraissus ex notis Qv et Xr.' That neither the Syriac, nor the Vulgar Latin translations, nor any copy, that either Stephanas, in his edition of the New Testament, or in his various lections, had seen, nor any of Beza's, nor Erasmtis's who would have been ready enough to have laid hold of the advantage, should in tie least give occasion of any

TESTIMONIES THEREOF VINDICATED. 377

such conjecture of an alteration, doth wholly take off with me all the authority, either of the manuscript, or of him that affirms it from thence.

As they please toproceed, the next place to be considered is, John xii. 41. ' These things said Isaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him.'*^

The words in the foregoing verses, repeated by the apostle, manifest, that it is the vision mentioned Isa. vi. that the apostle relates unto. Whence we thus argue; 'He whose glory Isaiah saw, chap. vi. was the Holy, Holy, Holy Lord of Hosts, ver. 3. the King, the Lord of Hosts, ver. 5. But this was Jesus Christ, whose glory Isaiah then saw, as the Holy Ghost witnesses in these words of John xii. 41. What say our catechists ?

* First, '^ it appears that these words are not necessarily referred to Christ, because they may be understood of God the Father. For the words a little before are spoken of him : ' he hath blinded, hardened, healed.' Then the glory that Isaiah saw might be, nay was, not present, but future : for it is proper to prophets to see things future, whence they are called Seers; 1 Sam. ix. 9. Lastly, although these words should be understood of that glory which was then present and seen to Isaiah, yet to see the glory of one and to see himself are far different things. And in the glory of that one God, Isaiah saw also the glory of the Lord Christ. For the prophet says there. The whole earth is full of the glory of God; ver. 3. But then was this accomplished in reality, when Jesus appeared to that people, and was afterward preached to the whole world.'

It is most evident, that these men know not what to say, nor what to stick to, in their interpretation of this place. This makes them heap up so many several suggestions contradictory one to another, crying, that * it may be thus,' or * it may be thus.' But 1. That these words cannot be referred

<: Priniuni, ea verba ad Christum non nccessarlo referri hinc apparct, quod de Deo Patre accipi possint; cteniin verba paulo suporiora de eodcni dicuntur: ex-tiEcavit, induravit, sanavit. Deifide, glurJain, quani Esaias vidit, poterat esse, imo erat, non prajsens, std fiifura. Etenim [jropriuiu est vatibus futura videre, unde e.tiaui, videides appellati fuere, 1 Sam. ix. 9. Dcnique, etiamsi de gloria ea, quas turn [)ra;stiis erat, Esaiai visa, lisc verba accipias, loti^e tamen aliudest, gloriam ali-cujus videre, et aliud ipsumniet videre. Et in gloria illius unius Dei vidit etiam Esaias gloriam Cbribti Domini. Ait enim ibidem vatcs, |ilena est terra gloria Dei, Esa. vi. 3. Turn autein hoc reipsa factum est, tuiii Jesus Christus illi |iopulo ])rj-iiium apparuii, ct post toti luuiide anuLiuciatus est.

to God the Father, but must of necessity be referred to

Christ is evident, because there is no occasion of mentionino-

1 • • • •

him m this ])lace, but an account is given of what was

spoken ver. 37. ' but though he liad done so many miracles before them yet they believed not on him;' to which answers this verse, * when he saw his glory, and spake of him.' The other word of' blinding,' and 'hardening,' are evidently al-ledged to give an account of the reason of the Jews' obstinacy in their unbelief, not relating immediately to the person spoken of. The subject matter treated of, is Christ. The occasion of mentioning this testimony, is Christ. Of him here are the words spoken. 2. The glory Isaiah saw w^as present; all the circumstances of the vision evince no less. He tells you the time, place, and circumstances of it, when he saw the Seraphims, when he heard their voice ; when the door moved at the voice of him that cried, when the house was filled with glory, and when he himself was so terrified, that he cried out, 'Wo is me, for I am undone.' If any thing in the world be certain, it is certain that he saw that glory present. 3. He did not only see his glory, but he saw him: or he so saw his glory, as that he saw him, so as he may be seen. So the prophet says expressly; ' I have seen seen the King, the Lord of Hosts.' And what the prophet says of seeing the Lord of Hosts, the apostle expresses by seeing his glory, because he saw him in that glorious vision, or saw that glorious representation of his presence. 4. He did indeed see the glory of the Lord Christ, in seeing the glory of the one God, he being the true God of Israel, and on no other account is his glory seen, than by seeing the glory of tlie one true God. 5. The prophet doth not say, that ' the earth was full of the glory of God,' but it is the proclamation that the Seraphims made one to another concerning that God, whose presence was then there manifested. 6. When Christ first appeared to the people of the Jews, there was no great manifestation of glory. The earth was always full of the glory of God. And if those words have any peculiar relation to the glory of the gospel, yet withal they prove that he was then present, whose glory in the gospel was afterward to fill the earth.

Grotius hath not aught to add to what was before insisted on by his friends. A representation he would iiave

this be of God's dealing in the gospel (when it is plainly his proceeding in the rejection of the Jews for their incredulity); and tells you, * dicitur Isaiah vidisse gloriam Christi, sicut Abrahamus Diem ejus:' 'Isaiah saw his glory, as Abraham saw his day.' Well aimed however; Abraham saw his day by faith, Isaiah saw his glory in a vision ; Abraham saw his day as future and rejoiced ; Isaiah so saw his glory, as God present, that he trembled ; Abraham saw the day of Christ all the days of his believing; Isaiah saw his glory only in the year that king Uzziah died. Abraham saw the day of Christ in the promise of his coming ; Isaiah saw his glory with the circumstances before-mentioned. Even such let all undertakings appear to be, that are against the eternal Deity of Jesus Christ.

In his annotations on the 6th of Isaiah, where the vision insisted on is expressed, he takes no notice at all of Jesus Christ, or the second person of the Trinity. Nor (which is very strange) doth he so much as once intimate, that what is here spoken, is applied by the Holy Ghost unto Christ in the gospel; nor once names the chapter where it is done. With what mind and intention the business is thus carried, God knows, I know not.

CHAP. XIII.

Of the Incarnation of Christy and his pre-existence thereunto.

The testimonies of Scripture, which affirm Christ to have been incarnate, or to have taken flesh, which inevitably proves his pre-existence, in another nature, to his so doing, they labour in their next attempt to corrupt, and so to evade the force and efficacy, which from them appeareth so destructive to their cause ; and herein they thus proceed.

*Q. From" what testimonies of Scripture do they endeavour to demonstrate, that Christ was, as they speak, incarnate?

' A. From these, John i. 14. Phil. ii. 6, 7. 1 Tim. iii. 16. 1 Johniv. 2, 3. Heb. ii. 16. x. 11.

* E quibus testimoniis Scripturtc dtmonstrare conantur, Christum (ut loqmintiir) iiicarnatiini esse ?—Ex iis, ubi sccunduni eoruni versioiK'ni Icgilur, Vcrbum caro factum est. Joan. i. Ii. Et qui (Cbrisfus) cum esset in forma Dei,6cc. Pliii. ii. 6, 7. 1 Tim.iii. 16. Heb. ii. 16. Johaii. iv. 2, 3. H(.b. x. 11.

Of the first of these we have dealt already, in the handling of the beginning of that chapter, and sufficiently vindicated it from all their exceptions ; so that we may proceed immediately to the second.

' Q. What'' dost thou answer to the second?

'A.Neitlier is that here contained, which the adverse party would prove; for it is one thing which the apostle saith. Being in the form of God he took the form of a servant; another, that the divine nature assumed the human. For the form of God cannot here denote the divine nature, seeing the apostle writes, that Christ exinanivit, made that form of no reputation. But God can no way make his nature of no reputation. Neither doth the form of a servant denote human nature, seeing to be a servant is referred to the fortune and condition of a man. Neither is that also to be forgotten, that the writings of the New Testament do once only, it may be, nse that word * form' elsewhere ; viz. Mark xvi. 12. and that in that sense, wherein it signifies, not nature, but the outward appearance, saying, Jesus appeared in another form, unto two of his disciples.

• Q. But from those words, which the apostle afterward adds, He was found in fashion as a man ; doth it not appear, that he was, as they say, incarnate ?

*A. By no means. For that expression contains nothing of Christ's nature : for of Sampson we read that he should be as a man ; Judges xvi. 7. 11. and Psal. 82. Asaph denounced to those whom he called sons of the most high, that they should die like men ; of whom it is certain, that it cannot be said of them, that they were (as they speak) incarnate.

*> Afi secundum quid rcspondes P^Nequc Lie cxtarc,quod advcrsa pars confeclum vclit. Aliud cnim est, qund hie Apostolus ait, cum in forma Dei esset, formamscrvi assumpsit; aliud vero, natura divina assumpsit humaiiam. Etenim hie forma Dei designare non potest Dc-i iiatu'am, cum Apostolus scribat eauj formam ('liristuni exiiianivisse. Dcus vero natiiram suani nullo modo cxinanire potest. Ni'c voro fi)ru)aservi dt'uotat naturam luimanaiu, cum servum esse ad fortunam et conditionem liomiuis refcralur. At ne id quoque dissimulandum est, seripta Novi 'I'estanicnuti hanc vocem, forma, scmel fortassis tautum alibi usurpare, Mark xvi. 12. idquc co sensu, quo noii naturam, sed exteriorcm sj)eciem signilicaf, cum ait, Jesum duobis discipulis suis apparuisse in alia forma.

Ex lis vero verbis, qua* Apostolus paulopost suhjccit, liabitn inventus est utlionio, noune apparet eum (iii loquunlui) inearnatum esse .'—Nullo luodo. Etenim ea oratio nihil in se habet ejusmodi. De Sampsone euim in Uteris saeris legiuius, quod idem f iturus crat,ut homo; .ludic. xvi. 7. 11. et Psal. lx\xii. Asapli iis hominibus, quos Deos et filios allissiiiii vocaveret, deiuiriciat, cpiod esseiil nioriluri ut liomines ; dc cjuibus cerium est, non iiossc diti, cos (ut adversaiii dituut), intariiatos fuisse.

TESTIMONIES THEREOF VINDICATED. 381

* Q. How*' dost thou understand this place ?

* A. On this manner; that Christ, who in the world did the works of God, to whom all yielded obedience, as to God, and to whom divine adoration was given, God so willing, and the salvation of men requiring it, was made as a servant, and a vassal, and as one of the vulgar, when he had of his own accord permitted himself to be taken, bound, beaten, and slain.' Thus they.

Now because it is most certain, and evident to every one that ever considered this text, and according to their old trade and craft, they have mangled it, and taken it in pieces, at least cut off the head and legs of this witness, we must seek out the other parts of it, and lay it together, before we may proceed to remove this heap out of our way. Our argument from this place, is not solely from hence, that he is said to be 'in the form of God;' but also that he was so in the form of God, as to be equal to him, as is here expressed ; nor merely that he took upon him the form of a servant, but that he took it upon him, when he was made in the likeness of man, or * in the likeness of sinful flesh,'as the apostle expresses it; Rom. viii. 3. Now these things our catechists thought good to take no notice of, in this place, nor of one of them any more in any other. But seeing the very head of our argument lies in this, that in the form of God, he is said" to be 'equal to God,' and that expression is in another place taken notice of by them, I must needs gather it into its own contexture before I do proceed. Thus then they,

' Q. How '^ dost thou answer to those places, where Christ is said to be equal to God? John v. 18. Phil. ii. 6.

' A. That Christ is equal to God, doth no way prove that there is in him a divine nature. Yea, the contrary is gathered from hence. For if Christ be equal to God, who is God by nature, it follows, that he cannot be the same God. But the

<= Qua ratione lociiin luinc totum intelligis ?—Ad eiim modum, quod Christus, qui inniundo instar Dei, oprra Deiefficiebat, et cui, sicnt Deo, omnia parebat, et cui di-vina adoratio exhibebatur, ita volente Deo, et houiinuni salute exigente, factus est tanquam servus, et niancipiuni, et tanqiiani unus ex aliis vnlgaribus liouiiiiibus cum ultio se capi, viiiciri, ca?di, et occidi permiserat.

'' Qui porro ad ea loca respondes ]—Quod Christus sit a?qualis Deo, id diviiiani in eo iiatuiani nullo niodo probat, inio hinc res advera coHigitur. Nam si Clnistus Deo, C|ui natura deus est, ajquaiis est, efficitur, quod is idem Deus esse iion possit. ^quaiitas vero Ciiristi turn Deo in eo est, (juod ea virtute, quam in eum contuiit Deus, ea omnia elHcerct, et efficiat, quai ipsius Dei sunt, tanquam Deus ipse.

equality of Christ with God lies herein, that by that virtue that God bestowed on him, he did, and doth all these things, which are God's, as God himself.'

This being the whole of what they tender, to extricate themselves from the chains which this v/itness casts upon them, now lying before us, I shall propose our argument from the words, and proceed to the vindication of it in order.

The intendment and design of the apostle in this place being evidently to exhort believers to self-denial, mutual love, and condescension one to another, he proposes to theiQ the example of Jesus Christ, and lets them know, that he being in the * form of God,' and * equal to God' therein (wTTop^^wi;, existing in that form, having both the nature and glory of God), did yet in his love to us,' make himself of no reputation,' or lay aside, and eclipse bis glory, in this, that he took upon him the 'form of a servant,' being made man,, that in that form and nature, he might be obedient unto death, for us, and in our behalf: hence we thus plead.

1. He that was in the' form of God,' and * equal to God,* existing therein, and took on him the nature and form of a servant, he is God by nature, and was incarnate, or made flesh, in the sense before spoken of. Now all this is affirmed of Jejus Christ: ergo.

1. To this they say, that we may consider that first, which is first in the text, that his being equal to God, doth not prove him to be God by nature : but the contrary, &c. as above. But 1, If none is, nor can, by the testimony of God himself, be like God, or equal to him, who is not God by nature; then he that is equal to him, is so : but,' to whom will ye liken me, or shall I be equal? saith the Holy.One. Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these things;' Isa. xl. 25,2G. None that hath not created all things of nothing, can be equal to him. ' Aiul to whom will ye liken me, and make me equal, and compare me, that we may be like;' chap, xlvi. 5. 2. Between that vvhich is finite and that which is infinite, that which is eternal, and that which is temporal, the creature and the Creator, God by nature, and him, who by nature is not God, it is utterly impossible there should be any equality. 3. God having so oi'ten avouched his infinite

TESTIMONIES THEREOF VINDICATED. 383

distance from all creatures, his refusal to give his glory to any of them, his inequality with them all, it must have been the highest robbery, that ever any could be guilty of, for Christ to make himself equal to God, if he were not God. 4. The apostle's argument arises from hence, that he was equal to God, before he took on him the form of a servant, which was before his working of those mighty works, wherein these gentlemen assert him to be equal to God.

2. Themselves cannot but know the ridiculousness of their begging the thing in question, when they would argue, that because he was equal to God, he was not God : he was the same God in nature and essence, and therein equal to him, to whom he was in subordination, as the Son; and in oflEice a servant, as undertaking the work of mediation.

3. The case being as by them stated, there was no equality between Christ and God, in the works he wrought. For, 1. God doth the works in his own name and authority, Christ in God's. 2. God doth them by his own power, Christ by God's. 3. God doth them himself, Christ not, but God in him, as another from him. 4. He doth not do them as God, however that expression be taken; for according to these men, he wrought them neither in his own name, nor by his own power, nor for his own glory, all which he must do, who doth things as God.

2. He is said to be ' equal to God,' not as he did such and such works, but as iv jJ-opcpij Sieou vrrctp^^cov, being in the form of God antecedently to the taking in hand of that form, wherein he wrought the works intimated.

3. To work great works, by the power of God, argues no equality with him; or else all the prophets and apostles that wrought miracles, were also equal to God. The infinite inequality of nature, between the Creator and the most glorious creature, will not allow that it be said on any account to be equal to him. Nor is it said, that Christ was equal to God in respect of the works he did, but absolutely, 'he thought it no robbery to be equal to God.' And so is their last plea to the first part of our argument accounted for: come we to what they begin withal.

1. We contend not (as hath been often said) about words and expressions. That the divine nature assumed the human, we thus far abide by, that the .Word, the Son of God,

took to himself, into personal subsistence with him, a human nature, whence they are both one person, one Christ: and this is here punctually affirmed, viz. he that was, and is God, took upon him the form of a man. 2. The apostle doth not say, that Christ made that form of no reputation, or Christ tKivwcre that form, but Clirist being in that form tKEvwae tavTov,' n)ade himself of no reputation ;' nor by any real change of his divine nature, but taking to himself the human, wherein he was of-no reputation. It being he that was so, in the nature and by the dispensation wherein he was so ; and it being not possible, that the divine nature of itself, .in itself, should be humbled, yet he was humbled, who was in the form of God, though the form of God was not.

3. It is from his being * equal with God,' in the * form of God,' whereby we prove, that his being in the form of God doth denote his divine nature : but of this our catechisls had no mind to take notice.

2. The ' form of a servant,' is that which he took, when he was made tv o^wiwfxari av^pwirtw ; as Adam begat a son in his own likeness. Now this was not only in condition a servant, but in reality a man. 2. The form of a servant was that wherein he underwent death, the death of the cross ; but he died as a man, and not only in the appearance of a servant. 3. The very phrase of expression manifests the human nature of Christ to be denoted hereby : only as the apostle had not before said directly that he was God, but in the 'form of God,' expressing both his nature, and his glory, so here he doth not say he was a man, but in the form of a servant, expressing both his nature and his condition, wherein he was the servantof the Father. Of him itis said Iv fxopcpy ^tov virupyjov, but fjioprpriv SouAou \a(5wv: he was in the other, but this lie took. 4. To be a servant denotes the state or condition of a man : but for one who was in the ' form of God' and ' equal to him,' to be made in the' form of a servant,' and to be ' found as a man,' and to be in that form put to death, denotes in the first place, a taking of that nature, wherein alone he could be a servant. And this answers also to other expressions, of the ' Word being made flesh,' and ' God sending forth his own Son made of a woman.' 5. This is manifest from the expression, £1' (Tx^'ifxaTi tvpr)^iic wg av^pumoi'' 'He was found in fashion as a man :' that is, he was truly so; which is exegetical of

what was spoken before ' he took on him the form of a servant/

But they say this is of no importance ; ' for the same is said of Sampson, Judg. xvi. 7. 11. and of others; Psal. Ixxxii. who yet we do not say were incarnate.'

These gentlemen are still like themselves. Of Christ it is said, that he humbled himself, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was found in likeness as a man : of Sampson, that being stronger than a hundred men, if he were dealt so and so withal, he would become as other men; for so the words expressly are : no stronger than another man; and these places are parallel: much good may these parallels do your catechumens. And so of those in the Psalm, that though in this world they are high in power for a season, yet they should die as other men do. Hence, in a way of triumph and merriment, they ask, if these were incarnate, and answer themselves, that surely we will not say so. True, he who being as strong as many becomes by any means to be as one, and they who live in power, but die in weakness, as other men do, are not said to be incarnate: but he who * being God, took on him the form of a servant, and was in this world a very man,' may (by our new masters' leave), be said to be so.

For the sense which they give us of this place (for they are bold to venture at it), it hath been in part spoken to already. Christ was in the world, as to outward appearance, no way instar Dei, but rather as he says of himself, iiistaj-vermis. That he did the works of God, and was worshipped as God, was because he was God; nor could any but God, either do the one, as he did them, or admit of the other. 2. This is the exposition given us ; ' Christ was in the form of God, counting it no robbery to be equal to him, that is, whilst he was here in the world in the form of a servant, he did the works of God and was worshipped.' 3. Christ was in the form of a servant from his first coming into the world, and as one of the people. Therefore he was not made so by any thing afterward : his being bound, and beat, and killed, is not his being made a servant; for that by the apostle is afterward expressed, when he tells us why, or for what end, not how, or wherein he was made a servant; viz. ' He became obedient to death, the death of the cross.' VOL. viii. 2 c

And this may suffice for the taking out of our way all that is excepted against this testimony by our catechists : but because the text is of great importance, and of itself sufficient to evince the sacred truth we plead for, some farther observations for the illustration of it, may be added.

The sense they intend to give us of these words is plainly this : that * Christ by doing miracles in the world, appeared to be as God, or as a God: but he laid aside this form of God, and took upon him the form of a servant, when he suffered himself to be taken, bound, and crucified. He began to be,' they say, * in the form'of God, when after his baptism, he undertook the work of his public ministry, and wrought mighty works in the world : which form he ceased to be in, when he was taken in the garden, and exposed as a servant to all manner of reproach.'

That there is not any thing in this whole exposition answering the mind of the Holy Ghost, is evident as from what was said before ; so also, 1. Because it is said of Christ, that Iv fjiopcj)!] ^eov V7rap-)(wi>,' he was in the form of God,' before he took the' form of a servant;' and yet the taking of the form of a servant in this place, doth evidently answer his 'being made flesh ;' Johni. xiv. His being made in the 'likeness of sinful flesh;' Rom. viii. 3. His coming or being sent into the world; Matt. X. 11. 20. 28. John iii. 16, 17. Sec. 2. Christ was still in the form of God, as taken essentially, even then, when he was a servant, though as to the dispensation he had submitted to, he emptied himself of the glory of it, and was not known to be the Lord of glory; 2 Cor. viii. 3. Even all the while that they say he was in the form of God, he was in the form of a servant, that is, he was really the servant of the Father, and was dealt withal in the world as a servant, under all manner of reproach, revilings, and persecutions. He was no more in the form of a servant when he was bound, than when 'he had not where to lay his head.' 4. The state and condition of a servant consists in this, that he is notsui juris: no more was Christ in the whole course of his obedience; he did not any private will of his own, but the will of him that sent him. Those who desire to see the vindication of this place to the utmost, in all the particulars of it, may consult the confutation of the interpretation of Erasmus, by Beza, Annot. in Phil. ii. 6, 7. Of Ochinus, and Lailius So-

cinus, by Zanchius in locum; et deTribuf5 Elohim, p. 227, &c. Of Faustus Socinus, by Beckinan : exercitat. p. 168-€t Johan. Jan. Exameii Respon. Socin. pp. 201, 202. Of Enjedinus, by Gomarus, Anal. Epist. Paul, ad Philip, cap. 2. Of Ostorodus, by Jacobus a Porta, Fidei Orthodox. Defens. pp. 89. 150, &c. That which 1 shall farther add, is in reference to Grotius, whose annotations may be one day considered by some of more time and leisure for so necessary a work.

Thus then he; og Iv fxop^ij Geou v-Kag')(ti)v] Mop^r) in nostris libris nonsignificat internum et occultum aliquid, sed id quod in oculos incurrit, qualis erat eximia in Christo potestas sa-nandimorbos omnes, ejiciendi dsemones, excitandi mortuos : mutandi rerum naturas : quae vero Divina sunt, ita ut Moses, qui tarn magna non fecit, dictus ob id fuit Deus Pharaoids: vocem fxop<priQ quo dixi sensu habes. Mar. xvi. 12. Isa. xliv.13. ubiinHebrseo D'jnn; Dan. iv. 33. v. 6.10. vii. 28. ubi in Chal-daeo vr: Job iv. 16, ubi in Hebrseo nJIDH ' Mop^r) in our books doth not signify an internal or hidden thing, but that which is visibly discerned : such as was that eminent power in Christ of healing all diseases, casting out devils, raising the dead, changing the nature of things, which are truly divine ; so that Moses, who did not so great things, vvas therefore called the God of Pharaoh : the word /iop0?j, in the sense spoken of, you have, Mark xvi. 12. Isa. xliv. 13. where in the Hebrew it is noun Dan. iv. 33, &c. wherein the Chaldee it is rf: Job. iv. 16. where in the Hebrew it is rtilDn.

Ans. 1. A form is either substantial, or accidental: that which is indeed, or that which appears. That it is the substantial form of God, which is here intended, yet with respect to the glorious manifestation of it (which may be also as the accidental form), hath been formerly declared and proved. So far it signifies that which is internal and hidden, or not visibly discerned, inasmuch ?i^ the essence of God is invisible. The proofs of this I shall not now repeat. 2. Christ's power of working miracles was not visible, though the miracles he wrought were visible ; insomuch, that it was the great question between him and the Jews, by what power he wrought his miracles ; for they still pleaded, that he cast out devils by Beelzebub, the prince of the devils. So that if the power of doing the things mentioned, were fioptpri S-foS,

2c

that form was not visible, and exposed to the sight of men; for it was 'aliquid internum et occultum/ a thing internal and hidden. 3. If to be in the' form of God/ and thereupon to be ' equal to him,' be to have power or authority of healing diseases, casting out devils, raising the dead, and the like; then the apostles were in the form of God, and equal to God, having power and authority given them for all these things, which they wrought accordingly; casting out devils, healing the diseased, raising the dead, &c. which, whether it be not blasphemy to affirm, the reader may judge. 4. It is true, God says of Moses, Exod. vii. 1. ' I have made thee a god to Pharaoh;' which is expounded, iv. 16. where God tells him that Aaron should 'be to him instead of a mouth, and he should be to him instead of God.' That is, Aaron should speak and deliver to Pharaoh and the people, what God revealed to Moses, Moses revealing it to Aaron ; Aaron receiving his message from Moses, as other prophets did from God, whence he is said to be to him instead of God: And this is given as the reason of that expression, vii. 1. of his being a god to Pharaoh ; even as our Saviour speaks, because the word of God came by him; because he should reveal tin; will of God to him. 'Thou shalt be a god to Pharaoh, and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet; Thou shalt speak all that I command thee, and Aaron thy brother shall speak to Pharaoh.' He is not upon the account of his working miracles called God, or said to be in the form of God, or to be made equal to God; but revealing the will of God to Aaron, who spake it to Pharaoh, he is said to be a god to Pharaoh, or in the stead of God, as to that business. 5. It is truth, the word juop^jj, or form, is used Mark xvi. 12. for the outward appearance ; and it is as true the verb of the same signification is used for the internal and invisible form of a thing. Gal. iv. 19. «X)OtC ov jUop^wS'y Xfjtcrroc Iv vfuv, 'until Christbe formed in'you.' So that tlie very first observation of our annotator, that in our books, thnt is, the Scriptures, (for in other authors it is acknowledged, that this word signifies the internal form of a thing), this word^top^T? signifies not any thing internal or hidden, is true only of that one place, Mark xvi. 12. In this it is otherwise, and the verb of the same sio--nification is evidently otherwise used. And which may be added, other words that bear the same ambiguity of signifi-

TESTIMONIES THEREOF VINDICATED. 389

cation, as to things substantial or accidental, being applied to Christ, do still signify the former, not the latter; yea, where they expressly answer what is here spoken; as eiKwv, Col. i. 15. and vTroaramg Heb. i. 3. both of the same import with fxopcpri here, save that the latter adds personality. 6. For the words mentioned out of the Old Testament, they are used in businesses quite of another nature, and are restrained in their significations by the'matter they speakof; n'3:2n, is not ixopcpi) properly, but ukmv, find is translated imago, by Arias Mon : nND, is rather/iopi^rj. Gen. xxix. 17. 1 Sam. xxviii. 14. TOlon is used ten times in the Bible, and hath various significations, and is variously rendered : ojuofdijua, Deut.iv. 15. yXvTTTov bfxoLuyfxa, ver. 16. so most commonly, v? in Daniel is ' splendor,'So^a, not^op^j): and what all this is to our purpose in hand, I know not. The ' form of God,' wherein Christ was, is that wherein he was ' equal to God :' that which as to the divine nature is the same, as his being in the form of a servant, wherein he was obedient to death, was to the human. And which is sufiiciently destructive of this whole exposition, Christ was then 'in the form of a servant,' when this learned man would have him to be in the ' form of God,' which two are opposed in this place; for he was the servant of the Father in the whole course of the work, which he wrought here below : Isa. xlii. 1.

He proceeds on this foundation : ov^ apiray/xbv riyricraTo TO EvraiTaa S'tw.] 'ApTrayjuov rijiia^ai, ' estlocutio Syriaca : in Liturgia Syriaca, Johannes Baptista Christo Baptismum ab ipso expetenti, dicit, non assumam rapinam. Solent qui aliquid bellica virtute peperere, id omnibus ostentare, ut Romani in Triumpho sane solebant. Non muitum aliter Plutarchus in Timoleon : ov^apixayrivi^ji^aaTo. Sensusest, non venditavit Christus, non jactavitistampotestatem: quia saepe etiam imperavit ne quod fecerat vulgaretur. "^lo-a hie est adverbium ; sic Odyss. O : Tov vvv 'iaa 3-£w, &c. ^lao^ia 0povai/, dixit scriptor, 2 Mace. ix. 12. dvai laa S^fw, est spec-tari tanquam Deum.' The sum of all is ; 'he thought it no robbery,' that is, ' he boasted not of his power, to be equal to God, so to be looked on as a God.'

The words I confess are not without their difficulty : many interpretations are given of them ; and I may say. that

of the very many which I have considered, this of all others, as being wrested to countenance a false hypothesis, is the worst. To insist particularly on the opening of the words^, is not my present task. That Grotius is beside the sense of them, may be easily manifested ; for 1. He brings nothing to enforce this interpretation; that the expression is Syriac, in the idiom of it, he abides not by : giving us an instance of the same phrase of expression out of Plutarch, who knew the propriety of the Greek tongue very well, and of the Syriac not at all. Others also give a parallel expression out of Thucydides, lib. viii. aKevr} apiTayi)v iroii](jaf.avoc. 2. I grant tcra may be used adverbially ; and be rendered sequaliter : but now the words are to be interpreted 'pro sub-jecta materia.' He who was in the form of God, counted it no robbery (that is, did not esteem it to be any wrong, on that account of his being in the form of God) to be equal to his Father, did yet so submit himself, as is described. This being * equal to God,' is spoken of Christ accidentally to his taking on him the 'form of a servant,' which he did in his incarnation, and must relate to his beina" in the form of God : and if thereunto it be added, that the intendment reaches to the declaration he made of himself, when he declared himself to be equal to God the Father, and one with him, as to nature and essence, it may complete the sense of this place.

'AXX' lauTov tKivioas' he renders, ' libenter duxit vitam inopem ;' referring it to the poverty of Christ, whilst he conversed here in the world. But whatever be intended by this expression, it is not the same with/uop^>)vSouXou \a[iwv, which Grotius afterward interprets to the same purpose with what he says here of these words. 2. It must be something antecedent to his ' taking the form of a servant,' or rather something that he did, or became exceptively to what he was before, in becoming a servant. He was in the form of God, aXX' mvTov £(C£i/w(T£, 'but hc humbled,' or 'bowed down himself,' in taking the form of a servant: that is, he condescended thereunto, in his great love that he bare to us, the demonstration whereof the apostle insists expressly upon; and what greater demonstration of love, or condescension upon the account of love could possibly be given, than for him

who waf? God, equal to his Father, in the same Deity, to lay aside the manifestation of his glory, and to take upon him our nature, therein to be a servant unto death.

He proceeds, fiog(^i]v ^ovXov Xa/3wv, *similis factusservis, qui nihil proprium possident:' 'he was made like unto servants, who possess nothing of their own.' Our catechists, with their oreat master, refer this his beino; like servants, to the usage he submitted to at his death ; this man to his poverty in his life. And to this sense of these words is that place of Matt. viii. 20. better accommodated than to the clause foregoing, tor whose exposition it is produced by our annotator.

But 1. It is most certain, that the exposition of Grotius will not, being laid together, be at any tolerable agreement with itself, if we allow any order of process to be in these words of the apostle. His aim is acknowledged to be an exhortation to brotherly love, and mutual condescension in the same, from the example of Jesus Christ; for he tells you, ' that, he being in the form of God made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant.' Now if this be not the gradation of the apostle, that in being in the form of God, free from any thing of that which follows, he then debased and humbled himself, and took upon him the form of a servant, there is not any form of plea left from this example, here proposed, to the end aimed at. But now, says Grotius, * his being in the form of God, was his working of miracles ; his debasing himself; his being poor ; his taking the form of a servant; possessing nothing of his own.' But it is evident, that there was a coincidence of time as to these things, and so no gradation in the words at all; for then when Christ wrought miracles, he was so poor and possessed nothing of his own ; that there was no condescension nor relinquishment of one condition for another dis-cernable therein. 2. The form of a servant that Christ took was that, wherein he was like man; as it is expounded in the words next following; he was made in the likeness of man ; and what that is the same apostle informs us, Heb. ii. 17. o3'£v iotpuXe Kara irdvTaToXg ad£X(poTQ ofxoioj^rjvai, 'wherefore he ought in all things to be made like his brethren;' that is, iv ofxoMfxaTL avcpwTrwv ytvofxivoQ, ' he was made in the likeness of man;' or as it is expressed Rom. viii. 3. Iv

ofioitSfiaTi aapKog,' in the likeness of flesh ;' which also is expounded Gal. iv. 4. jEvufiavoQ sk yvvaiKOQ, ' made of a woman;' which gives us the manner of the accomplishment of that, John i. 14. bXoyog (ra^^^ IjivcTo, ' the Word was made flesh.' 3. The employment of Christ in that likeness of man, is confessedly expressed in these words ; not his condition, that he had nothing, but his employment, that he was the servant of the Father, according as it was foretold that he should be, Isa. xlii. 1. 19. and which he every where professed himself to be. He goes on,

'Ev ofxouoixaTL av^Q(.oTT(x)v yevofiavog' ' cum similis esset hominibus illis nempe primis; id est, peccati expers;' 2 Cor. V. 21. 'whereas he was like men, namely, those first, that is, without sin.'

That Christ was without sin, that in his being made like to us, there is an exception as to sin, is readily granted. He was ocTLOg, aKUKOQ, (ifiiavTOQ, Ki\(t)pi(Tfxivog airo tCjv afxapToXwv, Heb. vii. 26. But 1. that Christ is ever said to be made like Adam, on that account, or is compared with him therein, cannot be proved. He was Stvrepog av^p(i)7rog, and acrxaTog ASaju; but that he was made iv opoiwfiaTi tov A^dp. is not said. 2. This expression was sufliciently cleared by the particular places formerly urged. It is not of his sinless-ness in that condition, of which the apostle hath no occasion here to speak, but of his love in taking on him that condition, in being sent in the likeness of sinful flesh, yet without sin, that these words are used. It is a likeness of nature to all men, and not a likeness of innocency to the first, that the apostle speaks of; a likeness, wherein there isa TiwTuTtjg, as to the kind, a distinction in number; as ' Adam be<^at a son in his own likeness,' Gen. v. 1.

All that follows in the learned annotator, is only an endeavour to make the following words speak in some harmony, and conformity to what he hath before delivered ; which being discerned not to be suited to the mind of the Holy Ghost in the place, I have no such delight to contend about words, phrases, and expressions, as to insist any farther upon them. Return we to our catechists.

The place they next propose to themselves to deal withal, is 1 Tim.iii. 16. 'And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, ji\slified in

the Spirit, seen of angels, and revealed unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.'

If it be here evinced that by God is meant Christ, it being spoken absolutely, and in the place of the subject in the proposition, this business is at a present close, and our adversaries following attempt to ward themselves from the following blows of the sword of the word, which cut them in pieces, is to no purpose, seeing their death's wound lies evident in the efficacy of this place. Now here, not only the common apprehension of all professors of the name of Christ in general, but also the common sense of mankind, to be tried in all that will but read the books of the New Testament, might righteously be appealed unto; but because these are things of no importance with them with whom we have to do, we must insist on other considerations.

1. Then, that by the word ^sog, God, some person is intended, is evident from hence, that the word is never used but to express some person; nor can in any place of the Scriptures be wrested possibly to denote any thing, but some person to whom that name doth belong, oris ascribed, truly or falsely. And if this be not certain, and to be granted, there is nothing so, nor do we know any thing in the world, or the intendment of any one word in the book of God. Nor is there any reason pretended, why it should have any other acceptation, but only an impotent begging of the thing in question. It is not so here, though it be so every where else, because it agrees not with our hypothesis; Xtjjooc ! 2. That Christ, who is the second person, the Son of God, is here intended, and none else, is evident from hence, that whatever is here spoken of ^eog, of this God here, was true, and fulfilled in him, as to the matter, and the same expressions for the most of the particulars, as to their substance, are used concerning him, and no other. Neither are they possible to be accommodated to any person but him. Let us a little accommodate the words to him. 1. He who as God, was ' in the beginning with God,' in his own nature invisible, l^avtpw^ri Iv crapKi, ' vfas manifested in the flesh,' when (rap^ lyivero, ' when he was made flesh;' John i. 14. and made Iv bfionoixan aapKoq, Rom. viii. 3. ' in the- likeness of flesh,' -ysvojitEvoc Ik (mipfiarog Aa/3t8 Kctra aapKu ; Rom. i. 3. so made ' visible and conspi-

cuous (or E^avEowS-rj, when laKuvwatv Iv r]}xlv\ dwelling amongst men, who also saw his glory, as the glory of the only begotten Son of God ;' ver. 14. Being thus 'manifest in the flesh,' having taken our nature on him, he was reviled, persecuted, condemned, slain by the Jews as a malefactor, a seditious person, an impostor: but 2. i^iKaiii^Ti] Iv ttvev-fxari, 'he was justified in the Spirit,' from all their false accusations and imputations ; he was justified by his eternal Spirit, when he was raised from the dead, and ' declared to be the Son of God with power,' thereby, Rom. i. 4. for though he was 'crucified through weakness, yet he liveth by the power of God ;' 2 Cor. xiii. 4. so he also sent out his Spirit ' to convince the world of sin ; because they believed not in him, and of righteousness, because he went to his Father;' John xvi. 9, 10. which he also did, justifying himself thereby, to the conviction and conversion of many thousands, who before condemned him, or consented to his condemnation, upon the account formerly mentioned ; Acts ii. 37. And this is he, who 3. w^^jj ayyiXoig, 'was seen of angels,' and so hath his witnesses in heaven and earth. For wdien he came first into the world, all the angels receiving charge to worship him, by him who said TrpoaKuvwuTwcrav avT<^ 7TavT£Q ayyeXoi avTov ; Heb. i. 6. one came down at his nativity to declare it, to whom he was seen, and instantly a ' multitude of the heavenly host saw him;' Luke ii. 9. 13. and afterward went away into heaven ; ver. 15. In the beginning also of his ministry, angelswere sent to him in 'the wilderness to minister to him;' Matt. iv. 11. and when he was going to his death in the garden, 'an angel was sent to comfort him;' Luke xxii. 43. And he then knew, that he could at a word's speaking, have more than twelve legions of angels to his assistance ; Matt. xxvi. 53. And when he rose again, the angels saw him again, and served him therein; Matt, xxviii. 2. And as he shall 'come again with his holy angels to judgment;' Matt. xxv. 31. 2 Thess. i. 7. so no doubt but in his ascension the angels accompanied him; yea, that "they did so, is evident from Psal. Ixviii. 17, 18. So that there was no eminent concernment of him, wherein it is not expressly affirmed, that w^S-rj ayyiXoig- at his birth, entrance on his ministry, death, resurrection, ascension, w^^Tj dyyiXoii;. 4. tK£(>t'\^»/ tv Wvtaiv, ' He was preached

unto the Gentiles,' or among the people or Gentiles ; which besides the following accomplishment of it to the full, in the preaching the gospel concerning him throughout the world, so it had a signal entrance in that declaration of him to de-vout men dwelling at Jerusalem, * out of every nation under heaven;' Acts vii. 5. And hereupon ; 5. eirKTrav^n Iv Koafito,

* he was believed on in the world ;' he that had been rejected as a vile person, condemned and slain, being thus justifiedin Spirit, and preached, was believed on, many thousands being-daily converted to the faith of him, to believe that he was the Messiah, the Son of God, whom before they received not; John i. 10, 11. And for his own part, aviX{]<p^i] Iv Sosy, 'He was taken up into glory;' the story whereof we have. Acts i. 9—11. 'when he had sjDoken to his disciples, he was taken up, and a cloud received him.' Of which Luke says briefly, as Paul here, aveXi]^^r), Acts i. 2. as Mark also doth, chap, xvi. 19. ave\{](p^r) ilg tov ovpavbv, that is, tiyeXv'j^S'r), Iv So^j),

* he was taken up into heaven,' or to glory; dvcXjj^S^rj, is as much as uvm iXiirp^r^, ' he was taken up (iv for dg) into glory.*

This harmony of the description of Christ here, both as to his person and office, with what is elsewhere spoken of him (this being evidently a summary collection of what is more largely in the gospel spoken of), makes it evident, that he is God, here intended : which is all that is needful to be evinced from this place.

Let us now hear our catechists pleading for themselves.

'Q. What* dost thou answer to 1 Tim. iii. 16.'

' A. 1. That in many ancient copies, and in the Vulgar Latin itself, the word God is not read ; wherefore from that place nothing certain can be concluded. 2. Although that word should be read, yet there is no cause why it should not be referred to the Father, seeing these things may be affirmed of

^ Ad tertium vero quid respondes^—Primum quideni, quod in multis exemplaribus vetustis et in ipsa Vulgata, non legatur vox Deus. Quare ex eo loco certuiu nihil concludi potest. Deinde, etiamsi ea vox legeretur, nullam esse causam cur ad Pa-trem referri non possit, cum hajc de Patre affirmari possint, cum apparuisse in Christo, et apostolis qui caro fuerunt. Quod autera inferius legitur, secundum usitatam ver-sionera, receptus est in gloriam, id in Graeco habetur, receptus est in gloria, id est, cum gloria, aut gloriose.—Quae vero futura est hujus testiraonii sententia?—Religio-nem Cliristi plenam esse mysteriis. Nam Deus, id est, voluntas ipsius de servandis hominibus, per homines infirmos et mortales perfecte patefacta est: et nibilominus tamen propter niiracula, et virtutes varias, quae per hominps illns in6rmos et mortales edita fuerant, pro vera est agnita: eadem ab ipsis augeiis fii:t demum perspecta; non solum Judaeis, verum etiani gentibus fuit praedicata: omnes ei crediderunt, et iiisiguem in modura, et summa cum gloria recepta fuit.

the Father: that he appeared in Christ, and the apostles, who were flesh : and for what is afterward read, according to the usual translation. He was received into glory, in the Greek it is^ He was received in glory, that is, with glory, or gloriously.

' Q, What then is the sense of this testimony ?

* A. That the religion of Christ is full of mysteries : for God, that is, his will, for the saving of men,was perfectly made known by infirm and mortal men ; and yet because of the miracles and various powerful works, which were performed by such weak mortal men, it was acknowledged for true, and it was at length perceived by the angels themselves, and was preached not only to the Jews, but also to the Gentiles : all believed thereon, and it was received with great glory after an eminent manner.'

Thus they; merely rather than say nothing, or yield to the truth. Briefly to remove what they oflfer in way of exception or assertion.

1. Though the word God, be not in the Vulgar Latin, yet the unanimous constant consent of all the original copies, confessed to be so, both by Beza and Erasmus, is sufficient to evince, that the loss of that translation, is not of any import to weaken the sense of the place. Of other ancient copies whereof they boast, they cannot instance one; in the Vulgar also, it is evident, that by the ' mystery,' Clirist is understood.

2. That what is here spoken 'maybe referred to the Father,' is a very sorry shift, against the evidence of all those considerations, which shew, that it ought to be referred to the Son.

3. It may not, it cannot with any tolerable sense, be referred to the Father. It is not said, ' that in Christ and the apostles he appeared,' and was * seen of angels,' &c. that is spoken of; but that ' God was manifested in the flesh,' &c. nor is any thing, that is here spoken of God, any where ascribed, no not once in tlie Scripture, to the Father. How was he 'manifested in the flesh?' how was he 'justified in the Spirit?' how was he ' taken up into glory ?'

4. Though h> Sosy, may be rendered ' gloriously, or with glory,' yet avfX}';^Srr), may, not, ' receptus est,' but rather ' as-umptus est ;'and is applied to the ascension of Christin other places, as hatli been shewed.

2. For the sense they tender of these words. Let them 1. Give any one instance, where ' God/ is put for the ' will of God,' and that exclusively to any person of the Deity, or to speak to tlieir own hypothesis, exclusively to the person of God. This is intolerable boldness, and aroues something: of searedness. 2. The ' will of God' for the salvation of men, is the gospel: how are these things applicable to that? How was the gospel justified in the spirit? how was it received into glory? how was it seen of the angels, tocp^ij ayji-Aote? In what place is any thing of all this spoken of the gospel? Of Christ all this is spoken, as hath been said. In sum, the will of God is no where said to be ' manifest in the flesh;' Christ was so. That the will of God should be preached by weak mortal men' was no * great mystery;' that God * should assume human nature, is so. The will of God cannot be said to ' appear to the angels ;' Christ did so. Of the last expression there can be no doubt raised.

Grotius insists upon the same interpretation with our catechists in the whole, and in every part of it: nor doth he add any thing to what they plead, but only some quotations of Scripture not at all to the purpose; or at best suited to his own apprehensions of the sense of the place, not opening it in the least, nor evincing what he embraces, to be the mind of the Holy Ghost, to any one that is otherwise minded. What he says, because he says it, deserves to be considered.

Qebg t^aptpwS'rj Iv aaoKl : ' suspectam nobis hanc lectio-nem faciunt interpretes veteres, Latinus, Syrus, Arabs, et Ambrosius,qui omnes legunt,' 6 Ifpavepio^r}. Addit Hincmarus Opusculo, 55. illud ^£og, ' hie positum a Nestorianis.' 1. But this suspicion might well have been removed from^ {his learned man, by the universal consent of all original copies, wlierein as it seems his own manuscript, that sometimes helps him at a need, doth not diHer. 2. One corruption in one translation makes many. 3. The Syriac reads the word ' God,' and so Tremelius hath rendered it. Ambrose and Hincmarus followed the Latin translation. And there is a thousand times more probability, that the word ^ebg was filched out by the Arians, than that it was foisted in by the Nestorians. But if the agreement of all original copies may be thus contemned, we shall have nothing certain left us.

But saith he, * sensum bonum facit illad, 6 t^ave/owB'jj. Evan-gelium illud cseleste innotuit pvimura non per angelos, sed per homines mortales, et quantum externa species ferebat infirmos, Christum, et apostolos ejus, ttpavspw^ij, bene con-venit mysterio, id est, rei latenti;' Col. i. 26. (rdp^ hominem significat raortalem ;' 2 Cor. ii. 16. 1 John iv. 2.

1. Our annotator having only a suspicion that the word ^iog was not in the text, ought on all accounts to have interpreted the words according to the reading whereof he had the better persuasion, and not according unto that, whereof he had only a suspicion. But then it was by no means easy to accommodate them according to his intention, nor to exclude the person of Christ from being mentioned in them, which by joining in with his suspicion he thought himself able to do. 2. He is not able to give us any one instance in the Scripture, of the like expression to this, of * manifest in the flesh,' being referred to the gospel; when referred to Christ, nothing is more frequent; John i. 14. vi. 53. Acts ii. 31. Rom. i. 3. viii. 3. ix. 5. Eph. ii. 14, 15. Col. i. 22. Heb. v. 7.x. 19,20. 1 Pet. iii. 18. iv. 1. 1 John iv. 2, &c. of the 'flesh of the gospel,'not one word. 3. There is not the least opposition intimated between men and angels, as to the means of preaching the gospel; nor is this any mystery, that the gospel was preached by men ; Icpavcpoj^i} is well applied to a ' mystery' or ' hidden thing ;' but the question is, what the ' mystery' or ' hidden thing' is ; we say it was the great matter of the ' Word's being made flesh,' as it is elsewhere expressed. In the place urged out of the Corinthians, whether it be the 2nd or 11th chapter, that is intended, there is nothing to prove, that adp^ signifies a mortal man. And this is the entrance of this exposition. Let us proceed. 'EStKotw^rj £v TTvevjuart; ' per plurima miracula approbata est ea Veritas,' Hvevfia ' sunt miracula divina per/itrwvu/iiav quae est,' 1 Cor. xi. 4. ' et alibi. Justified in the Spirit;' that is,' approved by many miracles;' for -rtu/xo, is ' miracles by a metonymy.' Then let every thing be as the learned man will have it. It is in vain to contend. For surely never was expression so wrested. That irvtvfxa, simply, is ' miracles,' is false; that to have a thing done Iv irvivfian, signifies ' miracles,' is more evidently so ; 1 Cor. ii. 4. The apostle speaks not at all of miracles, but of the eflicacy of the Spi-

rit with liim in his preaching the word, to ' convince the world of sin, righteousness and judgment,'according to the promise of Christ. The application of this expression to Jesus Christ see above. He adds, diKaiova^ai is here * ap-probare,' ut Matt. xi. 19, It is here to ' approve,' and that because it was necessary that the learned annotator should SovXevtiv vTTo^eaai. In what sense the word is taken, and how applied to Christ, with the genuine meaning of the place, see above. See also, John i. 33, 34. Nor is the gospel any where said to be 'justified in Spirit,' nor is this a tolerable exposition, 'justified in Spirit,' that is, it was 'approved by miracles.'

"Qiiji^r] dyyiXoig ' nempe cum admiratione, angeli hoc ar ' canum per homines mortales didicere;' Eph. iii. 10. 1 Pet. i. 12. How eminently this suits what is spoken of Jesus Christ, was shewed before. It is true, the angels as with admiration look into the things of the gospel; but that it is said, the gospel w^^jj dyyaXoig, is not proved.

It is true, the gospel was preached to the Gentiles ; but yet this word is most frequently applied to Christ; Acts iii. 23. viii. 25. ix, 20. xix. 23. 1. Cor. i. 23. xv. 12. 2. Cor. 1. 19. iv. 5. xi. 4. Phil. i. 15. are testimonies hereof.

'ETTitTTtvOr} Iv KO(7/x(i), ' id cst, in magna mundi parte,' Rom. i. 8. Col. i. 6. But then, I pray, what difference between iSiKaiwdr] iv TTvevuaTi, and tTTtorev^r) ev Koa/nto ? The first is, it was ' approved by miracles,' the other, it was believed ;' now to approve the truth of the gospel, taken actively, is to believe it. How much more naturally this is accommodated to Christ, see John iii. 17. 18. and ver. 35, 36. vi. 40. Acts x. 43. and xvi. 31. Rom. iii. 22. x. 8, 9. Gal. ii. 16. 1 John V. 5. &c.

The last clause is, avfX/j^S'r) iv Sosij* 'gloriose admodum exaltatum est, nempe qui a majorem attulit sanctitatem, quam uUa ante hsec dogmata.' And this must be the sense of the word dva\aiui(5a.vofxai in this business. See Luke ix. 51. Mark xvi. 19. Acts i. 2. 11. 22. And in this sense we are indifferent, whether £v So^i) be Hg^6t,av/ unto glory,'which seems to be most properly intended, or avv Sosy,' with glory,' as our adversaries would have it, or * gloriously,'as Crotius ; for it vf-as gloriously, with great glory, and into that glory, which he had with his Father before the world was. That

the gospel is glorious in its doctrine of holiness is true, but not at all spoken of in this place.

Heb. ii. 16. is another testimony insisted on, to prove the incarnation of Christ, and so consequently his subsistence in a divine nature antecedently thereunto. The words are : 'For verily, he took not on him the nature of angels, but he took on him the seed of Abraham.' To this they answer ; that

* Herein*^ not so much as any likeness of the incarnation, as they call it, doth appear. For this writer doth not say, that Christ took (as some read it, and commonly they take it in that sense) but he takes. Nor doth he say, human nature, but the seed of Abraham : which in the holy Scriptures denotes them who believe in Christ, as Gal. iii. 29.

' Q. What then is the sense of this place?

' A. This is that which this writer intends, that Christ is not the Saviour of angels, but of men believing, who because they are subject to afflictions and death (which he before expressed by the participation of flesh and blood), therefore did Christ willingly submit himself unto them, that he might deliver his faithful ones from the fear of death, and might help them in all their afflictions.

The sense of this place is evident; the objections against it weak. That the word is iTrtXaju/Savtrat, not tirikufteTO, ' assumit,' not 'assumpsit,' is an enallage of tense so usual, as that it can have no force of an objection. And, ver. 14. it is twice used in a contrary sense ; the time past, being put for the present, as here the present for that which is past : KtKoivMvnK£, for KOtvwva, and fUTta^s for furiKW see John iii. 31. xxi. 13., 2. That by the 'seed of Abraham,' is here intended the human nature of the seed of Abraham, appears 1. From the expression going before of the same import with this; 'He took part of flesh and blood;' ver. 14. 2. From the opposition here made to angels, or the angelical nature;

•^ In eo, ne siniililudineni quidem incarimtionis (ut vocaiit) apparere, cuin is scriptor non dicat, Cliristiiii) assunipsi.sse (ut quldam reddunt, et vulgo eo sensu ac-cipiunt) sed assiiraere : ncc dicit, naturani Iminaiiam, sed semen Abraliae : quod in Uteris sacris notat eos, qui in Cliristun) ticdiderunt, ut Gal. iii. 29. videre est. Quid vero sensus hujus erit loci? Id sibi vult is scriptor, Christuui non esse Serva-toreni angeioruni, sed honiinuni credentiuiu, cjui (juoiiiani ct ailliclionibus et morti subject! sunt (quain rem superius expressitpcr participatinneni carnis et s^guinis) pro[)terea CMirislus ultroillis sc snbinisit, ut fideles suos a mortis uielu liberaret,el in onini aillictionc iisdcra openi aft'erret.

TESTIMONIES THEREOF VINDICATED. 401

the Holy Ghost shewing, that the business of Christ being to save his church by dying for them, was not therefore to take upon him an angelical, spiritual substance or nature, but the nature of man. 3. The same thing is elsewhere in like manner expressed: as where he is said to be made of the 'seed of David according to the flesh,' Rom. i. 3. and to ' come of the fathers as concerning the flesh ;' Rom. ix. 5. 4. Believers are called Abraham's seed sometimes spiritually, in relation to the faith of Abraham, as Gal. iii. 29, where he is expressly spoken of, ' as father of the faithful,' by inheriting the promises : but take it absolutely, to be of the *seed of Abraham,' is no more, but to be a man of his posterity ; John viii. 37. ' 1 know that ye are Abraham's seed ;' Rom. ix. 7. ' Neither because they are the seed of Abraham are they all children,' ver. 8. that is, ' they are the children oftheflesh:' soRom. xi.l. ' Are they the seed of Abraham? so am 1;' 2 Cor. xi. 22. 2. For the sense assigned ; it is evident, that in these words the apostle treats not of the help given, but of the way whereby Christ came to help his Church, and the means thereof; his actual helping and relieving of them is mentioned in the next verse. 2. Here is no mention in this verse of believers being obnoxious to afflictions and death, so that these words of theirs may serve for an exposition of some other place of Scripture (as they say of Gregory's comment on Job), but not of this. 3. By * partaking of flesh and blood,' is not meant primarily, being obnoxious to death and afflictions ; nor doth that expression in any place signify any such thing ; though such a nature, as is so obnoxious, be intended. The argument then from hence stands still in its force : that Christ subsisting in his divine nature, did assume a human nature of the seed of Abraham, into personal union with himself.

Grotius is still at a perfect agreement with our cate-chists. Saith he, ' liriKa^^aviadaL apud Platonem, et alios, est solenniter vindicare, his autem et superioribus intelli-gendum est, vindicare, seu asserere in libertatem manu in-jecta.' ' This word in Plato and others, is to vindicate into liberty; here, as is to be understood from what went before, it is to assert into liberty by laying hold with the hand.' Of the first, because he gives no instances, we shall need take no farther notice. The second is denied ; both the help

afforded, and the means of it by Christ, is mentioned before. The help is liberty ; the means, partaking of flesh and blood to die. These words are not expressive of, nor do answer the latter, or the help afforded, but the means of the obtaining of it, as hath been declared. But he adds, 'the word signifies to lay hold of with the hand, as Mark viii. 23,' See. Be it granted that it doth so, ' to lay hold with the hand, and to take to one's self.' This is not to assert into liberty, but by the help of a metaphor : and when the word is used metaphorically, it is to be interpreted ' pro subjecta materia,' according to the subject matter : which here is Chnst's taking a nature upon him, that was of Abraham, that was not angelical. The other expression hs is singular in the interpretation of.

'He took the seed of Abraham,' 'id est, id agit, ut vos Hebrseos liberet a peccatis et metu mortis ; eventus enim nomen saepe datur operse, in id impensce.' ' That is. He doth that, that he may deliver you Hebrews from sin, and fear of death : the name of the event, is often given to the work employed to that purpose.' Butl. Here I confess, he takes another way from our catechists ; the 'seed of Abraham' is with them, believers; with him, only Jews ; but the tails of their discourse are tied together with a firebrand between them, to devour the harvest of the church. 2. This taking the seed of Abraham, is opposed to his not taking the seed of angels; now the Jews are not universally opposed to angels in this thing, but human kind. 3. He ' took the seed of Abraham,'is it seems, he endeavoured to help the Jews. The whole discourse of the help afforded both before and after this verse, is extended to the whole church; how comes it here to be restrained to the Jews only? 4. The discourse of the apostle is about the undertaking of Christ by death, and his being fitted thereunto by partaking of flesh and blood ; which is so far from being in anyplace restrained or accomodated only to the Jews, as that the contrary is every where asserted, as is known to all.

1 John iv. 3. 'Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is of God;' he who comes into the world, or comes into flesh, or in the flesh, had a subsistence before he so came. It is very probable, that the intendment of the apostle was to discover tlie abomination

of them, who denied Christ to be a true man, but assigned him a fantastical body, which yet he so doth, as to express his coming in the flesh in such a manner, as evidences him to have another nature (as was said) besides that which is here synecdochically called flesh. Our catechists to this say,

' Thats this is not to the purpose in hand : for that which some read. He came into the flesh, is not in the Greek, but He came in the flesh. Moreover, John doth not write, that spirit which confesseth Jesus Christ, which came in the flesh, is of God ; but that that spirit which confesseth'Jesus Christ, who is come in the flesh, is of God. The sense of which words is, that the spirit is of God, which confesseth that Jesus Christ, who performed his oHice in the earth, without any pomp or worldly ostentation, with great humility as to outward appearance, and great contempt; and lastly underwent a contumelious death, is Christ, and King of the people of God.*

I shall not contend with them about the translation of the words : ty aagKi, seems to be put for tig aapm' but the intendment is the same ; for the word came is iXrjXv^ora, that is, that'came,'or ' did come.' 2. It is not tov iXnXv^oTa, Svho did come,'that thence any colour should betaken for the exposition given by them, of confessing that Christ, or him who is the Christ, the King of the people of God, or confessing him to be the Christ, the King of the people of God; but it is, that confesseth him ' who came in the flesh,' that is, as to his whole person and oflice, his coming, and what he came for. 3. They cannot give us any example, nor any one reason, to evince, that that should be the meaning of iv aapKi, which here they pretend. The meaning of it hath above been abundantly declared. So that there is no need tliat we should insist longer on this place; nor why we should trouble ourselves with Grotius's long discourse on

e Etiam in eo nihil prorsiis de incarnatione (quam vocant) habcri. Etenim quod apud quosdam iegitur, venit in carnem, ia Grsco habetur, in came venit. Prop-tereanon scribit Johannes, quod spiritus, qui confitetur Jesum Christum, qui in carne venit, ex Deo est; veruin quod iile spiritus qui confitetur Jesum Christum in carne venisse ex Deo est. Quorum verbormn sensus est, eum spiritum ex Deo esse, qui confitetur Jesum ilium, qui munus suum in terris sine ulla pompa et ostentatione mundana, summa cum huiuilitate (quoad exteriorem speciem) suramoque cum con-teraptu obiverit, mortem denique ignominiosam oppetierit, esse Christum, et populi Dei regem.

2 D 2

this place. The whole foundation of it is, that to ' come in the flesh/ signifies to come in a low, abject condition ; a pretence without proof, without evidence. ' Flesh' may sometimes be taken so : but that to ' come in the flesh,' is to come in such a condition, we have not the least plea pretended.

The last place they mention to this purpose is, Heb. x. 5. ' Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith. Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me.' He who had a body prepared for him, when he came into the world, he subsisted in another nature, before that coming of his into the world. To this they say,

'Neither^ is there here any mention made of the incarnation (as they call it), seeing that world, into which the author says Christ entered, is the world to come, as was above demonstrated. Whence to come into the world, doth not signify to be born into the world, but to enter into heaven. Lastly, in these words, a body hast thou prepared me, that word, a body (as appeared from what was said, where his entering this world was treated of), may be taken for an immortal body.

* Q. What' is the sense of this place ?

' A. That God fitted for Jesus such a body, after he entered heaven, as is fit and accommodate for the discharging of the duty of a high-priest.'

But doubtless, than this whole dream nothing can be more fond or absurd. 1. How many times is it said that Christ came into this world, where no other world but this can be understood? 'For this cause saith he, came I into the world, that I might bear witness of the truth;' John xviii. Was it into heaven that Christ came to bear witness to the truth ? * Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners;' 1 Tim. i. 15. was it into heaven ? 2. These words, ' a body hast thou prepared me,' are a full expression of what is synecdochically spoken of in the Psalms in these words, ' mine ears hast thou

^ Ne hie quidem de incarnatione (ut vocant) ullara nientioBem factara, cum is mundus, in quem ingressum Jesum is autor ait, sit ille raundus fiiturus, ut superius deiuonstratum est. Unde etiam ingredi in ilium iiiunduui, non nasci in munduin, sed in caelum ingredi significat. Deinde, illis verbis. Corpus aptasti milii, corporis vox (ut ex eo apparuit, ubi de ingressu hoc in mundum actum est) pro corporc imraortaii accipi potest.

' Quae sententia ejus estl—Deum Jcsu tale corpus aptasse, postquara in coeluni est ingressus, quod ad obeundum rauuus Pontifici.s sumini aptuni et accommodatum foret.

opened;' expressing the end also why Christ had a body prepared him, namely, that he might yield obedience to God therein, which he did signally in this world, when he was ' obedient to death, the death of the cross.' 3. As I have before manifested the groundlessness of interpreting the word ' world/ put absolutely, of the world to come, and so taken off all, that here they relate unto, so in that demonstration, which God assisting; I shall Q-ive, of Christ's beino; a priest, and offering sacrifice in this world, before he entered into heaven, I shall remove what farther here they pretend unto. In the meantime, such expressions as this, that have no light nor colour given them from the text they pretend to unfold, had need of good strength of analogy given them from elsewhere, which here is not pretended. 'When he comes into the world,' that is, when he enters heaven; he says, 'a body hast thou prepared me,' that is, an immortal body, thou hast given me, and that by this immortal body they intend indeed no body, I shall afterward declare.

Grotius turns these words quite another way, not agreeing with our catechists; yet doing still the same work with them : which, because he gives no proof of his exposition, it shall suffice so to have intimated: in sum, ver. 4. he tells us, how the blood of Christ takes away sin ; viz. 'because it begets faith in us, and gives right to Christ for the obtaining of all necessary helps for us,' in pursuit of his former interpretation of chap. 9. where he wholly excludes the satisfaction of Christ. His coming into the world, is, he says, 'his shewing himself to the world, after he had led a private life therein for awhile;' contrary to the perpetual use of that expression of the New Testament; and so the whole design of the place is eluded; the exposition whereof I shall defer to the place of the satisfaction of Christ.

And these are the texts of Scripture our catechists thought good to endeavour a delivery of themselves from, as to thathead or argument of our plea, for his subsistence in a divine natuie, antecedently to his being born of the Virgin, namely, because he is said to be incarnate, or made flesh.

CHAP. XIV.

Sundry other testimonies, given to the Deity of Christ, vindicated.

In the next place they heap up a great many testimonies confusedly, containing spiritual attributions unto Christ, of such things as manifest him to be God, which we shall consider in that order, or rather disorder, wherein they are placed of them.

Their first question here is.

' Q. In^ what Scriptures is Christ called God?

' A. Johni. 1, The Word was God. John xx. 28. Thomas saith unto Christ, My Lord, and my God. Rom. ix. 5. The apostle saith, that Christ is God over all blessed for ever.'

' Q. What can be proved by these testimonies V

' A. That a divine nature cannot be demonstrated from them, besides the things that are before produced, is hence manifest, that in the first testimony the Word is spoken of, and John saith that he was with God : in the second, Thomas calleth him God, in whose feet and hands he found the print of the nails, and of the spear in his side : and Paul calleth him, who according to the flesh was of the fathers, God over all blessed forever : all which cannot be spoken of him, who by nature is God ; for thence it would follow, that there are two gods of whom one was with the other: and these things, to have the prints of wounds, and to be of the fathers belong wholly to a man; which were absurd to ascribe to him, who is God by nature. And if any one shall pretend that veil of the distinction of natures, we have above removed that, and have shewed, that this distinction cannot be maintained.'

* In quibus Scripturis Cliristtis vocatar Deus?—Johan. 1.1. et Verbum fuit Deus. ct cap. 20. V. '28. Tlionias ad Christum ait, Doniinus nieus, et Deus mens ; et Rora. ix. V. .5. Apostolus scribit Christum ileum (esse) supra oinnes beiicdictum in sccula.— Quid liis testimoniis effici potest.—Naturau) diviuaiii in Chrislo ex iis demonstrari iioii posse, pra;ter ea qua; supcrius alluta sunt, hinc nianifestum est, (juod in prima testimonio agatur dc Verbo, quod Joliannes testaturapud ilium Dcuui fuisse. In se-tundo, 'J'homas euni appellat Deum.in cujus pedibus el nianibus clavorum.in latere lanceitt vestigia deprehendit; et Paulus euni, qui secundum carnem a patribus erat, Deum supra omnia benedictuni vocat. Qu;u onuiia dici de eo, qui natura Deus sit nullo modo posse, planum est. Etenim ex illo ^cqueretur duos esse Deo'^, (juoruni alter apud alterum fuerit. Ilasc vcro, vestigia vulnerum liabere, ex jiatribus esse, hoiuiiiis sum prorsus; qua; ei,(]ui natura dens sit, ascribi nimis abaonum esset. Qtiod si illud disliuctionis naturaruiu velum quis practcndat, jam superius illud anioviinusct Uucuimus, lianc distinctioncm nullo modo posse sustincri.

That in all this answer our catechists do nothing-but beo-the thing in question, and fly to their own hypothesis, not against assertions but arguments, themselves so far know, as to be forced to apologize for it in the close. 1. That Christ is not God, because *he is not the person of the Father;' that he is not God, because *he is man,' is the sum of their answer. And yet these men knew, that we insisted on these testimonies to prove him God, though he be man, and though he be not the same person veith the Father. 2. They do all along impose upon us their own most false hypothesis ; that Christ is God, although he be not God by nature. Those who are not God by nature, and yet pretend to be gods, are idols, and shall be destroyed. And they only are the men who affirm there are two gods; one who is so by nature and another made so, one indeed God and no man, the other a man and no God : the Lord our God, is one God. 3. In particular, John i. 1. the Word is Christ, as hath been above abundantly demonstrated. Christ in respect of another nature, that he had before 'he took flesh, and dwelt with men :' ver. 14. Herein is he said to be with the Father, in respect of his distinct personal subsistence, who was one with the Father, as to his nature and essence. And this is that which we prove from his testimony, which will not be warded with a bare denial. * The Word was with God, and the Word was God.' God by nature, and with God in his personal distinction. 4. Thomas confesses him to be his Lord and God, in whose hands and feet he saw the print of the nails ; as God is said to redeem the church with his own blood. He was the Lord and God of Thomas, who in his human nature shed his blood, and had the print of the nails in his hands and feet. Of this confession of Thomas I have spoken before, and therefore I shall not now farther insist upon it. He whom Thomas in the confession of his faith as a believer, owned for his Lord and God, he is the true God, God by nature ; of a made God, a God by office, to be confessed and believed in, the Scripture is utterly silent. 5. The same is affirmed of Rom. ix. 5. The apostle distinguishes of Christ, as to his flesh, and as to his Deity; as to his flesh, or human nature, he says, he was of the fathers: but in the other regard he is 'God over all blessed for ever.' And as this is a signal expression of the true God, ' God over all blessed

for ever,' so there is no occasion of that expression, to Kara aapKa, ' as to the flesh,' but to assert something in Christ, which he afterward affirms to be his everlasting Deity, in regard whereof he is not of the fathers. He is then of the fathers to kuto. aapKa, b wv etti ttuvtiov 3'eoc fwXo^rjroc £tC Toiig aiCjvaq, d{xi)v. The words are most emphatically expressive of the eternal Deity of Christ, in contradistinction to what he received of the fathers : 6 wv, even then when he took flesh of the fathers, then was he, and now he is, and ever will be God over all; that is, the Most High God blessed for ever. It is evident, that the apostle intends to ascribe to Christ here, two most solemn attributes of God ; the Most High, and the Blessed One. Nor is this testimony to be parted with for their begging, or with their importunity. 6. It is our adversaries who say, there are two Gods, as hath been shewed, not we ; and the prints of wounds are proper to him who is God by nature, though not in that regard, on the account whereof he is so. 7. What they have said to oppose the distinction of two natures, in the one person of Christ, hath already been considered, and manifested to be false and frivolous.

I could wish to these testimonies they had added one or two more; as that of Isa. liv. 5. 'Thy Maker is thine husband, the Lord of Hosts is his name, and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel, the God of the whole earth shall he be called.' That Jesus Christ is the husband and spouse of the church, will not be denied ; Eph. v.25.Rev.xxi.9. but he who is so, is ' the Lord of Hosts, the God of Israel, the Lord of the whole earth.' And Heb. iii. 4. the apostle says, that 'he that made all things is God ;' that is, his church; for of that he treats: he that created all things, that is, * the church as well as all other things,' he is God; none could do it but God : ' but Christ built this house:' ver. 3. But this is not my present employment.

The learned Grotius is pitifully entangled about the two last places urged by ourcatechists. Of his sleight in dealino-with that of John xx. 28. I have spoken of before, and discovered the vanity of his insinuations. Here he tells you, tliat after Christ's resurrection, it grew common with the Christians to call him God, and urges Rom. ix. 5. but coming to expound that place, he finds that shift will not

serve the turn, it being not any Christians calling of him God, that there is mentioned, but the blessed apostle plainly affirming, that he is ' God over all, blessed for ever;' and therefore forgetting what he had said before, he falls upon a worse and more desperate evasion, affirming, that the word Qiog, ought not to be in the text: because Erasmus had observed, that Cyprian and Hilary, citing this text, did not name the word: and this he rests upon ; although he knew, that all original copies whatever, constantly without any exception do read it; and that Beza had manifested against Erasmus, that Cyprian lib. ad Judae 2. cap. 5. and Hilary ad Psal. 12. do both cite this place to prove, that Christ is called God, though they do not express the text to the full. And it is known, how iVthanasius used it against the Arians, without any hesitation, as to the corruption of the text. This way of shifting indeed is very wretched, and not to be pardoned. I am well contented with all, that, from what he writes on John i. 1. (the first place mentioned) do apprehend, that when he wrote his annotations on that place, he was no opposer of the Deity of Christ: but I must take leave to say, that for mine own part, I am not able to collect from all there spoken in his own words, that he doth at all assert the assuming of the human nature into personal subsistence with the Son of God : I speak as to the thing itself, and not to the expressions which he disallows. But we must proceed with our catechists.

' Q. Where^ doth the Scripture testify that Christ is one with the Father ?

' A. John X. 29—31. My Father which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of his hand. I' and my Father are one. Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.

' Q. How'^ dost thou answer this testimony ?

'' Ubi vero Scripturatestatur Christnni cum Patre esse unum ?—Jolian. x. 29, 30. Ubi Dominus ait; Pater qui mihi (oves) dedit, major omnibus est, et nemo eas rapere potest e nianibus Patris mei. Ego et Pater unum suraus.

« Qua ratione respondes ad id testimonium ?—Ex eo, quod dicatur Christus esse cum patre unum, effici non posse, esse unum cum eo natura, verba Cliristi, quje ad Patrem de discipulis habuit, demonstrant. Jolian. xvii. 11. Pater sancte, serva illos in nomine tuo, ut sint unum, queniadmodum etnos uni'm sumus. Et panio inferius, V. 22. Eco gloriam, quam dedisti mihi, dedi illis, ut sint unum, queniadmodum luis unum sunuis. Quod vero Christus sit unum cum Patre, hoc aut de volunlato, autde potentia in salutis nostra; ratione accipi debet : unde naturam divinam non probari

' A. That from hence that Clirist is said to be one with the Father, that it cannot be proved that he is one with him in nature, the words of Christ to his Father of the disciples do shew ; John xvii. 11. that they may be one as we are ; and a little after, ver. 22. that they may be one even as we are one. That Christ is one with the Father, this ought to be understood either of will, or power, in the business of our salvation. Whence that a divine nature cannot be proved, is manifest from those places where Christ saith his Father is greater than all, and consequently than Christ himself, as he expressly confesseth, and that he gave him his sheep; John xiv. 28.'

Of this place I have spoken before. That it is an unity of essence that is here intended by our Saviour, appears ; 1. From the apprehension the Jews had of his meaning in those words, who immediately upon them took up stones to stone him for blasphemy, rendering an account of their so doing, ver. 33. * because he being a man, did make himself God.' 2. From the exposition he makes himself of his words, ver, 36. ' I am the Son of God :' that is it I intended ; I am so one with him, as a Son is with the Father, that is, one in nature and essence. 3. He is so one with him, as that the Father is in him, and he in him, by a divine immanency of persons. 2. Those words of our Saviour, John xvii. 12. 22. do not argue a parity in the union of believers among themselves, with that of him and his Father, but a similitude : see Matt. xvii. 20. that they may be one in affection, as his Father and he are in essence. We are to be holy, as God is holy. 2. If oneness of will and consent be the ground of this, that the Son and Father are one ; then the angels and God are one, for with their wills they always do his. 3. Oneness of power with God, in any work, argues oneness of essence. God's power is omnipotent, and none can be one with him in power, but he who is omnipotent; that is, who is God. And if it be unity of power here asserted, it is spoken absolutely, and not referred to any particular kind of thing. 4. It is true, God the Father is greater than Christ, as is affirmed John xiv. 28. in respect of his office of medi-

ex codcni loco constat, ubi Clirislus ait, Patrcin omnibus esse niajorciu, ac ]»ioiiKlc etiaiu ipso Domino, (jucmadiuociuai idem Doiuiiius expressc fatctur, ct quod cas oves ci dedcrit, Joan. xiv. 2ii.

ation, of which there he treats ; but they are one, and equal in respect of nature. Neither is God in this place said to be greater than all, in respect of Christ who is said to be one with him, but in reference to all that may be supposed to attempt the taking of his sheep out of his hands. 5. Christ took, or received his sheep, not simply as God, the eternal Son of God, but as Mediator; and so his Father was greater than he. This testimony then abides. He that is one with the Father, is God by Hature. Christ is thus one with the Father: 'one' is the unity of nature; 'are' their distinction of persons. ' I and my Father are one.'

Grotius adheres to the same exposition with our cate-chists, only he goes one step farther in corrupting the text. His words are, ' lyu) koX Trarrip h> lafiiv : connectit quod dix-erat cum superioribus : si Patris potestati eripi non poterunt, nee meaB poterunt: nam mea potestas a Patre emanat, et quidem ita, ut tantundem valeat a me, aut a Patre custodiri: vid. Gen. xli. 25. 27.' I suppose he means ver. 44. being the words of Pharaoh, delegating power and authority immediately under him to Joseph ; but, as it is known, potestas is i^ovma, 'authority,'and may belong to office: hutpotentia is dyvajuig,' force,'' virtue,' or' power,' and belongs to essence. It is not potestas or authority that Christ speaks of, but strength, might, and power: which is so great in God, that none can take his sheep out of his hand. Now though unitas potes-tatis, do not prove unity of essence in men> yet unitaspotentia, which is here spoken of, in God evidently doth : yea, none can have iinitatem potestath M'ith God, but he who hath uni-tatcm essentia.

What they except in the next place against Christ's being equal with God, from John v. 18. Phil. ii. 6. hath been already removed, and the places fully vindicated. They proceed.

'Q. But^ where is it that Christ is called the Son of the living God, the proper and only begotten Son of God ?

■1 Filium autem Dei viventis, filium Dei proprium et unigenitum esse Christum, ubi habetur ?—De hoc Matt. xvi. 16. legimus, ubi Petrus ait, Tu es Chrislus filius Dei viventes. Et Rom. viii, 32. ubi Apostolus ait; Qui (Deus) proprio iilio non pepercit, veruni eum propter nos tradidit. Et Johan. iii. 16. Sic Deus dilexit raun-dum, ut filium suum unigenitum daret. Et ver. 18. uomen unigeniti iilii Dei.—Quo-modo vero ad b.ajc locse respondetur ?—-Ex iis omnibus attributis Christi nullo modo probari posse iiaturara ejus divinam. Nam quod ad primura attinet, notissiraum est Petrura fateri, quod filius hominis sit Christus, et filius Dei viventis, quem constat

'A. Matt. xvi. 16. Rom. viii. 32. John iii. 16. 18.

' Q. But how are these places answered ?

•A. From all these attributes ofChrist a divine nature can by no means be proved. For as to the first, it is notorious that Peter confessed that the Son of man was Christ, and the Son of the living God, who, as it is evident, had not such a divine nature as they feign. Besides, the Scripture tes-tifieth of other men, that they are the sons of the living God ; as the apostle out of Hosea, Rom. ix. 26. and as to what belongeth to the second and third places, in them we read that the proper and only begotten Son of God was delivered to death, which cannot be said of him who is God by nature. Yea from hence that Christ is the Son of God, it appears that he is not God ; for otherwise he should be Son to himself. But the cause why these attributes belong to Christ is this, that he is the chiefest, and most dear to God among all the sons of God; as Isaac, because he was most dear to Abraham and was his heir, is called his only begotten son ; Heb.xi. 17. although he had his brother Ish-mael; and Solomon the only begotten of his mother, although he had many brethren by the same mother; 1 Chron. iii. 1—6. Prov. iv. 3.'

I have spoken before fully to all these places, and therefore, shall be very brief in the vindication of them in this place. On what account Christ is, and on what account alone he is called the Son of God, hath been sufficiently demonstrated ; and his unity of nature w^ith his Father thence evinced. It is true 1. that Peter calls Christ, who was the Son of man, the Son of the living God. Not in that, or on that account whereon he is the Son of man, but because he is peculiarly in respect of another nature, than that wherein he is the son of man, the Son of the living God. And if

divinam iiatiiram, qualcm illi comniiniscuntur, non habuisse. Prajterea, tcstatur Scriplnra de aliis hoiiiinibiis quod siiit filii Dei viventis, lit ex, Hosca, Eoiu. ix. 26. Et erit loco tyus, ubi eis dictum est: non populus mens (eslis) vos; illic vocabuntur filii Dei viventis. Quod vero secundum et tertium locum attinet, in liis legimuspro-prium et unigenituni Dei filiuni in mortem traditum, quod de co, qui natura Deus sit, dici non potest. Inio vero ex eo, quod Cbristus Dei Filius sit, apparet Deuni ilium non esse, alioquin sibi ipsi Filius esset. Causa vero cur Cliristo ista attributa com-petant, lia;c est, quod inter onines Dei filios et praecipuus sit, et Deo charissimus, queniadmodum Isaac, quia Abralianio cliarissinuis et limres exslitit, ungenitus voca-tus est, Heb. xi, 17. licet fratreni Ismaclem habuerit; et Solouion unigenitus coram matrc sua, licet plures ex cadcni matrc fratrcs fucrint. 1 Paral. iii. t—6, &c. Pror. iv. 3.

Peter had intended no more in this assertion, but only that he was one among the many sons of God, how doth he answer that question, * but whom say ye that I am V being- exceptive to what others said, who yet affirmed that he was a prophet, one come out from God, and favoured of him. It is evident, that it is something much more noble and divine that is here affirmed by him, in this solemn confession of him, on whom the church is built. It is true, believers are called children of the living God, Rom. ix. 26. in opposition to the idols whom they served before their conversion ; neither do we argue from this expression barely, of the living God, but in conjunction with those other that follow, and in the emphaticalness of it, in this confession of Peter, Christ instantly affirming that this was a rock, which should not be prevailed against. 2. What is meant by the proper and only begotten Son of God hath been already abundantly evinced; nor is it disproved by saying, that the proper and only Son of God was given to death; for so he was, and thereby God redeemed his church with his own blood. He that is the proper and only begotten Son of God, was given to death, though not in that nature, and in respect of that wherein he is the proper and only begotten Son of God. 3. Christ is the Son of the Father, who is God, and therein the Son of God, without any danger of being the Son of himself, that is, of God as he is the Son. This is a begging the thing in question, without offering any plea for what theypre-tend to, but their own unbelief and carnal apprehensions of the things of God. 4. Our catechists have exceedingly forgotten themselves and their masters, in affirming, that Christ is called the proper and only begotten Son of God, because he is most dear to God of all his sons ; themselves and their master having, as was shewed at large before, given us reasons quite of another nature for this appellation, which we have discussed and disproved elsewhere. 5. If Christ be the only begotten Son of God, only on this account, because he is most dear among all the sons of God, then he is the Son of God upon the same account with them; that is, by regeneration and adoption ; which that it is most false hath been shewed elsewhere. Christ is the proper, natural, only begotten Son of God, in contradistinction to all others, the adopted sons of God, as was made

manifest. Isaac is called the only begotten son of Abraham, not absolutely, but in reference to the promise ; he was his only begotten son to whom the promise did belong; *he that received the promise offered up his only begotten son.' Solomon is not said to be the only begotten of his mother, Prov. iv. 3. but only before the face, or in the sight of his mother ; eminently expressing his preferment as to her affections. How little is this to what the gospel says of Jesus Christ ?

I have only to say concerning Grotius in this matter, that from none of these expressions in any place, doth he take the least notice of what is necessarily concluded concerning the Deity of Christ, wherein he might use his own liberty. The opening, interpretation, and improvement of these testimonies to the end aimed at, I desire the reader to see, c. 7. They proceed.

'Q. What^ Scripture calls Christ the first born of every creature ?

'A. Col. i. 15.

' Q. What dost thou answer thereunto ?

* A. Ts^eithercan it hence be gathered that Christ hath a divine nature ; for seeing Christ is the first born of every creature, it is necessary that he be one of the number of the creatures. For that is the force of the word firstborn in the Scriptures, that it is of necessity, that he who is first born, be one of the number of them of whom he is the first born ; Col. i. 18. Rom. viii. 29. Apoc. i. 5. Neither that our Lord Jesus was one of the things created in the old creation, can our adversaries grant, unless they will be Arians; it behoveth them that they grant him to be one of the new creation. From whence not only the divine nature of Christ cannot be proved, but also that Christ hath no such divine

e Qua; Scriptiira eum vocat, Priraogenituni omnis crcatura; ?—Col. i. 15.—Quid ad eara respondes ?—Neque hiuc naturam divinara Cliristuin liabcre exsculpi posse. Etenim cum Christus Priniogcnitus oniiiis creatura? sit, euui unuin e numero creatu-rarum esse oportcre, necesse est. Ea cniin in Scriptiuis vis est primogeiiiti, ut pri-mogenitum umiiu ex eorum genere (luoium primogenitus est, esse, necesse sit. Col. i. 18. Roin. viii. 29. Apoc. i. 5. Ut vero unus e rebus conditis creationis vcteris ex-istat Doniinus Jesus, nee adveisarii quidera conccdent, nisi Ariani esse velint. Unuin igitur esse e nova; creationis genere Doniinum Jesnni conccdant oportet. Undc non solum divina Christi natura effici non potest ; veruin etiam quod nullam divinam naturam Christus habeat, lirmiter conficitur. Quod vero co uoraine vocatur ab Aposlolo Jesus, eo fit, quod tempore et praestantla res cranes novae creationis longe antecedat.

nature is firmly evinced. But now that Jesus is called by that name by the apostle, it is from hence, that in time and worth he far exceedetliall other things of the new creation/ 1. That by the creation, in this verse, and the things enumerated to be created, in the verses following, is intended the creation of the world, and all things therein, visible and invisible, was before abundantly evinced, in the consideration of the ensuing verses ; and the exceptions of these ca-techists wholly removed from being any hindrance to the embracing of the first obvious sense of the words. All then that is here inferred from a supposition of the new creation being here intended (which is a most vain supposition), falls to theground of itself; so that I shall not need to take the least farther notice of it. 2. That Christ is so the first born of the old creation, as to be a prince, heir, and lord of it, and the things thereof, which is the sense of the word as here used, and yet not one of them is evident from the context; the very next words to these, he is the first born of every creature, are, and by him all things were created. He by whom all things, all creatures were created, is no creature; for lie else must create himself. And so we are neither Arians nor Photinians ; though the former have more colour of saving themselves from the sword of the word than the latter, yet they both perish by it. 3. The word TrpwroTOKog, 'firstborn,'in this place is metaphorical; and the expression is intended to set out the excellency of Christ above all other things. That that is the design of the Holy Ghost in the place, is confessed. Now whereas the word may import two things concerning him of whom it is spoken ; I. that he is one of them in reference to whom he is said to be the firstborn; or 2. that he hath privilege, pre-eminence, rule and inheritance of them and over them; I ask which of these significations suits the apostle's aim here, to set out the excellency of Christ above all creatures ; that which makes him one of them, or that which exalts him above them. 4. Epwroroicoc Traar^g KTicretog, is begotten before all creatures, or every creature. The apostle doth not say, Christ' was vpCjTog Kna^ug,' the fiTst of them made, but he was born or begotten before them all, that is, from eternity. His being begotten, is opposed to the creation of all other things. And though the word, where express mention is made of

others in the same kind, may denote one of them, yet where it is used concerning things so far distant, and which are not compared, but one preferred above the other, it requires no such signification. See Job xviii. 13. Psal. Ixxxix. 27. Jer. xxxi. 9. Grotius is perfectly agreed with our catechists, and uses their very words in the exposition of this place; but that also hath been cons^ldered, and his expositions called to an account formerly.

The next testimonies insisted on they produce in answer to this question.

'Q. What*" Scriptures affirm, that Christ hatli all things that the Father hath ?

' A. John xvi. 15. xvii. 10.

*Q. What sayest thou to these?

'A. We have above declared, that the word ' omnia,' all things, is almost always referred to the subject matter; wherefore from these places that which they intend can no way be proved. The subject matter, chap. 16. is that which the Holy Spirit was to reveal to the apostles, which belonged to the kingdom of Christ. And chap. xvii. it is most apparent that he treateth of his disciples, whom God gave hin), whom he calls his. Moreover seeing that whatever Christ hath, he hath it by gift from the Father, and not of himself, it hence appeareth, that he can by no means have a divine nature, when he who is God by nature hath all things of himself.'

Of these texts the consideration will soon be despatched. John xvi. 15. Christ saith; 'AH things that the Father hath are mine, therefore said I, He shall take of mine, and shew it unto you.' Now if all things that the Father hath, are his, then the divine nature is his, for the Father hath a divine nature. But they say, this all things is to be exjiounded according to the subject matter treated of, that is, only what the Holy Ghost was to reveal to the apostles. Let then the

•" Ubi vero Scriptura eiuii omnia, quas Pater liabeat, habere asserit'?—John xvi. 15. Christus ait, Omnia, cjiire Pater .liabet, mea sunt, et infra capite xvii. 10. ]\Iea omnia tua sunt.et tua mca.— Quid tii ad lia>c?—Vox omnia, ad subjeciani luateriam ut supcrius aliquolies demonstravimus fere semper refertur. Quarc ex ejusmodi locis non potest ullo niodu, (juod volunt, eflici. Materia vero subjecta cap. 16. est, id ni-mirum, quod Spiritus Sanctiis Apostolis ad Ciiristi rcgnum speetans revelaturus erat. Et 17. cap. constat apcrtissime agi de discipulis ipsius Jesii qiios ipsi Deus dederat, unde eosetiam suos vocat. Prasterea, cum (iuie([uid Christus habeat, habeat Patris dono, non autem a seipso, liinc apparet, ipsum divinam natnrani habere nullo modo posse, cum natura Deus omnia a seipso habeat.

expression be expounded according to the subject matter. Christ renders a reason why he said that the Spirit should take of his, even because what he had of the Father, he had also of him ; all that the Father hath being his. Now it was the knowledge of all truth, and all things to come, and all things concerning that kingdom of Christ, that he was thus to shew to the apostles. But look whence the Holy Ghost hath his knowledge, thence he hath his essence : for those things do not really differ in a divine nature. The Spirit then having his knowledge of the Son, hath also his essence of the Son, as he hath of the Father. And by this it is most evidently confirmed, that among the 'all things' that the Father hath, which the Son hath, his divine nature is also ; or else that could be no reason why he should say that the Spirit 'should take of his, and shew to them.'

2. John xvii. 10. A reason is rendered why those who are Christ's, are also God's, and to be in his care; that is, because all his things (jd tfid iravTci) were the Father's, and all the Father's his. It is not then spoken of the disciples, but a reason given why the disciples are so in the love of God, because of the unity of essence which is between Father and Son, whence all the Son's things are the Father's, and all the Father's are the Son's.

3. Christ's having all things not from himself, but by gift from the Father, may be understood two ways. Either it refers to the nature of Christ, as he is God, or to the person of Christ, as he is the Son of God. In the first sense it is false ; for the nature of Christ being one with that of the Father, hath all things without concession, gift or grant made to it, as the nature: but as the person of the Son, in which regard he receives all things, even his nature from the Father, so it is true (those words being expounded as above); but this only proves him to be the Son of God, not at all that he is not God.

Grotius on the first place, Travra oera c'xei 6 varrip, ifxa eart' ' etiam prsescientia et decreta de rebus futuris, quatenus ec-clesiam spectant.' Did he truly intend what the first words do import, we should judge ourselves not a little beholding to him. The foreknowledge Gof od is not in any who is not God ; nor his decrees : the first is an eternal property of his nature ; the latter are eternal acts of his will. If Christ

VOL. VIII. 2 E

have these, he must have the nature of God; but the last words evidently take away what ibe first seem to grant, by restrainino- this participation of Cliiist in the foreknowledge and decrees of God, to things concerning the church, in which sense Socinus grants the knowledge of Christ to be infinite, namely, in respect of the church. Dlsput. de Adorat. Christi cum Christiano Francken, p. 15. But it being certain, that he whose the prescience of God and his purposes are properly, as to any one thing, his they are universally; it is too evident, that he intends these things to belong to Christ no otherwise, but as God revealeth the things that are to come concerning his church to him, which respects his oflice as Mediator, not his nature, as he is one with God blessed for ever. Of the Deity of Christ, neither in this nor the other place, is there the least intimation in that author.

• Q. sBut what Scripture calleth Christ the eternal Father?

'A. Isa. ix. 6. "' Q. What savest thou thereunto?

' A. Fiom thence a divine nature cannot be proved, seeing Christ is called tire Father of eternity for a certain cause, as may be seen fioai the wovcis there a little before expressed. But it is marvellous, (hat the adversaries will refer this place to the ISon, which treats of the eternal Father, who, as it is evident accoiding to themselves, is not the Father. But Ciirist is said to be tlie Father of eternity, or o*^ ihe world to come, because he is the prince and author of eternal life, which is future.'

It were well for our adversaries if they could thus shift off this lesilraony. Let the words be considered, and it will quickly ojipear what need they have of other helps, if they intend to escape this sword, that is furnished against them and their cause. The words of the verse are; 'For unto us a child is born, unto us a Son is given, and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Won-

s At quae Scrlpfura Christum Patrem ctcrnitatis vocat?—Isaiae ix. 6.—Tu vero quid ad liajc.—Ex eo naluraiu divinani probari iion posse, cum certain ob causam Pater aeiernitatis Cliristus sit vocatus, ex ipsrs verbis ibidem paulo siiperius expressis, videre est. Miruni veio est, adversaries Lunc locum, ubi igitur de Patre ajterno, ad filium referre, quern constat secundum cos ipsos Palrem non esse. Pater vero teter-Ditatis autfuturi secuii propterea dictus est Christus, quod sit princeps ct autor vita? aeternJE, qua: futura est.

derful. Counsellor, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of peace.'

Our catechists confessing that this is spoken of Christ, and that he is here called the everlasting Father (they are more modest than Grotius, whose labour to corrupt this place, is to be bewailed; having ventured on the words, as far as any of the modern rabbins, who yet make it their business to divert this text from being applied to the Messiah), have saved me the labour of proving from the text and context, that he only can possibly be intended. This then being taken for granted : that is that which is here affirmed of him, that *his name shall be called,' or * he shall be,' and * shall be known to be'(for both these are contained in this expression) 'Wonderful, Counsellor, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of peace.' He who is the * mighty God,' and the ''everlasting Father,' is God by nature ; but so is Jesus Christ. The expression here used of the mighty God, is ascribed to God, Deut. X. 17. Nehem. ix. 32. Jer. xxxii. 18. and is a most eminent name of God ; a name discriminating him from all that are not God by nature. And this may be added to the other names of God, that are attributed to Christ: as *Adonai,' Psal. ex. 1. 'Elohim,' Psal. xlvi. 5.Heb. i. 8. 'Jehovah/Jer. xxiii. 6. xxxiii. 16. Mai. iii. l.Psal. Ix'ixiii. 18. God, John i. 1. ' The true God,' 1 John v. 20. ' The great God,' Tit. ii. 13. (of which places before)and here 'the mighty God,' 'the eternal Father.'

2. What say our catechists to all this; they fix only on that expression,'the eternal Father;' and say that we cannot intend the Son here, because we say, he is not the Father ; and yet so do these gentlemen themselves : they say Christ is the Son of God, and no way the same with the Father, and yet they say upon a peculiar account he is here called, the ' eternal Father.'

3. On what account then soever Christ is cal'ed the'eternal Father,' yet he is called so ; and is eternal; whether it be, because in nature he is one with the Father, or because of his tender and fatherly affections to his church, because he is the author of eternal life, because in him is life, it is all one as to the testimony to his Deity in the words produced. He who is the ' mighty God, the eternal Father, the Prince of peace,' is God by nature, which was to be confirmed.

2 E 2

So much for them. But our other friend must not be forgotten. The place is of great importance. The testimony in it, evident and clear : and we must not suffer ourselves on any pretence to be deprived of the support thereof. Thus then he proceeds in the exposition of this place.

'For unto us a child is born/ ' id est nascetur, nam He-brzea prseterita sumuntur pro futuris :' i. e.' shall be born/ &c. of this we shall have use in the very next words.

* Unto us a Son is given / ' dabitur. Ezechias patri Achazo multum dissimilis. Sic tamen ut multo excellentius haec ad Messiam pertinere, non Christiani tantum agnoscunt, sed et Chaldseus hoc loco/ i. e. 'shall be given.' 'Hezekiah most unlike his father Ahaz. Yet so that these things belong more excellently to the Messiah, not only as the Christians acknowledge, but the Chaldee in this place/

Here begins the exposition. Hezekiah is intended. So, indeed, say some of the rabbins. But 1. This prophecy is evidently a continuance of that which is begun chap. vii. and was given at the time of the invasion of Judah by Rezin and Pekah ; which was after Ahaz had reigned some years ; as is evident, 2 Kings, xvi. 1—5. Now he reigned but sixteen years in all; and when Hezekiah came to the crown in succession to him he was twenty-five years of age; 2 Kings xviii. so that he must needs be born before this prophecy ; there is then already an inconsistency in these annotations; making the prophet to speak of that which was past as future and to come.

2. It is true, that the Chaldee paraphrast applies this prophecy unto the Messiah, whose words are; ' Dicit pro-pheta domui David ; quoniam parvulus natus est nobis, Filius datus est nobis, et suscepit legem super se, ut ser-varet earn; et vocabitur nomen ejus, a facie admirabilis con-silii Deus, vir permanens in seternum; Christus cujus pax multiplicabitur super nos in diebus ejus.' He not only refers the whole to Christ, without any intimation of Hezekiah, but says also, that his name shall be, the ' God of counsel/ 3. Neither is he alone ; but the ancient rabbins generally are of the same judgment; as Petrus Galatinus and Raymundus Martinus abundantly manifest. To repeat what is, or may be collected from them to that purpose, is not much to mine.

TESTIMONIES THEREOF VINDICATED. 421

4. The present difference between us and the learned annotator is, whether Hezekiah be here intended at all or no; to what hath been spoken, we have that to add in opposition to him, which we chiefly insist upon, namely, that none of the things ascribed to the person here spoken of can be attributed to Hezekiah, as expressing somewhat more divine than can be ascribed to any mere man whatever. Indeed, as Grotius wrests the words in his following interpretation, they may be ascribed to any other; for he leaves no name of God, nOr any expression of any thing divine to him that is spoken of.

Among the rabbins that interpret this place of Hezekiah, one of the chief said he was the Messiah indeed, and that they were to look for no other. This is the judgment of Rabbi Hillel in the Talmud. Hence because Maimonides said somewhere that the faith of the Messiah to come is the foundation of the law ; it is disputed by Rabbi Joseph Albo, Orat. 1. cap. 1. whether Hillel were not to be reckoned among the apostates, and such as should have no portion in the world to come: but he resolves the question on Hillel's side, and denies that the faith of the Messiah to come, is the foundation of the law. Others, who apply these words to Hezekiah, say he should have been the Messiah, but that God altered his purpose upon the account which they assign; this they prove from ver. 7 where, in the word n^~iD^, ver. 7. *mem clausum'is putin the middle of a word. This, Grotius takes notice of ver. 7. and says, ' eo stabilita-tem significari volunt Hebraei, ut per mem apertum in fine rupturam.' Perhaps sometimes they do so, but here some of them turn it to another purpose, as they may use it to what purpose they please : the observation being ludicrous. The words of Rabbi Tanchum, in libro Sanhedrim, to this purpose are ; ' Dixit Rabbi Tanchum, quomodo omne mem, quod est in medio vocis, apertum est, et istud nil"iD^,Esa. ix. 7, clausum est ? Quaesivit Deus sanctus benedictus facere Ezechiam Messiam, et Senacheribum Gog et Magog. Dixit proprietas judicii coram eo, Dominemundi, et quid Davidem, qui dixit faciei tuse tot cantica, et laudes, non fecisti Messiam, Ezechiam vero, cui fecisti omnia signa htec, et non dixit canti-cum faciei tuse, vis facere Messiam ? Propterea clausum fuit statim, &c. Egressa est vox ccelestis, secretum meum mihi.'

'Rabbi Tanchum said, seeing every mem that is in the middle of a word is open, how comes that in n:3"iD^ to be closed? The holy blessed God sought to make Hezekiah to be the Messiah, and Senacherib to be Gog and Magog; propriety of judgment (that is, the right measure of judgment), said before him. Lord of the whole earth, why didst thou not make David Messiah, who spake so mony songs acd praises before thee? and wilt make Hezekiah to be the Messiah; for whom thou hast wrought those great signs, and he spake no song before thee ? instantly mem was shut, and a hea-Yenly voice went forth. My secret belongs to me.'

And so Hezekiah lost the Messiahship for want of a song. And these are good masters in the interpretation of prophecies concerning Christ. I wholly assent to the conjecture of the learned annotator about this business. ' Non in-credibile est,' says he, 'quod unus scribaproperans commi-serat, id alios superstitiose imitatos.' * One began this writing by negligence, and others followed him with superstition.' The conjectures of some Christians from hence are with me of no more weight than those of the Jews ; as that by this mem clausum is signified the birlh of Christ of a Virgin ; and whereas in number it sigmfies six-hundred, it denotes the space of time at the end whereof Christ was to be born; which was so many years from the fourth of Ahaz, wherein this prophecy as is supposed was given.

I have not insisted on these things as though they were of any importance, or in themselves worthy to be repeated, where men are dealing seriously about the things of God; but only to shew what little cause Grotius had to follow the modern rabbins in their exposition of this place, whose conceits upon it are so foolish and ridiculous.

Return we to the annotations, the first passage he fixes on is ; 'And the government shall be on his shoulder;' saith he, ' id est, erit Trop(f)vpo'yivr}Tog, ab ipsis cunis purpuram feret regiam, utin regnum natus; confer Ezech. xxviii. 13.* 'He shall be born to purple; from his very cradle he shall bear the kingly purple, being born to the kingdom.'

1. But this is nothing peculiar to Hezekiah; his son Ma-nasseh was all this as well as he. And how this, being in itself a light and trivial thing, common to all other kings' sons with him, should be thus prophesied of as an eminent

TESTIMONIES THEREOF VINDICATED. 423

honour and giory, none can see any cause. 2. But is this indeed the meaning of these words ? ' Ilezekiah when he is a boy shal] wear a purple coat;' which the prophet when he gave forth Ibis prophecy perhaps saw him playing in every day. Certainly it is a sad thing to be forsaken of God, and to be given up to a man's own understanding in the exposition of the Scripture. . That the government, the principality here mentioned, which is said to be upon the shoulder of him, concerning whom the words are spoken, that is committed to him, as a weighty thing, is the whole rule and government of the church of God, committed to the management of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Mediator, to the inconceivable benefit and consolation of his people, the reader may find evinced in all expositors on the place (unless some one or other of late; persons of note, who to appear somebodies have ventured to follow Grotius): it is not my busiiiess to insist on particulars.

His next note is on these words: 'His name shall be called. In Heebiteo est vocubit. Supple qaisque; Etiam Chtildzer:! vocabiturtranstulit. NotuniautemHaibraiisc'icisic vel S!C vocari aliquem cui iules tituli aut iTrtvira, conveniunt.' I delight not to contend at all, nor shall do it Wxthout great cause. For the sense of these words I am content that we take up thus much : the titles following ?ve his names, and they agree to him; that is, he is, or shall be such a one, as answers the desciiption in them given of him. But here our great doctors, whom this great man follows, are divided. Some of them not seeing how it is possible that the names following should be ascribed to Hezekiah, some of thern directly terming him God, they pervert the words, and read them thus; ' The Wonderful, Counsellor, the mighty God, &c. shall call his name, the Prince of peace ;' so ascribing the last name only to Hezekiah, all the former to God. The advantage they take is from the want of variation hy cases in the Hebrew. And this way go all the present rabbins, being set into it by Solomon Jarchi, on the place. But •'as this is expressly contrary to the judgment of the old doctors, as hath been abundantly proved out of their Targum and Talmud, where Hezekiah is called the Lord of eight names, and is opposed to Senacherib, who they say had •> Vid. Pet. Gal. lib. 3. cap. If. Raymun. Martin. 3. p. Dist. 1. cap. 9.

eight names also. So it is contrary to all their own rules of grammar, to place the name of him who calls, after the verb calling, of which there is not one instance to be given, Gro-tius therefore takes in with them, who apply all these names to Hezekiah ; shift with them afterward as well as he can. So he proceeds.

'Wonderful: ob summas qua in eo eruntvirtutes.' 'For the excellent virtues that shall be in him.' But I pray why more than David, or Josiah ? This is his name Wonderful, that is, he shall be very virtuous, and men shall admire him : how much better this name agrees to him, and how much more proper it is, whose person is so great a mystery, 2 Tim. iii. 16. and whose name is so abstruse, Prov. xxx. 4. and that upon the wonderful conjunction of two natures in one person here mentioned (he who is the mighty God, being also a child given unto us), is evident to all.

' Counsellor, the Mighty God : imo consultator Dei fortis : id est, qui in omnibus negotiis consilia a Deo poscet, per prophetas scilicet, ut jam sequetur.' 'Yea he who taketh counsel of the mighty God: that is, who in all his affairs-asks counsel of God, namely, by the prophets.'

And is not this boldness thus to correct the text: ' Counsellor, the mighty God ;' yea, he that * asketh counsel of the mighty God.' What colour, what pretence, what reason or plea, may be used for this perverting the words of the text, our annotator not in the least intimates.

The words are evidently belonging to the same person, equally parts of that name, whereby he is to be called, and the casting of them, without any cause into this construction in a matter of this importance (because it is to be said) is intolerable boldness. It is not without great probability of truth pleaded by some, that the two first words should go together, the wonderful counsellor, as those that follow do; not that abD 'admirabilis' is an epithet, or an adjective, it being a substantive, and signifying a wonder or a miracle : but that the weight of what is said, being laid much upon the force of' Counsellor,' setting out the infinite wisdom of Christ, in all his ways, purposes, and counsels concerning his church, this other term seems to be suited to the setting forth thereof. But this corruption of the text is the more intolerable in our annotator, because in the close of his

TESTIMONIES THEREOF VINDICATED. 425

observations on this place, he confesses, that all the things here mentioned have a signification in Christ, much more sublime and plain, than that which he hath insisted on ; so that had he been any friend to the Deity of Christ, he would not have endeavoured to have robbed him of his proper name, the * mighty God,' in this place ; but this was necessary, that the rabbinical accommodation of this place to Hezekiah might be retained. That this place then is spoken of Christ we have evinced, nor can it be waved without open perverting of the words ; and he is here called the * mighty God,' as was before declared.

Grotius proceeds to apply the residue of this glorious name to Hezekiah, 'The everlasting Father;' or as it is in the Vulgar Latin, ' Pater futuri seculi ; in Hebrffio non est futuri; pater seculi est, qui multos post se relicturus sit posteros, et in longum tempus. In the Hebrew the word future is not; the father of the age, is he who leaves many of his posterity behind him, and that for a long time.'

About the Vulo-ar Latin translation we do not contend. Of the meaning and use of the word Giiolam I have spoken already; when it is applied to God, it signifies eternity ; but the word here is not Gnolam, '' but ^]; properly eternity when applied to God, Psal. x. 16. ' God is King, nyi d^ij? * seculi et eternitatis, for ever and ever.' Instances might be multiplied to this purpose. That this should be, Hezekiah shall leave many children, and that for a long season, credat Apella; what sons he left, besides one, and he a wicked one, for the most part of his days, is uncertain ; within a hundred and thirty years, or thereabout, his whole posterity was carried captive ; how exceedingly unsuited this appellation is to him, is evident. The Father of eternity, that is, one that leaves a son behind him, and a possibility for his posterity to continue in the condition wherein he was for a hundred and thirty years ; many such everlasting fathers may we find out. What in all this is peculiar to Hezekiah, that this should so emphatically be said to be his name ?

The next is, 'Princepspacis,' 'the Prince of peace.' 'Prin-ceps pacificus, et in pace victurus.' ' A peaceable prince, and one that should live in peace.'

1. On how much better, more noble, and glorious ac-

count, this title belongs to Christ, is known. 2. The Prince of peace, is not a neaceable prince, but the author, giver, procurer, establisher of peace. 3. Neither did Hezekiah reign in peace ali ]iis days 5 his kingdom was invaded, his fenced cities taken, and himself and chief city delivered by a miraculous slaughter of b'S enemies,

' Of the increase of his government, and of peace no end.' Which he reads according to the Vulgar Latin : 'Multipli-cabitur ejus imperium, e'c pacis ejus non eric finis.' Literally,

* for the multiplying of his kingdom, and of peace no end.' As to the first part, his exposition is; 'id est, durabit per annos 29.' ' His kingdom should continue for twenty-nine years.' Who would believe such gross darkness should cover the face of so learned a man. 'Of the inciease of his government there shall be no end ;' that is, he shall reign nine and twenty years. This might almost twice as properly be spoken of his son Manasses, who reigned fifty-five.. And now let him that hath a mind to feed on such husks as these, go on with his annotations in this place. I am weary of considering such trash. And let the pious reader tremble at the righteous judgment of God, giving up men trusting to their own learning and abilities, leTusing to captivate their hearts to the obedience of the truth, to such foolish and childish imaginat'ons, as men of common sense must needs abhor.

It appears tien that we have here a description of Jesus Christ, and of him only; and that the names here ascribed to him, are proper to him, and declare who he was, and is,

* even the mighty God, the Prince of peace,' &c. Let us proceed with our catech'sis.

In the next place they heap up sundry places, which they return slight answers unto ; and yet to provide them in such manner, as that they might be the easier dealt vt'ilhal they cut off parcels, and expressions in the middle of sentences, and from the context, from whence the greatest evidence, as to the testimony they give in this matter, doth arise. I shall consider them apart as they are proposed.

I.Christ is called the Word of God, John i. LRev. xix. 13. They say.

* From hence that' Christ is called the Word of God, a

' Exeo, quod Verbuiu Dei sit Christusdoceridivina in Cliribto iiatura iion potest,

TESTIMONIES THEREOF VINDICATED. 427

divine nature in Christ cannot be proved, yea the contrary may be gathered. For seeing he is ihe Word of the one God, it is apparent, that he is not that one God. But Jesus is therefore called the Word of God, because he expounds to us the whole will of God, as John there declares a little after, John i. 18. as he is also in the same sense said to be life and truth.'

Christ is the Word of God; the Word or 6 "Xoyog, is either 7rpo(j>opiKog, or the word which outwardly is spoken of God : or hvBia^srog, his eternal essential Word, or Wisdom. Let our catechists prove another acceptation of the word in any place. That Christ is not the word spoken by God, they will grant, for he was a person that revealed to us the word of God. He is then God's eternal Word or Wisdom, and so consequently God. 2. Christ is so called the Word of God, John i. 1. as that he is in the same place said to be God. And our adversaries are indeed too impudent, whereas they say, ' if he be the Word of the one God, he cannot be the one God :' the Holy Ghost affirming the flat contrary, namely, * that he was the Word, and was with God, and was God ;* that is doubtless the one true God, ver. 1—3. ' He was with God,' in his person, as the Son, and he was God as to his nature. 3. Christ is not called the Word, John i. 1. upon the account of his actual revealing the word of God to us, in his own person on the earth (which he did, ver. 18.) because he is called so in his everlasting residence with the Father, before the world was, ver 1. Nor is he so called on that account. Rev. xix. 13. it being applied to him, in reference to the work of executing judgment on his enemies as a king, and not his revealing the word of God as a prophet. So that notwithstanding this exception, this name of the * Word of God,' applied to Christ, as in the places mentioned, proves him to have a divine nature, and to be God blessed for ever.

The next place is Col. i. 15. ' Christ is the image of the invisible God.' To which they say only;

irao adversurapotiuscoUigitur. Cum enim ipsiusunms Dei verbum sit, appareteum non esse ipsum unurn Deum. Quod etiarn ad singula base lestimonia simul respon-deri potest. Verbura vero, vel Sermo Dei Jesus ideo nuncupatur, quod omnem Dei voluntatem nobis exposuerit, ut ibidem Johannes inferius exposuit, Johan. i. 18. Quemadraodum etiara eodem sensu et vita et Veritas dicitur.

' The"* same may be said of this, as of that foregoing.' But, An image is either an essential image, or accidental. A representation of a thing in the same substance with it, as a Son is the image of his Father, or a representation in some resemblance like that of a picture. That Christ cannot be the latter is evident. Our catechists refer it to his office, not his person. But 1. It is the person of Christ that is described in that and the following verses, and not his office. 2. The title given to God, whose image he is, the 'invisible God,' will allow there be no image of him but what is invisible ; nor is there any reason of adding that epithet of God, but to declare also the invisible spiritual nature of Christ, wherein he is like his Father. And the same is here intended with what is mentioned in the third place.

Heb. i. 3. ' He is the express image of his person.' ' This' is to be understood, that whatever God hath promised, he hath now really exhibited in Christ.'

Well expounded. Christ is the character of his Father's person, that is, what God promised he exhibited in Christ. Would not any man admire these men's acumen, and readiness to interpret Scriptures? The words are part of the description of the person of the Son of God: * He is the brightness of his Father's glory, and the express image of his person, upholding all things by the word of his power:' that is, he reveals the will of God. This the aposlle had expressly affirmed, ver. 1. in plain and familiar terms; that he should now repeat over the same thing again in words so exceedingly insignificant of any such matter, is very strange. 2. The apostle speaks of the hypostasis of the Father, not of his will: of his subsistence, not his mind to be revealed. We do not deny, that Christ doth represent his Father to us, and is to us the express image of his person, but antecedently hereunto, we say he is so in himself. Grotius's corruption of this whole chapter was before discovered, and in part removed.

John xiv. 9. ' He that hath seen me hath seen the Father;' is next proposed. To which they say;

** Hoc idem dici potest dc eo, quod iineigo Dei conspicui vocatur.

' Quod vero cliaracter liypostaseos ejus dictus sit, lioc intelligi debet. Deus quicquid nobis promisit, jam reipsa in eo cxhibuisse.

TESTIMONIES THEREOF VINDICATED. 429

* Neither"* can any divine nature be proved from hence, for this 'seeing,' cannot be spoken of the essence of God, which is invisible, but of the knowledge of the things that Christ did and spake.'

Christ so speaks of his Father and his oneness, whereby he that saw one, saw both, as he describes it to be in the verse following; where he says, the ' Father is in him and he in the Father.' Now that the Father is in him, and he in the Father, and that he and the Father are one in nature and essence, hath been before sufficiently demonstrated. The seeing here intended, is that of faith, whereby both Father and Son are seen unto believers.

Col. ii. 9. is the last in this collection. ' In whom dwell-eth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.'

To this they say, 1. ' That" this word divinitas, may signify the will of God. And seeing the apostle opposeth that speech not to persons, but to philosophy and the law, it is manifest, that it is to be understood of the doctrine, and not of the person of Christ. Of this word' bodily' thou shalt hear afterward.'

But 1. It is not Divinity, but Deity, not ^hot^q but ^eorijc, that is here spoken of; and that not simply neither, but 7rX?;pw/ia S-fOTTjroc, 'the fulness of the Godhead.' 2. That ^ioTTqq or TrX/jpw/ia S^EOTrjroc, is ever taken for the will of God, they do not, they cannot prove, 3. How can it be said, that the will of God KaroiKU ah)p.aTiKCog,' doth dwell bodily' in any, or what can be the sense of that expression ? Where they afterward interpret the word' bodily' I do not remember, when I meet with their exposition it shall be considered. 4. That the words are to be referred to the person of Christ, and not his doctrine, is manifest, not only from the words themselves, that will not bear any such sense, as whereunto they are wrested, but also from the context. For not only the whole order and series of words before and after, do speak

™ Quod vero attinet ad dictus Domini Jesu. Qui rae videt Patrem, neque hinc naturam divinara probari certum cuique esse potest, euro ea ratio videndi non possit de essentia Dei accipi, quae invisibilis sit prorsus, verum de cognitione eorum, quae dixit et fecit Christus.

° Nee illis denique verbis, quod plenitado divinitatis in eo habitat corporaliter, probatur natura divina. Primum enini, vox hsec divinitas, designate potest voluntatein Dei, eamque orationem cum Apostolus opponat non personis, sed Philosophiae et Legi, hiuc perspicuum est, earn de doctrina Domini Jesu non de persona accipi. De hac vero voce, corporaliter, quid ea notet, inferius suo loco audies.

of the person of Christ; * For in him are hid all treasures of wisdom and knowledge ;' ver. 3. ' Him we receive/ ver. 6. ' In him we are built up;' ver. 7. *In him we are complete;'ver. 10. 'In him we are circumcised; ver. 11. 'Withhim we are buried;' ver. 12. 'Together with htm are we quickened;' ver. 13. and it was 'he that was crucified for us/ ver. 14,15. but also the de-sio;a of the Holv Ghosi; enforces this sense ; itbeino'to dis-cover a fulness and sufficiencv in Christ, of all grace and wisdom, iliat men should not need to seek relief from either law or philosophy. Tlie faloess of the Godhead inhabiting in the person of Cnrist substantially, he is God by nature. And of these places so far : the three following, of John xvii. o. 1 Pet. i. 10, 11. John iii. 13. have been in their proper places already vindicated.

Giotius interprets Ihat of Col. ii. 9. according to the analogy of the faith of our catechists ; * Christi doctrna non modo philosophite sed et legi plurimum prsRstat.' That TTav TO T^-Xypw/ia r'i'ig ^c6ri}Tog, should be doclrina, and Ka7oi.:u Iv XptarM, should make it tbe ' doctrine of Christ,' and atjua-tiwCjq, should be no man knows what, is but a cross way of interprelaiion. And yst Augustine is quoted, with a saying from him to give countenance unto it; which makes me admire almost as much as at the interpretation itself. The wo't's our annolato/ meniions are taken from his Epist. 57. ad Dardan. though he mentions it rot. The reason will quickly appear to any Oi^e that shall consult the place; for nol wthstand'ng the expression heie cropt OiT Irora his discourse, he gives an interpretation of the wo'ds, utteily contrary to what this learned man would here insinuate, and perfectly agreeing with that which we have now pi oposed.

Our catechists proceed to the consideration of sundry places where Christ is called, ' the only Lord, the Lord of glory : the King of kings, the Lord of lords;' all which being titles of the one true God, prove him to be so : and the first proposed is, ' To us there is one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him ;' 1 Cor. viii. 6.

A little to give light to our argument from hence, and that the strength of it may appear, some few observations concerning the context, and the words themselves, will be necessary,

1. Ver. 7. The apostle, speaking of the heathens and their opinion of the Deity, says, there be, that is, to them, in

their apprehension, ' gods many, and lords many :* that is, many supreme powers who are gods and loids. The terms of * gods many' and 'Jo'ds many,' are not expressive of several kinds of deities, hut of the same; whom they esteemed lords they esteemed gods, and so on the contrary. Jn opposition to this polytheism of theirs, he declares that Cnris-tians have but one God, one Lord; wherein if the apostle did not intend to assert one only God unto Cnristians, in the different persons of the Father and Son, he had not spoken in such an opposition, as the adversative aXXa at the beginning of the words, and the comparison instituted do require.

2. That this one Lord of Christians is the only true God, is manifest from Deut. vi. 4. ' The Lord our God is one Lord.' So the apostle here; ' To us there is one Lord :' not many gods, as the heathens fancied; in opposition also to whose idolatry is that assertion of Moses. And so Thomas, in his confession joins these two together, intending one and the same person; * My Lord, and my God.'

3. livoLog, being put to signify God, is the word which the Septuagint render Jehovah by, and so eig Kvpiog, is that * only Jehovah.'

4. The attribution of the same works in this verse to Father and Son, manifest them to be the same ore God. * Of whom are all things, and we in him ; by whom are all things, and we by him.' These things being premised, what our catechists except to this testimony may be considered : thus then they.

' Hence" a divine nature cannot be proved; for 1. He doth manifestly difference him from the Father, whom we have

° Ex eoquod Christum Apostolus Doniirmm suum -vocet, natura divina effici ne-quit. Nam eum primo manifeste ab il'o Patre, quem ibidem Doum unum fatetur, secernit, quem solum natura Deum esse superius docuimus. Deinde, hoc ipsum quod de eo dicit, crania per ipsum, enm natura Deum esse non ostendit: cum ut superius demonstratum est, hacparticula, per, non primam, verumsecuiidamcausam designari constet: quod de eo qui natura Deus est.dici nullo raodo potest. Et licet de Patre Scriptura interdura loquatur, per eum omnia, aliter tamen ha;c de Patre, quam de Chrislo accipiuntur. De Patre eoimhaBcideo dici constat, quod omnes causseniediap, per quas fit aliquid, non aliunde sint, nisi ab ipso, nee sint ejusmodi, ut sine iis ilie agere non possit: de Ciiristo vero dicuntur, quod per eum alius quis, nenipe Deus omnia operetur, utEph. iii. 9. e:;pressehabetur. Ne commemoranduni milii sit, ver-bum, omnia (uli superius ostensum est), ad subjectam materiam referri. Quod ita habere inde apparet, quod Apostolus agit de iis omnibus rebus, quse ad populuni Christianum pertinent, ut duo hasc verba deraonstrant, nobis et Pater. Unde eflicitur Christum non simpliciter et absolute, verum certa de causa vocatum Dominum unum, per quem omnia. Quare hinc natura divina non probatur..

taught above to be the only God by nature. 2. This, that it says of him. That by him are all things, shews him not to be God by nature, seeing as he hath been above declared, this particle 'by,'doth not signify the first, but the second cause, which can by no means be spoken of him who is God by nature. And though the Scriptures do sometimes say of the Father, By him are all things; yet these words are to be taken otherwise of the Father, than of the Son. It is manifest that this is said of the Father, because all mediate causes, by which any thing is done, are not from any other, but from himself; nor are they such, as that he cannot work without them : but it is spoken of Christ, because by him, another, namely God, worketh all things, as it is expressly said, Eph. iii. 9. That I need not to remember, that the word ' all things,' as was shewed above, is to be referred to the subject matter; which, that it so appeareth hence, that the apostle dealeth of all those things which belong to the Christian people, as these two words, * to us,' and ' Father,' do declare. Whence it is proved, that Christ is not simply and absolutely, but in some certain respect, called the one Lord, by whom are all things. Wherefore his divine nature is not proved from hence.'

It is very evident, that they are much entangled with this testimony, which necessitates them to turn themselves into all manner of shapes, to try whether they can shift their bonds, and escape or no. Their several attempts to evade shall be considered in their order.

1. It is true, Christ is differenced clearly from the Father, as to his person, here spoken of, but that they have proved the Father to be the only God by nature, exclusively to the Son and Holy Ghost, is but a boasting before they put off their harness. It is true, the Father is said here to be the one God, which no more hinders the Son from being so too, than the assertion that the Son is the one Lord, denies the Father's being so also.

2. That cavil at the word ' by,' hath been already considered and removed. It is enough for us to manifest, that this assignation of the creation of all things to Christ, by the expression of, ' by him are all things,' doth by no means depose him from the honour of principal efficient cause in that work, the same attribution being made to the Father in

the same words. And to say as our catechists do, that this expression is ascribed to the Father, in such a sense, and not to Christ, is purely, without any pretence of proof, to beg the thing in question. Neither is that any thing to the purpose, which is urged from Eph. iii. 9. for we confess, that as Christ is equal with his Father, as to his nature, wherein he is God, so as he is the Soi^ in office, he was the servant of the Father, who accomplishes his own mind and will by him.

3. The subject matter in this place, as to the words under consideration, is the demonstration of the one God and Lord of Christians, asserted in opposition to the many gods and lords of the heathen, from the effects or works of that one God and Lord; ' from him, and by him are all things.' And this is the difference that God elsewhere puts between himself and idols; Jer. x. 10, 11. And if there be any such subject matter, as proves Christ not to be the one Lord absolutely, but in some respect, it proves also that the Father is not the one God absolutely, but in some respect only.

4. The words, * to us,' and' Father,' do one of them express the persons believing the doctrine proposed, concerning the one true God and Lord, the other describes that one true God, by that name whereby he revealed himself to those believers ; neither of them at all inforcing the restriction mentioned. Christ then is absolutely the one Lord of Christians, who made all things, and so is by nature God blessed for ever.

I should but needlessly multiply words particularly to animadvert on Grotius's annotations on this place : I do it only where he seems to add some new shifts to the interpretation of our adversaries, or varies from them in the way, though he agree in the end: neither of which reasons oc-curring in this place, I shall not trouble the reader with the consideration of his words. By Si ov to. iravTa, to maintain his former expositions of the like kind, he will have all the things of the new creation only intended, but without colour or pretence of proof, or any thing to give light to such an exposition of the words.

Our catechists next mention, 1 Cor. ii. 8. 'For if they had known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.'

Who is the Lord of glory, or God of glory, the Holy Ghost declares, Acts vii. 2. ' The God of glory _appeared

VOL, VIII. 2 F

to our father Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia ;' and Psal. xxiv. 9. * Who is the King of glory? The Lord strong and mighty, the Lord miglity in battle.' Christ therefore is this God ; and indeed is intended in that psalm. But they say,

^Ap divine nature cannot be proved from hence, seeing it treateth of him who was crucified : which cannot be said of a divine nature, but of a man, who is therefore called the Lord of glory; that is, the glorious Lord, because he is crowned of God with glory and honour.' But,

I. Though the divine nature could not be crucified, yet he that had a divine nature might be, and was crucified in the nature of a man, which he also had. Our catechists know they do but beg in these things; and would feign have us grant, that because Christ had a human nature, he had not a divine. 2. He is called the Lord of glory, as God is called the God of glory, and these terms are equivalent, as hath been shewed. 3. He was the Lord of glory when the Jews crucified him, or else they had not crucified him who was the Lord of glory, but one that was to be so: for he was not crowned with glory and honour, until after his crucifying.

Grotius's annotation on this place, is worth our observation, as having somewhat new, and peculiar in it. * Kvpiov rf/c ^o^Tjc- Eumquem Deusvultesseomnium Judicem,namGIoria Christi maxime ilium diem respicit; 1 Pet. iv. 13. Christus Kvpiog So^rjc, prsefiguratus per arcam, qua;, nODil "["PD Psal. xxiv. 9.' For the matter and substance of it, this is the same plea with that before mentioned ; the additions only deserve our notice. Christ is called the Lord of glory, as God is called the God of glory. And that term is given him to testify, that he is the God of glory If his glory at the day of judgment be intended, the Jews could not be said to crucify the Lord of glory, but him that was to be the Lord of glory at the end of the world. Our participation of Christ's glory is mentioned, 1 Pet. iv. 13. not his obtaining of glory. He is essentially the Lord of glory, the manifestation whereof is various, and shall be eminent at the day of judgment. 2. That the ark is called TaDH "j'PD is little less than blasphemy. It is he alone who is the Lord of

P Cum in eo agatur de co qui crucifixus sit, apparet rx co naturam divinam non pro-bari, cuni de liac illud dici nequcat, veriiin de liomiiie, qui ideo Douiinus gloriie di-citur, lioc est, Uominus gloriosus, quod a Deo gloria et honorc coronatus sit.

Hosts, who is called the Lord of glory, Psal. xxiv. 9. But this is another shift, for the obtaining of the end designed; namely, to give an instance where a creature is called Jehovah, as that King of glory is, than which a more unhappy one could scarce be fixed on in the whole Scripture, The annotations of the learned man on that whole psalm are very scanty ; his design is to refer it all to the story of David's bringing home the ark; 2 Sam. vi. That it might be occasioned thereby I will not deny ; that the ark is called the King of glory, and the Lord of Hosts, and not he, of whose presence and favour, the ark was a testimony, no attempt of proof is offered. Neither by the way can I assent unto his interpretation of these words ; ' Lift up your heads O ye gates, and be ye lift up ye everlasting doors: that is, ye gates of Sion, made of cedar, that are made hanging down, and when they are opened, they are lifted up.' Certainly somethino; more sublime and glorious is intended.

The process of our catechists is unto Rev. xvii. 14. xix. 16. in both which places Christ is called the Lord of lords, and King of kings. This also is expressly the name of God; 1 Tim. vi. 16. 'Who is the blessed and only potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords : who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light,' &c. To this they say.

* In*! this testimony he is treated of who is the lamb, who hath garments, who was killed, and redeemed us with his blood, as John evidently testifieth, which can by no means be referred to a divine nature, and therefore a divine nature cannot hence be proved. But all things that in these testimonies are attributed to Christ do argue that singular authority which God hath given unto Christ, in those things that belong to the new covenant.'

These are but drops, the shower is past. Because he who was the lamb, who was slain, is King of kings and Lord of lords, we prove him to have another nature, in respect whereof he could be neither killed nor slain. Therefore, he is God; God only is so. And the answer is ; because he

1 In tertio testimonio, cum agatur de eo, qui agnus est, et qui vestimenta habet, quemetoccisum.et sanguine suo nos redimisse apertissirae idem Johannes fatetur.quaj referri ad divinani naluram nulla ratione possunt, apparet eo naturam divinam Christi astrui non posse. Omnia vero, quaa hie Christo in iis teslimoniis tribuuntur, singula-rem ipsius potestatem, quam Deus Christo in iis, quae ad novum foedus pertinent, dedit, arguunt.

2 F 2

DEITY'OF CHRIST PROVED, AND

was the lamb, he was killed and slain, therefore he is not God ; that is, he is not King of kings and Lord of lords, which the Holy Ghost who gave him this name will prove aganist them. 2. Our adversaries have nothing to except against this testimony, but that the King of kings and Lord of lords is not God; which they do not prove, nor labour to disprove our confirmation of it. 3. Kings and lords of the world, are not of the things of the new covenant, so that Christ's absolute sovereignty over them, is not of the grant which he hath of his Father as Mediator, but as he IS God by nature. And so much for this collection concerning these several names of God attributed to Christ.

What follows in the three questions and answers ensuing, relates to the divine worship attributed to Christ in the Scriptures, though it be marvellous faintly urged by them. Some few texts are named, but so much as the intendment of our argument from them is not once mentioned. But because I must take up this elsewhere, viz. in answer to Mr. Biddle, cap. 10.1 shall remit the consideration of what here they.except, to the proper place of it, where, God assisting, from the divine worship and invocation of Jesus Christ, I shall invincibly demonstrate Jiis eternal power and Godhead. In the last place, they heap up together a number of testimonies, each of which is sufficient to cast them down to the sides of the pit, in the midst of their attempts against the eternal Deity of the Son of God, and accommodate a slight general answer to them all. The places are worth the consideration, I shall only propose them, and then consider their answer.

The first is Isa. viii. 13, 14. * Sanctify the Lord of hosts himself; and let him be your fear, and let him be your dread. And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of ofl^ence to both the houses of Israel.' He that is to be for a rock of offence, and a stone of stumbling, is the Lord of hosts, whom we must sanctify in our hearts, and make him our dread and our fear. But this was Jesus Christ; Luke ii. 34. * This child is set for the rising and fall of many in Israel; as it is written, behold I lay in Sion a stumbling-stone, and rock of offence; and whosoever believeth on him, shall not be ashamed;' Rom. ix. 33. 'the stone which the builders refused, -.'.nd a stone of

stumbling, and a rock of offence;' 1 Pet. ii. 7, 8. In all which places that prophecy is repeated. Christ therefore, is the Lord of hosts, whom we are to sanctify in our heart, and to make him our dread and our fear.

Isa. xlv. 22, 23. * I am God and there is none else; I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, that nnto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.' He who is God, and none else, is God by nature. But now,' we must all stand before the judgment-seat of Jesus Christ, for it is written, as I live saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God;' Rom. xiv. 10—12. It is the judgment-seat of Christ, that men must appear before, when they bow their knee to him, that is, to him who is God, and none else.

Isa. xli. 4. * I Jehovah, the first, and with the last; I am he.' Chap. xliv. 6. ' I am the first, and I am the last, and besides me there is no God.' So chap, xlviii. 12. That this is spoken of Christ we have his own testimony. Rev. i. 17. * Fear not, I am the first, and the last.' He who is the first and the last, he is God, and there is none besides him.

Zech. xii. 10. 'I will pour on the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplications, and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced.' He that speaks is unquestionably Jehovah the Lord of hosts : so the whole context, so the promising of the Spirit in this verse evinces ; but that Jesus Christ is here intended, that it is he who is spoken of is evident; Rev. i. 7. * Every eye shall see him, and they also that pierced him.' He then is Jehovah the Lord of hosts. ' For these things were done that the Scripture should be fulfilled, not a bone of him shall be broken. And again, another Scripture saith. They shall look on him whom they have pierced ;' John xix. 36, 37. It is as I said beyond dispute, that it is Jehovah the only true God that spake, and what he spoke of himself is fulfilled in Jesus Christ.

Psal. Ixviii. 17. 'The chariots of God are twenty thousand, even thousands of angels ; the Lord is among them, as in Sinai, in the holy place. Thou hast ascended on high, thou hast led captivity captive : thou hast received gifts for men, that the Lord God might dwell among them.' This

also is a glorious description of the triumphant majesty of God; and yet the God here intended is Jesus Christ;' Eph. iv. 8—10. ' Wherefore he saith, when he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive and gave gifts to men; now that he ascended, what is it, but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth; he that descended is the same that ascended.'

Grotius on both these places says; that what is properly spoken of God, is by Paul mystically applied to Christ; to the same purpose with what our catechists afterward insist on. That it is the same person who is intended in both places, and not that applied to one which was spoken of another (|which is most evident in the context), he takes no notice. There being nothing of plea or argument in his annotations against our testimonies from hence, but only an endeavour to divert the meaning of the places to another sense, 1 shall not insist longer on them.

But what say our catechists to all these, which are but some of the instances of this kind that might be given ? Say they;

• To"" all these it may be so answered, as that it may appear, that a divine nature in Christ cannot from them be proved. For those things which are spoken of God under the law, may be spoken of Christ under the gospel; as also they are spoken for another cause ; namely, because of that eminent conjunction that is between God and Christ, on the account of dominion, power, and office; all which the Scriptures of the New Testament do frequently witness, that he received by gift from God. And if the Scripture delivers this of Moses, that he brought Israel out of Egypt, Exod. xxxii. 7. and that he was the redeemer of the people; and of others, the same things that were evidently written of God, when neither Moses, nor others had so near a conjunc-

f Ad omnia ita responderi potest, ut appareat nullo modo ex iis effici divinam in Christo esse naturam. I2tenini aliaiii ob causara ea qu;c de Deo dicta sunt sub lege, dici potuerunt de Cliristo sub evangelio, queniadnioduni et dicta sunt. Ni-luiruni propter illam suiniiiam, quaj inter Dcura et Christum est, ratione imperii, po-testatis, atque niuneris, conjunetioneni, qu;e omnia ilium Dei dono consecutum esse Scriptura? novi Testanienti passim testantur. Quod si Scriptura ea trailit de JNlose, Euni Israelera ex jEgypto eduxissc Exod. xxxii. 7. et quod reticniptor illius populi fuerit, Acts vii. 35. et de aliis idem, quod de ipso Deo apertissime scriptum erat. Cum nee Moses, neque alii, tantam cum Deo coiijunctionem liaberent, quanta inter Deum et Christum intercessit, multo justius li;ec qua: de Deo primo respccfu dicta sunt, Christo accomniodari |)ossunt, propter sumniani illam ctarctissimain inter Deum et Christum cgnjunctionciu.

tion with God, as was between God and Christ, much more justly may those things, which in the first respect are spoken of God, be accommodated to Christ, because of the eminent and near conjunction that was between them.'

And this is their defence ; the answer they fix upon to all the testimonies recited; wherein how little truth or strength there is, will quickly appear. 1. These Scriptures perhaps may be answered thus or thus, as what will not the serpentine wits of men find out, to wrest the word withal to their own destruction ? But the question is, how they ought to be interpreted, and what is their sense and intendment. 2. We do not say, that what is spoken of God under the law, is accommodated to Christ under the gospel; but that the things instanced in, that were spoken of God, were then spoken of Christ, as to his nature wherein he is God; which appears by the event, expounded in the books of the New Testament. The Scripture doth not say in the New Testament of Christ, what was said in the Old of God ; but evinces those things which were so spoken of God, to have been spoken of Christ. So that, 3. The folly of that pretence, that what was spoken of God is referred to Christ, upon the account of the conjunction mentioned, which whatever it be, is a thing of nought in comparison of the distance that is between the Creator and a mere creature, is manifest; for let any one be in never so near conjunction with God, yet if he be not God, what is spoken of God, and where it is spoken of God, and denoting God only, cannot be spoken of him; nor indeed accommodated to him. 4. The instances of Moses are most remote from the business in hand; it is said of Moses, that he brought the children of Israel out of Egypt, and so he did, as their chief leader and ruler, so that he was a redeemer to that people, as he was instrumental in the hand of God, working by his power and presence with him those mighty works, which made way for their deliverance and redemption. But where is it said of Moses, or any one else, that he was God ; that what God said of himself, was said of Moses and accomplished in him? Or wherever did Moses speak in the name of God, and say, I Jehovah will do this and this, or be so and so, unto my people ? 5. It is true, men may be said to do in their place and kind of operation,

what God doth do ; he as the principal efficient, they as the instrumental cause, and so may every other creature in the world ; as the sun gives light and heat; but shall therefore, that which God speaks in his own name of himself, be so much as accommodated unto them? 6, The conjunction that is between God and Christ, according to our catechists, is but of love and favour on the part of God, of obedience and dependance on the part of Christ; but this in the same kind, though not in the same degree, is between God and all believers; so that of them also, what is spoken of God may be spoken.

And thus, through the presence of God, have I gone through with the consideration of all the testimonies, given in the Scripture of the Deity of Christ, which these catechists thought good to take notice of; with a full answer to their long chapter' de Persona Christ!.' The learned reader knows how much all the arguments we insist on, and the testimonies we produce in this cause, might have been improved to a greater advantage of clearness and evidence, had I taken liberty to handle them, as they naturally fall into several heads, from the demonstration of all the names and properties, all the works and laws, all the worship and honour of God, to be given and ascribed to Jesus Christ: but the work I had to do cast my endeavour in this business into that order and method, wherein it is here presented to the reader.

The conclusion of our catechists is a long harangue, wherein they labour to insinuate the prejudicialness of our doctrine, to the true knowledge of Christ, and the obtaining of salvation by him, with the certain foundation that is laid in theirs, for the participation of all the benefits of the gospel. The only medium they fix upon, for to gain both these ends by, is this, that we deny Christ to be a true man, which they assert. That the first of these is notoriously false, is known to all other men, and is acknowledged in their own consciences. Of the truth of the latter elsewhere. He that had a perfect human nature, soul and body, with all the natural and essential properties of them both; he who was born so, lived so, died so, rose again so, was, and is a perfect man; so that all the benefits that we do or may receive from Jesus Christ, as a perfect man, like unto us in all things, sin only

excepted, there is a way open for, in this our confession of him. In the meantime, the great foundation of our faith, hope, and expectation, lies in this, that *he is the Son of the living God,' and so, that ' God redeemed his church with his own blood;' he who was of the fathers, 'according to the flesh, being God over all, blessed for ever :' which, if he had not been, he could not have performed the work, which for us he had to do. It is true, perhaps, as a mere man he might do all that our catechists acknowledge him to have done, and accomplish all that they expect from him; but for us, who fly to him, as one that suffered for our sins, and made satisfaction to the justice of God for them; who wrought out a righteousness, that is reckoned to all that believe ; that quickens us when we are dead, and sends the Holy Ghost to dwell and abide in us, and is himself present with us, &,c. It is impossible we should ever have the least consolation in our flying for refuge to him, unless we had this grounded persuasion concerning his eternal power and Godhead, We cannot think he was made the Son of God, and a God, upon the account of what he did for us ; but that being God, and the Son of God, herein was his love made manifest, that he was 'made flesh,' took upon him the ' form of a servant,' and became therein for us ' obedient unto death, the death of the cross.' Many, indeed, and inexpressible are the encouragements unto faith, and consolation in believing, that we do receive from Christ's being made like to us, a perfect man, wherein he underwent what we were obnoxious unto, and whereby he knows how to be compassionate unto us; but that any sweetness can be hence derived unto any, who do refuse to own the fountain, whence all the streams of love and mercy that run in the human nature of Christ do flow, that we deny. Yea, that our adversaries in this business have any foundation for faith, love, or hope, or can have any acceptance with God, or with Jesus Christ, but rather that they are cursed on the one hand for robbing him of the glory of his Deity, and on the other for putting their confidence in a man, we daily demonstrate from innumerable testimonies of Scripture. And for these men, the truth is, as they lay out the choicest of all their endeavours to prove him not to be God by nature, and so not at all (for a made god, a second-rank god, a deified man, is no God; the Lord

our God being one, and the conceit of it brings in the polytheism of the heathen amongst the professors of the name of Christ); so they also deny him to be true man now he is in heaven, or to retain the nature of a man: and so instead of a Christ that was God from eternity, made a man in one person unto eternity, they believe in a Christ who was a man, and is made a God, who never had the nature of God, and had then the nature of man, but hath lost it. This Mr. B. after his masters, instructs his disciples in, in his lesser catechism, chap. x. namely, that although Christ rose with his fleshly body, wherein he was crucified, yet now he hath a spiritual body, not in its qualities, but substance; a body that hath neither flesh nor bones. What he hath done with his other body, where he laid it aside, or how he disposeth of it, he doth not declare.

CHAP. XV.

Of the Holy Ghost, his Deity, graces, and operations. MR. BIDDLE'S FIFTH CHAPTER EXAMINED.

' Q. How many Holy Spirits of Christians are there ^

* A. Eph. iv. 4.

* Q. Wherein consists the prerogative of the Holy Spirit above other spirits ?

'A. 1 Cor. ii. 10, 11.

* Q. Whence is the Holy Ghost sent? *A. 1 Pet. i. 12.

*Q. By whom? 'A. Gal. iv. 6.

' Q. Doth not Christ aflirm that he also sends him ? How speaketh he ?

* A. John. xvi. 7.

* Q. Had Jesus Christ always the power to send the Holy Ghost, or did he obtain it at a certain time ?

'A. Acts ii. 32, 33. John vii. 39.

'Q. What were the general benefits accruing to Christians by the Holy Ghost?

' A. 1 Cor. xii. 13. Rom. viii. 16. 26,27. v. 5. Col. i. 8. Eph. i. 17. Rom. xv. 13. xiv. 17. Acts ix. 31. Eph. iii. 16.

*Q. What are the special benefits accruing to the apostles by the Holy Ghost? What saith Christ to them hereof?

* A. John XV. 26. xvi. 13.

*Q. Should the Holy Ghost lead them into all truth, as speaking of himself, and imparting of his own fulness ? What saith Christ concerning him ?

'A. John xvi. 13, 14.

' Q. Do men receive the Holy Ghost while they are of the world, and in their natural condition, to the end that they may become the children of God, may receive the word, may believe, may repent, may obey Christ ? or, after they are become the children of God, have received the word, do believe, do repent, do obey Christ ?

*A. John xiv. 16, 17. 1 Cor. ii. 14. Gal. iv. 6. Acts viii. 14—16. John vii. 38, 39. Acts xix. 1, 2. Eph. i. 13. Gal. iii. 14. Acts XV. 7, 8. ii. 38. v. 32.'

EXAMINATION.

Of the Deity of the Holy Ghost; and his work, &c. The fifth chapter of our catechist is concerning the Holy Ghost, for reducing of whom into the order and rank of creatures, Mr. B.'' hath formerly taken great pains ; following therein the Macedonians of old, and leaving his new masters, the Socinians, who deny him his personality, and leave him to be only the efficacy, or energy of the power of Uod. The design is the same in both, the means used to bring it about differ. The'' Socinians, not able to answer the testimonies proving him to be God, to be no creature, do therefore deny his personality; Mr. B. being not able to stand before the clear evidence of his personality, denies his Deity. What he hath done in this chapter I shall consider; what he hath elsewhere done, hath already met with a detection from another hand.

* Q. How many Holy Spirits of Christians are there?

* A. One spirit. Eph. iv. 4.'

I must take leave to put one question to Mr. B. that we may the better know the mind and meaning of his : and that is, what he means by the 'Holy Spirits of Christians?' if he intend that Spirit which they worship, invocate, believe, and

* See his confession in his Epistle to his book against tlie Deity of Christ. ^ Clopenburgius Vindiciae pro Deitate S. S. adversus Pneumatomach. Bedellum Anglura.

are baptized into bis name, who quickens and sanctifies them, and from whom they have their supplies of grace; it is true, there is but one only Spirit of Christians, as is evi-; dent, Eph. iv. 4. and this Spirit is 'God blessed forever:' nor can any be called that one Spirit of Christians, but he that is so. But if by the Holy Spirits of Christians, he intends created spiritual beings, sent out of God for the good of Christians, of those that believe, there are then an innumerable company of Holy Spirits of believers; for all the angels are 'ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them, who shall be heirs of salvation ;' Heb. i. 13, 14. So that by this one testimony, that there is but one Holy Spirit of Christians, that Holy Spirit is exempted from the number of all created spirits, and reckoned as the object of their worship, with the one God, and one Lord ; Eph. iv. 4—6. When yet they worship the Lord their God alone, and 'him only do they serve;' Matt. ir. 10.

His second question is, ' Wherein consists the prerogative of that Holy Spirit above other spirits ? 'A. 1 Cor. ii. 10, 11.

The prerogative of that Holy Spirit, of whom we speak, is, that of God above his creature : the prerogative of an infinite, eternal, self-subsisting being. Yea, and that this is indeed his prerogative, we need not seek for proof beyond that testimony here produced by Mr. B. (though to another purpose) in answer to his question. He that ' searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God,' is God. To search all things is the same with knowing all things ; so the apostle interprets it in the next verse: ' none knoweth the things of God, save the Spirit of God.' To know all things, is to be omniscient; but he that is omniscient, is God. His angels he charged with folly. Omniscience is an essential attribute of God; and therefore, Socinus, in his disputation with ''Franken, durst not allow Christ to be omniscient, lest he should also grant him to be infinite in essence. Again, he that searches, or knows to. ftd^r) rov ^eov, the 'deep things of God,' is God. None can know the deep things of an infinite wisdom and understanding, but he that is infinite. All creatures are excluded from an acquaintance with the deep things of God, but only as he voluntarily revealeth them ;

■■ De Adorationc Jcsu Cliristi (lisputatio-.p. 10, 19-

Rom. xi. 34. * Who hath known the mind of God, or who hath been his counsellor;' that is, no creature hath so been ; •S'eoi'owSiic i(!opaKe TTMwoTa' John i. 18. Now the Spirit doth not know the deep things of God, by his voluntary revelation of them. For as the spirit of a man knows the things of a man, so doth the spirit of God know the things of God. This is not because they are revealed to the spirit of a man, but because that is the principle of operation in a man, and is conscious to all its own actions and affairs. And so it is with the Spirit of God; being God, and having the same understanding, and will, and power, with God the Father, and Son; as the spirit of a man knows the things of a man, so doth he the things of God. Thus in the beginning of this, as in the close of the last chapter, Mr. B. hath provided sufficiently for his own conviction, and scattering of all his paralogisms, and sophistical insinuations, running throuo^h them both.

The design of this present chapter, being to pursue what Mr. B. hath some years since publicly undertaken, viz. to disprove the Deity of the Holy Ghost; his aim here being to divert the thoughts of his catechumens from an apprehension thereof, by his proposal and answers of such questions as serve to his design, pretending to deliver the doctrine concerning the Holy Ghost from the Scripture, and not once producing any of tliose texts, which are most usually insisted on for the confirmation of his Deity (with what Christian candour and ingenuity is easily discovered); I shall briefly from the Scripture, in the first place, establish the truth concerning the eternal Deity of the person of the Holy Ghost; and then consider his questions in their order, so far as shall be judged meet or necessary.

I shall not go forth unto any long discourse on this subject; some plain testimonies of Scripture will evince the truth we contend for; being the heads of as many arguments, if any one shall be pleased to make use of them in that way. 1. Then, the Spirit created, formed, and adorned this world ; and is, therefore, God. ' He that made all things, is God;' Heb. iii. 4. ' By the word of the Lord were the heavens made, and all the host of them by the Spirit of his mouth ;' Psal. xxxiii. 6.' By his Spirit hath he garnished the heavens;' Job xxvi. 13.'The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath

of the Almighty hath given me life;' chap, xxxiii.4. Psal. civ.

30. He that makes the heavens, and g-arnisheth them; he that maketh man, and giveth him life, is God. So in the beginning DDniD, motahat se, moved himself, as a dove warming its young, as he aftenvard appeared in the form of a dove. And hence that which is ascribed unto God absolutely in one place, is in another ascribed to the Spirit absolutely, as Exod. iv. 15. Num. xii, 8. What it is affirmed that God doth, will do, or did, is affirmed of the Spirit; Aces i. 16. xxviii. 25. so Num. xiv. 22. Deut. vi. 16. What is said of God, is affirmed of the Spirit, Isa. Ixiii. 10. Acts vii. 51. so also Deut. xxxii. 12. compared with Isa. Ixiii. 14. innumerable other instances of the same kind might be added.

2. He regenerates us. Unless we are * born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot enter into the kingdom of God;' John iii. 5. 2 Thess. ii. 13. 1 Pet. i. 2. He also, ' searcheth all things, even the deep things of God,' as was before observed; 1 Cor. ii. 10, 11. From him is our illumination ;' Eph. i. 17, 18. 2 Cor. iii. 18. John xiv. 26. ' The Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, he shall teach you all things ;' chap.xvi. 13. ' The Spirit of truth shall guide you into all truth.'' The Holy Ghost shall teach you;' Luke xii. 12. And he ' foretelleth things to come:' John xvi. 13. 1 Tim. iv. 1. which is a property of God, whereby he will be known from all false gods; Isa. xii. 22, 23, &c. and he is in some of these places expressly called God ; as also, 1 Cor. xii. 5, 6. compared with ver. 11. and he is immense, who 'dwells in all believers.'

3. He dwelleth in us,as God in a temple; Rom. viii. 9. 1 Cor. iii. 16. thereby sanctifying us, 1 Cor, vi. 11. comforting us, John xvi. 8. and 'helping our infirmities; Rom. viii. 26. mortifying our sins ; Rom. viii. 13. creating in us Christian graces; Gal. vi. yea, he is the author of all grace; as is evident in that promise made of his presence with the Messiah; Isa. xi. 2. I say with the Messiah, for of him only are those Avords to be understood; to which purpose, 1 cannot but add the words of an old friar to the shame of some amongst us, who should know more, or be more Christian in their expositions of Scripture ; saith he, speaking of this place, ' Note'' that in innumerable places of the

•' Nota quod in locis innuntcris in Talnuui lioc c.vpoiiitur de Messiah, et nunquain

Talmud, this is expounded of the Messiah, and never of any other, by any one who is of any authority among the Hebrews. Wherefore, it is evident, that some amongst us, too much Judaizing, do err, whilst they fear not to expound this literally of Josiah; but that this is to be understood of the Messiah only is shewed by Rabbi Solomon, who expounds it of hira, and not of Josiah; which, according to his way, he would never have done, if without the injury of his Talmud and Targum, and the prejudice of all his predecessors, he could have expounded it otherwise.' So far he.

It is not a little strange, that some Christians should venture farther in perverting the testimonies of Scripture concerning the Messiah, than the Jews dare to do.

4. He makes, and appoints to himself, and his service, ministers of church; Acts xiii. 2. giving unto them powers, and working various and wonderful works, as * he pleaseth;' 1 Cor. xii. 8.

5. He is sinned against; and so offended with sin, that the sin against him shall never be forgiven; Matt. xii. 31. Though it be not against his person, but some especial grace and dispensation of his.

6. He* is the object of divine worship; we being baptized into his name, as that of the Father and Son; Matt, xxviii. 19. And grace is prayed for from him, as from Father and Son; 2 Cor. xiii. 13. Rev. i. 4. Rom. x. 14. He is to be head of churches ; Rev. ii. 3. But God will not give this glory to another; Isa. xiii. 8. Also, he hath the name of God given him; Isa. vi. 9. compared with Acts xxviii. 25, 26. and Isa. Ixiii. 13, 14. with Psal. xviii. 41. 52. 2 Sam. xxiii. 2, 3. Acts v. 3. And the attributes of God are ascribed to him, as (1.) Ubiquity, or omnipresence, Psal. cxxxix. 7. 1 Cor. iii. 16. (2.) Omniscience, 1 Cor. ii. 10. John xvi. 13. His omnipotency and eternity are both manifest from the creation.

de alio, ab aliquo qui alicujus apud HaBbraeos autboritatis sit; quare patet quod errant, nimium judaizantes nosiri, qui boc de Josia ad lileraiu non verentur exponere : de solo quippe JMessia boc intelligendum fore, ostenditur per R. Solomon, qui boc de ipso non de Josiab exponit; quodjuxta moreni suum nunquam egisset, si absque injuria sui Talmud et Targura, et sine prffidecessorum suorum omnium praejudicio, aliter exponere potuisset. Kaymund. Marti, pug. fid. p. 3. d. 1. c. 11.

<^~OvTO^o Sso; So^tt^o^uEvo; Iv EXxXoiTta, Ttarhp all, viog a£i, wvuijxa. aytov a£i. Epipban. Ancorat. cap. 73. ToTrviZ/xa to ayiov, to a-lv TraT^i, kcu vlZ trvfX'K^oa-Kvvovfji.iwv, x«( <ryvJo|-a{o'/w£vov. Symbol. Cone. Constantinop.

To all this, in a word, it may be added, that he is a person; the denial whereof" is the only Kpijacpvyy^ov of the Socinians. They acknowledge, that if he be a person, he is God. But, (1.) He is a person, who hath a name, and in whose name something is done, as we are said to be baptized in the name of the Holy Ghost; Matt, xxviii. 19. and, (2.) He is conjoined with the other divine persons, as one of them; 2 Cor. xiii. 13. Rev. i. 4, 5. Matt, xxviii. 19. (3.) He hath an understanding, 1 Cor. ii. 11. and a will ; 1 Cor. xii. 11. (4.) To him are speaking, and words ascribed, and such actions, as are peculiar to persons; Acts xiii. 2. xx. 28, 6vc.

What remains of this chapter will be of a brief and easy despatch. The next question is,

* Whence is the Holy Ghost sent?

' A. 1 Pet. i. 12. Down from heaven.'

1. This advantageth not at all Mr. Biddle's design against the Holy Ghost, to prove him not to be God, that he is 'sent down from heaven,' whereby he supposeth, that his coming from one place to another is intimated. Seeing he supposes God to be so in heaven, yea, in some certain place of heaven, as at the same time not to be elsewhere; so that if ever he be in the earth, he must come down from heaven.

2. Nor is there any thing in his being sent, prejudicial to the prerogative of his divine being. For he, who is God, equal in nature to the Father and the Son, yet in respect of the order of that dispensation, that these '^three who are in heaven, who are also one, have engaged in for the salvation of men, may be sent of the Father and the Son, having the execution of that work which they respectively concur in, in an eminent manner to him committed.

3. Wherever the Spirit is said to descend from heaven, it is to be understood according to the analogy of what we have already spoken, concerning the presence of God in heaven, with his looking and going down from thence, which I shall not repeat again. Essentially he is every where; Psal. cxxxix. 1—3, &c.

4. In that place of Peter alleged by Mr. Biddle, not the person of the Spirit, but his gifts on the apostles, and his

« 1 John V. 7.

Operations in them, whose great and visible foundations were laid. Acts ii. on the day of Pentecost, are intended.

The two next questions, leading only to an expression of the sending of the Holy Ghost by the Father and the Son, though Mr. Biddle's Christians differ about the interpretation of the places produced for the proof thereof, and there lie no small argument and evidence of the Deity of Christ, in his sending of the Holy Ghost, as the Father sends him, yet there being an agreement in the expressions themselves, I shall not insist upon them. He proceeds.

*Q. Had Jesus Christ always the power to send the Holy Ghost, or did he obtain it at a certain time ? 'A. Acts ii. 32, 33. John vii. 39.'

1. The intendment of this query is, to conclude from some certain respect and manner of sending the Holy Ghost to the thing itself: from the sending him in a visible, glorious, plentiful, eminent manner,s as to the effusion of his gifts and graces, to the sending of him absolutely; which methinks a Master of Arts should know to be a sophisticalway of arguing. 2. It endeavours also, from the exercise of power to conclude to the receiving of the power itself; and that not the absolute exercise of it neither, but in some certain respect, as was spoken. 3. This then is that, which Mr. Biddle concludes. Because Christ when he was exalted, or when he ascended into heaven, had the accomplishment of the promise actually in the sending forth of the Spirit, in that abundant and plentiful manner which was prophesied of by Joel, chap. ii. 28. therefore he then first received power to send the Spirit. Which, 4. by the testimony of Christ himself is false, and not the sense of the Holy Ghost in the places mentioned; seeing that ''before hisascension he breathed on his disciples, and bade them receive the Holy Ghost. Nay, 5. that he had power of sending the Holy Ghost, and did actually send him, not only before his ascension and exaltation, but also before his incarnation, is expressly affirmed, 1 Pet.i. 11. 'TheSpirit that was in the prophets of old, was the Spirit of Christ,' and sent by him ; as was that Spirit, by which he ]3reached in the days of the old disobedient world ; which places have been formerly vindicated at large. So that, 6. as that place. Acts ii. 32, 33. is there expounded to be concerning the plentiful

e 'a*x5? xara T(. ''John XX. 22,

VOL. VIII. 2 G

effusion of the gifts of the Holy Spirit in the times of the gospel, according to the prophecy of Joel: so also is that of John vii. 39. it being positively affirmed, as to the thing itself, that he gave the Holy Ghost before his exaltation, though not in that abundant manner as afterward. And so neither of them conclude any thing, as to the time of Christ's receiving power to send the Spirit; which upon the supposition of such a work, as for the accomplishment whereof it was necessary the Holy Ghost should be sent, he had from eternity.

About the next question we shall not contend. It is, * Q. What were the general benefits accruing to Christians by the Holy Ghost?' Whereunto sundry texts of Scripture, that make mention of the Holy Ghost, his graces, and gifts, are subjoined. Upon the whole 1 have only some few things to animadvert.

1. If by the word ' general benefits,' he limits the receiving of those benefits of the Holy Ghost to any certain time (as suppose the time of his first plentiful effusion upon the ascension of Jesus Christ, and the preaching of the gospel to all nations thereupon); as it is a sacrilegious conception, robbing believers of after ages, to the end of the world, of all the fruits of the efficacy of the Spirit, without which they can neither enjoy communion with God in this I^ife, nor ever be brought to an eternal fruition of him ; so it is most false, and contrary to the express prayer of our Saviour, desiring the same things for them, who should believe on his name to the end of the world, as he did for those who conversed with him in the days of his flesh. But I will suppose this is not his intention; because it would plainly deny that there are any Christians in the world ("which yet was the opinion of some of his friends heretofore), for ^*if we have not the Spirit of Christ we are none of his.'

2. The things enumerated, may be called general benefits, because they are common to all believers, as to the substance, essence, or being of them ; though in respect of their degrees they are communicated variously to the several individuals;' the same Spirit dividing to every one as he will; they are so general to them all, that every particular believer enjoys them all.

' Socinus. Epist. 3. ad Math. Had. ^ Rom. viii. 9. ■' 1 Cor. xii. 11.

3. The enumeration here given us, is very far and remote from being complete ; there being only some few fruits of the Spirit and privileges, which we receive by our receiving of him, recounted ; and that in a very confused manner, one thing being added after another, without any order or coherence at all. Yea, of the benefits we receive by the Spirit, of the graces he w^orks in us, of the helps he affords us, of that joy and consolation he imparts unto us, of the daily assistances we receive from him, of the might of his power put forth in us, of the efficacy of his operations, the constancy of his presence, the privileges by him imparted, there is not by any in this life a full account to be given. To insist on particulars is not my present task : I have also in part done it elsewhere.'

4.1 desire Mr. Biddle seriously to consider, whether even the things which he thinks good to mention, may possibly be ascribed to a mere creature, or that all believers are by such a one * baptized into one body;' that we ' are all made to drink into one Spirit, &c.' But of these things before. Unto this he adds,

' Q. What are the special benefits accruing to the apostles by the Holy Ghost: and what saith Christ to them thereof?

'A. John XV. 26. Acts xvi. 13.'

Besides the graces of the Spirit, which the apostles, as believers, received in a plentiful manner; they had also his presence by his extraordinary gifts to fit them for that whole extraordinary work, whereunto of him they were called. For as by his authority they were separated to the work, and were to perform it unto him. Acts xiii. 2. so whatever work they were to perform, either as apostles, or as penmen'of the Scripture of the New Testament, they had suitable gifts bestowed on them by him; 1 Cor. xii. Inspiration from him suitable to their work; 2 Pet. i. 21. 2 Tim. iii. 17, the Scripture being of inspiration from God, because the holy men that wrote it were '"inspired or moved by the Holy Ghost. And as this Holy Ghost, who is God,' working all in all,' that divideth of his gifts, as he will, 1 Cor. xii. 6. 12. and giveth all gifts whatever to the church, that it doth enjoy; so did he in an especial manner with the apostles.

Now our Saviour Christ being to leave the world, giving

' Perseverance of Saints, c. 8. ™ 'Ttto Trnv/jiciTOi kylov <})EJ5/u.ivoi.

2 G 2

452 DEITY OF THE HOLY GHOST!

gracious promises to his disciples, he considered them under a twofold capacity or condition. 1. Of believers ; of such as followed him, and believed in him, wherein their estate was coDimon with that of all them who "were to believe on him to the end of the world. 2. Of apostles, and of such as he intended to employ in that great work of planting his church in the world, and propagating his gospel to the ends of it. Under both these considerations doth he promise the Spirit to his disciples. John xiii. 14—16. praying his Father for the accomplishment of those promises; chap. xvii. that as believers they might be kept in the course of their obedience to the end : in which regard he made those promises no less to us than to them. And,

2. That as apostles they might be furnished for theirwork, preserved, and made prosperous therein. Of this latter sort, some passages in the verses here mentioned seem to be, and may have a peculiar regard thereunto, and yet in their substance are of the first kind, and are made good to all believers. Neither is there any more said concerning the teaching and guidance of the Spirit into the truth, in John XV. 26. xvi. 13. than is said 1 John ii. 20. 27. wdiere it is expressly assigned to all believers. Of that unction and teaching of the Spirit, of his preserving us in all truth needful for our communion with God ; of his bringing to mind what Christ had spoken for our consolation and establishment with efficacy and power, things I fear despised by Mr. Bid-die, this is not a season to treat.

That which follows concerns the order and way of procedure, insisted on by the Son and Holy Ghost, in carrying on the work of our salvation and propagation of the gospel, whose sovereign fountain is in the bosom of the Father. His query is,

' Q. Should the Holy Ghost lead them into all truth, as speaking of himself, and imparting of his own fulness ? What saith Christ concerning him ? A. John xvi. 13, 14.'

1. The Scripture proposeth the Holy Ghost in the communication of his gifts and graces under a double consideration. 1. Absolutely; as he is God himself: and so he speaketh of himself, and the churches are commanded to attend to what he so saith ; Rev. ii. 29. And he imparts of his

" John xvii. 20.

own fulness: the self-same Spirit dividing to every one as hewill; 1 Cor. xii. 11. And in thissense, what the prophets say in the Old Testament, ' The Word of the Lord,' and * Thus saith the Lord ;' in the New they are said to speak by the Spirit; Matt. xxii. 43. Acts i. 15. 2 Pet. i. 21.

2. Relatively ; and that both in respect of subsistence and operation, as to the great work of saving sinners by Jesus Christ. And as in the first of these senses, he is not of himself, being the Spirit of the Father and the Son, proceeding from them both : so neither doth he speak of himself, but according to what he receiveth of the Father and the Son. 2. Our Saviour Christ says here, ' He shall not speak of himself :' but he nowhere says, ' He shall not impart of his own fulness,' which is Mr. Biddle's addition. To * speak of himselP shews the original authority of him that speaks, whereby he speaks to be in himself; which as to the words and works pointed to, is not in the Holy Ghost personally considered, and as in this dispensation. But, to impart of his own fulness, is to give out of that which is eminently in himself; which the Holy Ghost doth, as hath been shewn. 3. Christ, in the words insisted on, comforting his disciples with the promise of the presence of his Spirit, when he should be bodily absent from them, acquaints them also with the works that he should do, when he came to them and upon them, in that clear, eminent, and abundant manner, which he had promised ; which is not any new work, or any other than what he had already acquainted them with, nor the accomplishment of any thing, but what he had laid the foundation of; yea, that all the mercy, grace, light, guidance, direction, consolation, peace, joy, gifts, that he should communicate to them, and bless them withal, should be no other, but what were procured and purchased for them by himself. These things is the Spirit said to hear and speak, to receive and communicate, as being the proper purchase and inheritance of another: and in so doing to glorify him, whose they are, in that peculiar sense and manner. All that discourse which we have of the mission and sending of the Holy Ghost, and his proceeding or coming forth from the Father and Son, for the ends specified, John xiv. 26. xv. 26. xvi. 7. 13. concerns not at all the eternal procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father

and Son, as to his distinct personality and subsistence, but belongs to that economy or dispensation of ministry, that the whole Trinity proceedeth in, for the accomplishment of the work of our salvation.

The last query, by the lieap of Scriptures that is gathered in answer to it, seems to have most weight laid upon it: but is indeed of all the rest most weakly sophistical. The words of it are,

' Q. Do men receive the Holy Ghost, while they are of the world, and in their natural condition, to the end that they may become the children of God, may receive the word, may believe, may repent, may obey Christ, or after they are become the children of God, have received the word, do believe, do repent, do obey Christ?

'A. The answer is as above. To the same purpose is that of the Racovian catechism.

' Q. Is" there not need of the internal gift of the Spirit, that we may believe the gospel ?

' A. By no means ; for we do not read in the Scripture, that that gift is conferred on any, but him that believes the gospel.'

Remove the ambiguity of that expression, ' believe the gospel' and those two questions perfectly fall in together. it may then be taken either for believing the doctrine of the gospel, in opposition to the law, and in this sense it is not here inquired after ; or for the power of believing in the subject, and in that sense it is here denied.

Now the design of this question is, to deny the effectual operation of the Holy Ghost, for and in the conversion, regeneration, and sanctification of the elect, and to vindicate the whole work of faith, holiness, quickening, &.c. to ourselves. The way designed for the proof and establishment of this insinuation consists, in producing sundry testimonies, wherein it is affirmed, that those who do believe, and are the children of God, do receive the Spirit for other ends and purposes than those here enumerated. The sum of his argument is this : If they who do believe, and are the children of God, do receive the Spirit of God, for their adoption, and

• Nonne ad credendum Evangelic S. S. intcriore dono opus est?—Nullo inodo; nou cniin in Scripturis Icginius, cuiquani id coufciri donun;, nh'i crcdenti ^vangelio, Cap. 6. dc Promiss.S. S.

the carrying on of the work of their sanctification, with the supply of new grace, the confirmation and enlargement of what they have received, with joy, consolation, and peace; with other gifts, that are necessary for any work or employment, that they are called unto ; then the Holy Spirit doth not quicken, nor regenerate them, nor work faith in them, nor make them the children of God, nor implant them into Christ. Now when Mr. B. proves this consequence, I will confess him to be master of one art, which he never learned at Oxford ; unless it were his business to learn what he was taught to avoid.

2. But Mr. B. hath one fetch of his skill more in this question. He asks, whether men do receive the Holy Ghost, when they are of the world ; and for a confutation of any such apprehension, produceth testimonies of Scripture, that the world cannot receive the Holy Ghost, nor the natural man the things of God. But who told this gentleman that we say, men whilst they are in, and of the world, do receive the Spirit of God, or the things of the Spirit, in the Scripture sense of the use of that word, ' receiving?' The expression is metaphorical, yet always in the case of the things of the gospel, denoting the actings of faith in them who are said to receive any thing from God. Now if this gentleman could persuade us that we say, that we receive the Spirit by faith, to the end that we may have faith, he might as easily lead us about whither he pleased, as the Philistines did Samson, when they had put out his eyes. A little then to instruct this catechist; I desire him to take notice, that properly, the Spirit is received by faith, to the ends and purposes by him mentioned, with many such others, as might be added ; but yet before men's being enabled to receive it, that Spirit by his power and the efficacy of his grace, quickeneth, rege-nerateth, and worketh faith in their hearts. In brief, the Spirit is considered and promised, either as a Spirit of regeneration, with all the concomitants and essential consequents thereof; or as a Spirit of adoption, and the consequents thereof. In the first sense he works in men in order of nature, antecedent to their believing; faith being a fruit of the Spirit: in the latter, and for the ends and purposes thereof, he is received by faith, and given in order of nature upon believing.

3. That the world cannot receive the Spirit, nor the natural man the things of God, is from hence ; that the Spirit hath not wrought in them that which is necessary to enable them thereunto ; which is evident from what is affirmed of the impotency of the natural man, as to his receiving the things of God : for if the reason, why he cannot receive the things of God, is, because he is a natural man, then, unless there be some other power than what is in himself, to translate him from that condition, it is impossible, that he, who is a natural man, should ever be otherwise : for he can only alter that condition, by that which he cannot do. But,

4. That the Spirit is given for, and doth work regeneration and faith in men, I shall not now insist on the many testimonies, whereby it is usually and invincibly confirmed. There is no one testimony given, to our utter impotency to convert, or regenerate ourselves, to believe, repent, and turn to God; no promise of the covenant to give a new heart, new obedience through Christ; no assertion of the grace of God, and the efficacy of his power, which is exalted in the vocation and conversion of sinners, but sufficiently evinces the truth thereof. That one eminent instance shall close our consideration of this chapter, which we have, Titus iii. 5, 6. 'Not by works of righteousness, which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and the renewing of the Holy Ghost, which he shed on us abundantly by Jesus Christ our Saviour.'

Of the first head made by men professing the religion of Jesus Christ, unto the Deity of the Spirit, attempting to rank him among the works of his own hand, of the peculiar espousing of an enmity against him by Macedonius, bishop of Constantinople, from whom the ensuing Tri^eu/uorojitaxot took their name, of the novel inventions of Faustus Socinus and his followers, denying the personality of the Spirit, making him to be nothing but the efficacy of the power of God, or the power of God, this is no place to treat. Besides, the truth is, until they will speak clearly what they mean by the Spirit of God, and so assert something, as well as deny, they may justly be neglected. They tell us it is virtus dei: but whether that virtus be substantia or accideus, they will not tell us; it is they ndLypotentia dei: this we confess; but

say, he is not potentia cvtpyijrticT), but vTroo-rariici/: and that because we prove him to be God. What then hath been spoken of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, I shall shut up with that distich of Gregor. Naz. Sent. Spir. lib. 3.

ni-vra fxh alh a^ia-ra SiCTrjETTE; spya rtKliirrot

CHAP. XVI.

Of salvation hy Christ.

MR. BIDDLE'S SIXTH CHAPTER CONSIDERED.

This is a short chapter, and will speedily receive its consideration. That Christ is a Saviour, and that he is so called in Scripture, is confessed on all hands. Mr. B.'s masters were the first who directly called into question amongst Christians, on what account principally he is so called. Of his faith in this business, and theirs, we have the sum, with the reasons of it, in the book of their great apostle, *.De Jesu Christo Servatore.' This book is answered throughout with good success, by Sibi'andus Labbatus. The nerves of it cut by Grotius, * De satisfactione Christi;' and the reply of Crellius thereunto thoroughly removed by Essenius, in his 'TriumphusCrucis.' The whole argumentative part of it, summed up into five heads, by Michael Gittichius, is answered by Ludovicus Lucius, and that answer vindicated from the reply of Gittichius. And generally, those who have written upon the satisfaction of Christ, have looked upon that book, as the main masterpiece of the adversaries, and have made it their business to remove its sophistry, and unmask its pretensions.

Mr. B. is very slight and overly in this business, being not able in the method of procedure imposed on himself so much as to deliver his mind significantly, as to what he does intend. The denial and rejection of the satisfaction and merit of Christ, is that which the man intends, as is evident from his preface, where he denies them name and thing. This he attempts, partly in this chapter, partly in that concerning the death of Christ, and also that of justification. In this he would attempt the notion of salvation, and refer it only to deliverance from death, l)y a glorious resurrection.

Some brief animadversions may possibly rectify the man's mistakes. His first question we pass, as a principle in the terms of it on all sides confessed, namely, that 'Christ is om' Lord and Saviour.' His second is,

' Q. Is Christ our Saviour originally, and of himself; or because he was given, exalted, and raised up by another to be a Saviour ?

*A. Acts iv, 12. V. 31. xiii. 23.'

The intendment of this quere is, to pursue the former insinuations of our catechist against the Deity of Christ; as though his appointment to his office of mediation, were inconsistent with his divine nature; the vanity of which pretence hath been sufficiently already discovered. In brief, Christ is considered either absolutely, with respect to his divine nature and person, as he is God in himself; and so he is a Saviour originally, of himself; for ' as for our Re-. deemer the Lord of hosts is his name, the Holy One of Israel ;' Isa. xlvii. 4. * For thy Maker is thine husband, the Lord of hosts is his name, the Holy One of Israel;' chap, liv. 5. In this sense was Christ a Saviour originally, and of himself; but as he took flesh, to accomplish the work of our redemption, by tasting death for us, though his own merciful and gracious will did concur therein, yet was he eminently designed to that work, and given by his Father, in love and mercy, contriving the work of our salvation. And this latter is mentioned not only in the places cited by our catechist, but also in a hundred more, and not one of them lying in the least subserviency to Mr. B.'s design. His last quere is,

'Q. How do the saints expect to be saved by Christ? * A. Rom. V. 10. Phil. iii. 20, 21.'

The intendment of this question, must be to answer the general proposal, in what sense Christ is our Saviour, and how his people are saved by him. Now, however that be true in itself which is here asserted, and is the exurgency of the question and answer, as connected, the saints expecting salvation by Christ, in the complete accomplishment of it by his power in heaven, yet as here proposed to give an account of the whole sense, wherein Christ is our Saviour, is most false and deceitful. Christ is a Saviour principally

as he was promised, and came to save his people from their sins, whence he had his name of Jesus, or a Saviour ; Matt. i. 21. and that by his death ; Heb. ii. 14, 15. or laying down his life a ransom for us; Matt. xx. 28. and giving himself a price of redemption for us, 1 Tim. ii. 6. * by whom we have redemption by his blood, even the forgiveness of sins ;' Eph. i. 7. so saving or delivering us from the wrath that is to come ; 1 Thess. i. Lastly, The salvation, which we have by Christ, which this chapter in title pretends to discover, is from sin, the world, Satan, death, wrath, curse, the law, bearing of us unto acceptation with God, peace, reconciliation, and glory. But that the doctrines before-mentioned, without which these things cannot once be apprehended, may be obscured or lost, are these wholly omitted. Of the sense of Rom. v. 10. and what is there intended by the life of Christ, I shall farther treat, when I come to speak about justification; and of the whole business under our consideration of the death of Christ.

CHAP. XVII.

Of the mediation of Christ. In his seventh chapter he proposeth two questions in general, about the mediation of Christ; answering first, that he is a Mediator, from 1 Tim. ii. 5. 2. That he is the Mediator of the new covenant; Heb. viii. 6. xii. 24. But as to his work of mediation, what it is, wherein it doth consist, on what account principally Christ is called our Mediator, whether he be a Mediator with God for us, as well as a Mediator with us for God; and how he carries on that work ; wherein he knows the difference between us and his masters about this matter doth lie, he speaks not one word, nor gives any occasion to me to enter into the consideration of it. What I suppose necessary to offer to this head, I shall do it in the ensuing discourse of the death of Christ, the ends thereof, and the satisfaction thereby.

And therefore, 1 shall hereunto add his ninth chapter also, which is concerning remission of sins by Jesus Christ. The difference between his masters and us, being about the meritorious and procuring cause of remission of sins by Christ, which here he mentions not; what is farther to be

added thereabout, will fall in also under the consideration of the death of Christ, and our justification thereby.

His first question is altogether out of question, namely, * Who shall have remission of sins by Christ?' It is granted, all, and only believers. ' He that believeth shall be saved, and he that believeth not, shall be damned ;' Mark xvi. 16. ' To as many as receive him, power is given to become the sons of God, even as many as believe in his name ;' Johni. 12.

To his next question an answer may be given, that will suit that following also; which is the whole of this chapter; the question is; 'Doth not Christ forgive sins?

*A. Christ forgave you; Col. iii. 13.'

That Christ forgives sins, is taken for granted ; and yet forgiveness of sin is the supremest act of sovereign divine power, that God exerciseth in the world. Now Christ may be considered two ways; 1. Absolutely, as * God over all, blessed for ever;' so he forgave sins by his own original authority and power, as the lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy. 2. As Mediator, God and man; and so his power was delegated to him by God the Father, as himself speaks ; 'all power is given unto me, in heaven and in earth;' and Matt. ix. he saith, that he had * power on earth to forgive sins,' i. e. given unto him. Now forgiveness of sins, is either authoritative, or declarative. The latter Christ delegated to his apostles, and all their successors in the w^ork of preaching the gospel; and it is such a power, as a mere man may be invested withal. Forgiveness of sins, which we term * authoritative,' being an act of sovereign divine power, exercised about the law, and persons concerned therein, may be said to be given to Christ two ways. 1. As to the possession of it; and so he hath it from his Father, as God ; as he hath his nature, essence, and life, from him. Whence, whatever works the Father doth, he doth likewise ; quicken, as he quickens ; pardon, as he pardons ; as hath been declared. 2. As to the execution of it, for such an end and purpose ; as the carrying on of the work of mediation committed to him. And so it is given him in commission from the Father, who sent him into the world to do his will; and in this sense had he, the Son of man, power to forgive sins, whilst he was in the earth. And to Mr. B.'s ninth chapter this may suffice.

CHAP. XVIII.

Of Chrisfs prophetical office.

The eighth chapter in Mr. Biddle is of Christ's prophetical office, or his entrance into a dealing with Christ, in respect of his office, as he hath done with him in respect of his person already.

His first question is, 'Is not Christ dignified as with the title of mediator, so also with that of prophet?

'A. Acts iii. 20. 22.'

Mr. Biddle tells us, chap. 4. that Christ is dignified with the title of God, though he be not so; and here that he is dignified with the title of a prophet, but leaves it at large whether he were so indeed or no. We are resolved in the case. The first promise made of him by God to Adam, was of him generally as a mediator, particularly as a priest, as he was to *break the head of Satan, by the bruising of his own heel. The next solemn renovation of it to Abraham, was of him as king, taking all nations to be his inheritance. And the third by Moses after the giving of the law, as a prophet, to teach and instruct his redeemed people. And a prophet he is ; the great Prophet of his church; not only dignified with that title, but so he is indeed,

2. But, says Mr. Biddle, * he is dignified with the title of a prophet, as well as of mediator.' As though his being a prophet were contradistinguished from his being a mediator. Christ's teaching of his people is part of the mediation he hath undertaken. All that he doth on their part, in offering gifts and sacrifices to God for them, all that he doth on the part of God towards them, by instructing and ruling of them, he doth, as he is the Mediator between God and man, the surety of the covenant. He is not then a mediator and a prophet, but he who is the Mediator, is the High Priest and Prophet of his church. Nor are there any acts, that he exerciseth on the one or other of these accounts, but they are all acts of his mediation, and of him as a mediator. Mr. B. indeed tells us not, what he understands by the mediation of Christ. His masters so describe it, as to make it all one with his prophetical office, and nothing else ; which makes

* Gen. iii. 15. Col. ii. 15, 16. Gen. xii. ?. Dent, xviii. 18.

me somewhat to wonder why this man seems to distinguish between them.

Many more notions of Mr. Biddle's masters are here omitted ; as that Christ was not the prophet of his people under the Old Testament, though by his Spirit he preached even to those that ''were disobedient in the days of Noah, and it was the Spirit of Christ, that was in all the prophets of old, whereby God instructed his church. That he is a prophet only, because he hath given unto us a new law ; though he promise effectually to '^open blind eyes, and to send his Spirit to teach us, and to lead us into all truth, giving us understanding that we may know him that is true. But he lays dirt enough in our way, so that we shall not need farther to rake into the dunghill.

4. I should not have thought that Mr. Biddle could have taken advantage for his end and purpose from the place of Scripture he mentions. Acts iii. 20. 22. ' For Moses said truly, a prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren like unto me ;' but that I find him in his next query repeating that expression, ' like unto me,' and wresting of it to be the foundation of a conceit plainly jocular. Christ was like to Moses as he was a pro])het, and like to Aaron, as he was a priest; and like to David as he was a king. That is, he was represented and typified by all these, and had that likeness to them, which the antitype (as the thing typified is usually, but improperly called), hath to the type. But that therefore he must not only be like them in the general office wherein the correspondency doth consist, but also in all the particular concernments of the office, as by them administered, is to confound the type and (the antitype, or rather) thing typified. Nor do the words used either by Moses, Deut, xviii. 18. or by Peter, Acts iii. 22. intimate any such similitude or likeness between Christ and Moses, us should extend to such particulars as are afterward intimated. The words of Peter are, * God shall raise you up a prophet,' ojq c/ue: rather as he raised up me, than like to me: not the least similitude being intimated between them,but in this, that they were both prophets, and both to be hearkened unto. And so the word used by God

b 1 Pet. iii, 19, 20. i. 11. «l3n. Ixi. 1. Luke xiv. 18. John xvi. 7—10. 1 John v. 20.

to Moses : "jidd ' sicut tu' (a prophet as thou art), doth import: I will raise up one that shall be a prophet as thou art a prophet. The likeness is only in the offirs. For such a similitude as should give the least occasion to Mr. Biddle's following figments there is no colour. And so the whole foundation being rooted up, the tottering superstruction will easily fall to the ground. But then to proceed :

* Q. Forasmuch as Christ was to be a prophet like unto Moses, and Moses had the privilege above other prophets, that God made not himself known to him in a vision, nor spake to him in a dream, but face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend, and shewed to him the similitude of the Lord ; Exod. xxxiii. 11. Numb. xii. 6—8. can you tell any passage of Scripture which intimateth that Christ did see God before the discharge of his prophetical office ?

' A. John vi. 45, 46. Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is from God, he hath seen the Father.'

1. This passage is indeed very pretty ; whether the principles or the inferences of it are considered.

The principles of it are sundry. 1. That ''God hath a bodily shape and similitude, face and hands, and the like corporeal properties. 2. That Moses saw the face of God as the face of a man.* 3. That Christ was in all things like Moses, so that what Moses did, he must do also. Therefore, 1. Christ did see the face of God, as a man. 2. He did it before he entered his prophetical office ; whereunto add, 3. the proof of all; ' no man hath seen the Father, save he who is from God.' That is, Christ only saw the face of God, and no man else ; when the ground of the whole fiction is, that Moses saw it before him.

2. Of the bodily shape of God, of Moses seeing his face, I have already spoken that, which Mr. B. will not take out of his way. Of Christ's being like Moses, something also hath now been delivered.

That which Exod xxxiii. 11. in the Hebrew is, ^K CD'3D CD'^D, panim alpanim, the ^eY>tu9.gint have rendered Inwiriov lv(i)7r'no, that is,' praesens prsesenti,'' as one ^present with him:'

^ See chap. iii.

« 'awo Eixo'voj ou yvcuji'^iTtti, ocfiS-aXjUor? ouj^ ojaTcti, oiSavi hixe. Antiphanes. de Deo.

f Facie ill facieni, ita at homines cum hoiuinibus colloquentes solent; quod refer ad vocum perceptionem distinctam ; non ad conspicuuiu aliquod : nihil eniin vide-runt. Grot. Annot. in locum.

and the Ch^ldee Paraphrast' veibum ad verbum.' That is, God dealt with him kindly, and familiarly, not with astonishing terror ; and gave him an intimate acquaintance with his mind and will. And the same expression is used concerning God's speaking to all the people ; of whom yet it is expressly said, that they saw no likeness at all; Deut. v. 4. If from the likeness mentioned, there must be a sameness asserted unto the particular attendencies of the discharge of that office ; then Christ must divide the sea, lift up a brazen serpent, and die in a mountain, and be buried by God, where no man could ever know. Moses, indeed, enjoyed an eminency of revelation above other prophets, which is called his conversing with God as a friend, and beholding him face to face; but even in that wherein he is exalted above all others, he is infinitely short of the great Prophet of his church; for Moses indeed as a servant was faithful in all the house of God, but this man is over his house, whose house we are ; Heb. iii. 5, 6.

3. This figment is for ever, and utterly everted by the Holy Ghost, John i. 17, 18. where he expressly urges a dissimilitude between Moses and the only begotten Son, in that particular, wherein this gentleman would have the likeness to consist. Herein, says Mr. B. is Christ like to Moses, that as Moser saw God face to face, so he saw God face to face. No, saith the Holy Ghost, the law indeed ' was given by Moses, but no man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.' It is true, that it is said of Moses, that God spake to him ' face to face;' that is, in a more clear and familiar manner than he did to other prophets; though he told him plainly, that he should not, or ' could not see his face,' Exod. xxxiii. 18, 19. though he gave him some lower manifestations of his glory. So that notwithstanding the revelations made to him, no man hatli seen God at any time, but the only begotten Son. He who is of the same nature and essence wath the Father, and is in his bosom love, he hath seen him; John vi. 46. and in this doth Moses, beinir a man only, come infinitely short of the only begotten Son, in that he could never see God, which he did. Which is also asserted in the place of Scripture cited by J\lr. Biddle.

4. To lay this axe then also to the root of Mr, B.'s tree,

to cut it down for the fire. The foundation of Christ's prophetical office, as to his knowledge of the will of his Father, which he was to reveal, doth not consist in his ' being taken up into heaven/ and there being taught the will of God in his human nature; but in that he was the only ' begotten Son of the Father,' who eternally knew him, and his whole will and mind, and in the dispensation which he undertook, revealed him, and his mind, according as it was appointed to him. In respect indeed of his human nature, wherein he declared and preached the will of God, he was ^' taught of God,' being * filled with wisdom and understanding,' by the Spirit, whereto he was anointed for that purpose ; but as the * only begotten Son, in the bosom of the Father,' he always saw him, knew him, and revealed him.

I shall only add, that this fancy of Mr. B. and the rest of the, Socinians (Socinianism*" being indeed a kind of modest and subtle Mahometanism) of Christ's seeing" God, as did Moses, seems to be taken from, or taken up to comply with the Alcoran, where the same is affirmed of Mahomet. So Beidavi, on those words of the Alcoran : * Et sunt ex iis qui-buscum locutus est ipse Deus ;' saith he. * Est hie Moses ; autjuxta alios Moses et Mahumed, super quibus Pax : Mosi Deus locutus est ea nocte, qua in exstasi quasi fuit in monte Sinai. Mahumedi vero locutus est ilia nocte, qua scalis coelo admotis, angelos vidit ascendere, tunc enim vix jactum duarum sagittarum ab eo fuit.' How near Moses came is not expressed: but Mahomet came within two bow-shots of him: how near the Socinian Christ came, I know not, nor doth Mr. B. inform us.

But yet as Mr. B. eats his word, as to Moses, and after he had affirmed, that he saw the face of God, says, he only saw the face of an angel; so do the Mahometans also, as to the vision of their prophet, and tell us, that indeed he was not able to see an angel in his own proper shape, as Socinus says, we cannot see a spiritual body; though Mr. B. thinks, that we may see God's right hand and his left; but of this you have a notable story in Kessaeus. Saith he, "They' re-

s Luke ii. 52. Isa. Ixi. 1. Heb. i. 9.

■• Socinismus est verecundior, aut subtilior Mahunietismiis. Censemus scripta SocinianoruniadTurcismum proxime accedere. Censii. Facult. Theol. Leid. An. 1598.

' Traduut da propheta, quod die quodani dixeiit Gabrieli; O Gabriel, opteni te in specie figurae tuae magnae videre, secundum quam Deus creavit le; dixit Gabriel;

VOL. Vlll. 2 H

port of the prophet, tliat on a certain day, or once upon a time, he said to Gabriel: O Gabriel I desire to see thee, in the form of thy great shape or figure, wherein God created thee. Gabriel said to him, O beloved of God ; my shape is very terrible, no man can see it, and so not thou, but he will fall into a swoon; Mahomet answered, although it be so, yet I would see thee in a bigger shape : Gabriel, therefore answered ; O beloved of God, where dost thou desire to see me? Mahomet answered, without the city of jMecca, in the stony village; says Gabriel, that village will not hold me; therefore answered Mahomet, let it be in mount Orphath, that is a larger and fitter place says Gabriel; away therefore went Mahomet- to mount Orphath, and behold Gabriel with a great noise covered the v/hole horizon with his shape; which when the prophet saw, he fell upon the earth in a swoon ; when therefore Gabriel, on whom be peace, had returned to his fonr.er shape, he came to the prophet, and embracing and kissing him, said to him. Fear not O beloved of God, I am thy brother Gabriel. The prophet answers ; Thou speak-est truly O my brother Gabriel, I could never have thought, that any creature of God had had such a figure or shape. Gabriel answered, O beloved of God, what would thou say, if thou sawest the shape of the angel Europhil ?'

They who know any thing of tire Mahometan forgeries and aboniinations, in applying things spoken of in the Scripture to their great impostor, will quickly perceive the composition of this fiction, from what is spoken of Moses and Daniel. This lying knave it seems was of Mr. B.'s mind, that it was not God indeed, but an angel, that appeared to Moses on mount Sinai; and thence is this tale, which came to pass once upon a time. He proceeds :

O ililecte Deo, est ligura niea valdc tcrribilis, nemo earn poteiit viderc, et sic neque fu, quin aniinl cleliquiuui pnssii'; concidat, repotiit jMr.luimeri, etsi maxinie itasit, ve-liin tameii te videre in iigtira inajori. iiv'spondit ergo Gabriel, Odilectc Deo ubi me videre desidcriis? Extra iirbcin jNIeceam resjiondit Rlahiimcd, in viila lajiidosa. Dixit Gabriel, villa ista me noncapiet; ergo respondi! Mahiimcd, in iiioiite Or-phatb. Hie intpiit Gabriel locus captiur erit et capacior. Abiit ergo Maliumed in niontem OrpliaUi, et ccce Gabriel, cum niagno fragore et strepitu, totum ligura sua opcriens horizontem.quod cum pro|)befa vidisset, concidit, deliquium passus, in ter-ram. Ubi vero Gabriel, super quo pax, ad priorem rediissel figuram, accessit ad pro-phetani, eunique aniplexus et osculatus, ita compellavit: ne timeas O dilecte Deo, sum enim fratcr fuus Gabriel; dixit pro|)lieta, vera dixisti,0 frater mi Gabriel, iiun-quaui existimassem uiiam esse Dei creaturam, tanta pra;ditam figura. Kcspondit Gabriel, O dilecte Deo, quid si igitur videres figuram Europhil angeli. Kessjcus Vit. Patr. p. I'i. Interpret. Hotting.

CHRIST S PROPHETICAL OFFICE.

467

' Q. From whence doth it appear, that Christ like Moses heard from God the things that he spake?

'A. John viii. 40. viii. 26. 28. xiv. 8.'

All the difficulty of this question ariseth from those words, ' like Moses,' and the sense by Mr. B. put tipon them; how falsely, how inconsistently with himself, with what perverting of the Scripture, hath been declared. The Scriptures in the answer affirm only that Christ heard, and was ' taught of the Father;' which is not at all denied, but only the modus, that Mr. B. would impose upon the words, is rejected. Christ '''heard of the Father,' who taught him as his servant, in the work of his mediation, by his Spirit, wherewith he was anointed ; but it is his ' going into heaven,' to hear a lesson with his bodily ears, which Mr. B. aims at, and labours under the next query to prove ; how unsuccessfully shall briefly be demonstrated. Saith he,

* Q. Can you farther cite any passage to prove, that Christ as a man ascended into heaven, and was there, and came from God, out of heaven, before he shewed himself to the world, and discharged his prophetical office : so that the talking of Moses with God, in the person of an angel, bearing the name of God, was but a shadow of Christ's talking with God ?

'A. John iii. 13. vi. 38. 51. vii. 32, 33. 41, 42. 57, 58. viii. 29. xiii. 1, 2. xvi. 28—30. xvii. 8.'

We are come now to the head of this affair, to that which has been aimed at all along in the former queries. The sum is ; Christ until the time of his baptism, was ignorant of the mind and will of God, and knew not what he was to do, or to declare to the world, nor what he came into the world for, at least only in general. But then when he was led into the wilderness, to be tempted, he' Vv'as wrapped up into heaven, and there God instructed him in his mind and will, made him to know the message that he came to deliver, gave him the law that he was to promulge, and so sent him down again to the earth to preach it. Though the Scripture says, that he knew the will of God, by being his only ""begotten Son, full of grace and truth,' and that he was ' full of the

^ Isa. xlii. 1. 19. Pliil.iv. 7. Isa.Jii. 13. Isi. 1. • Sraalcius de Divin. Cliiisti.cap. 4. "' John i. 18. Luke iv. 1. Isa. Ixi. 1. Matt. iii. 15—17.

2 H 2

Spirit,' when he went to the wilderness, being by him anointed to preach the gospel; though at his solemn entrance so to do, the heavens were opened, and the Holy Ghost descended on him in the form of a dove, God giving solemn testimony to him, and charge to hear him, yet because Mr. B,'s masters are not able to answer the testimonies of Scripture, for the divine nature of Christ, which affirm that he was in heaven before his incarnation, and came down to his work by incarnation, this figment is set on foot to the unspeakable dishonour of the Son of God. Before I proceed farther in the examination of this invention, and detection of its falsehood, that it may appear, that Mr. B. made not this discovery himself, by his impartial study (as he reports) of the Scripture, it may not be amissto inquire after the mind of them in this business, whose assistance Mr. B. has in some measure made use of. The Racovian Catechism gives us almost the very same question and answer. *Unde apparet, Christum nobis Dei vo-luntatem perfecte manifestasse? Hinc, quod ipse Jesus per-fectissima ratione eam a Deo in ccelis sit edoctus, etad eam hominibus publicandam e ccelo magnifice sit missus, et eam perfecte iisdem annuntiavit. Ubi vero scriptum est, Christum fuisse in ccelo, et a ccelo missum;' John vi. 38. iii. 13. Catech. Racov. de Offic. Christi Prophetico, Qu. 4, 5. * Whence is it manifest, that Christ revealed the will of God perfectly unto us? Hence, because Jesus himself was in a most perfect manner taught it of God in heaven, and was sent from heaven magnificently for the publishing of it to men, and did perfectly declare it to them. But where is it written, that Christ was in heaven, and was sent from heaven ;' John vi. 38. And so do they proceed with the places of Scripture here cited by Mr. B. The same Smalcius spends one whole chapter in his book of the Divinity of Christ, whose title is, * De initiatione Christi ad munus Propheti-cum;' to declare and prove this thing; that Christ was so taken up into heaven, and there taught the mind of God, Smal. de Divin- Jes. Christ, cap. 4. only in this he seems to be at variance with Mr. B. that he denies, that Moses saw the face of God, which this man makes the ground of affirming, that Christ did so. But h^re Mr. B. is at variance also with himselfjin the end of the last question, intimating that Moses saw only the face of an angel that bare the name of God,

which now serves his turn as the other did before. Ostoro-dus in his Institutions, cap. 16. pursues the same business with vehemency, as the manner of the man was; but Smal-cius is the man, who boasts himself to have first made the discovery; and so he did, as far as I can find ; or at least, he was the first that fixed the time of this rapture, to be when he was in the wilderness. And saith he, ' hoc rayste-rium nobis a Deo per sacras literas revelatum esse plurimum gaudemus.' (idem ibid.) And of all his companions, this man lays most weight on this invention; his 8th chap, in the refutation of Martinus Smiglecius de Verbi incarnat.natur. is spent in the pursuit of it. So also is a good part of his book against Ravenspergerus. Socinus himself ventures at this business, but so faintly and slightly, as 1 suppose in all his writings there is not any thing to be found, wherein he is less dogmatical; his discourse of it, is in his first answer to the Parianesis of Volanus, pp. 38—40. One" while he says the words are to be taken metaphorically; then, that Christ was in heaven in his mind and meditation: and at last, it may be ' was taken into heaven,' as Paul was.

To return to our catechists, and to the thing itself, the reader may take of it this brief account.

1. There is indeed in the New Testament abundant mention of our Saviour's coming down from heaven, of his coming forth from God, which in what sense it is spoken hath been fully before declared. But of his being taken up into heaven after his incarnation before his death, and being there taught the mind of God, and the gospel which he was to preach, there is not one word nor syllable. Can it be supposed, that whereas so many lesser things are not only taken notice of, but also to the full expressed with all their circumstances; that this, which according to the hypothesis of them with

" Aut verba Christi sine ullo prorsus tropo interpretanda sunt, et proinde ex ipsis ducta argumentatio vestra, penitus dissolvetur: aut si tropus aliquis in Christi verbis admittendus est, non videmus, cur non potius dicanuis, ideo dixisse Christum filiuru hominis fuissc in caslo, antequam post resurrectionem eo ascenderet, quia jam ante illud tenipus, non niodo in Cfelo inente, et cogitatione perpetuo versabatur, verum etiani omnia ceelestia, id est arcana qujeque divinissima, et ipsa omnia quse in caelo sunt, et fiunt, adeo cognitaet perspecta habebat, utea tanquam praesentia intueretur:-et ita quamvis in terris degens, in ipso taraen caslo comniorari dici possit.—Nam in caelo antequam moreretur revera esse potuit, postquam ex Maria iiatus est: nee solum potuit, sed (ut ita dicamus) debuit; si enini liomo ille Paulus Cliristi servus, ad tertiuin usque cselum ante murium raptus est, nullo pacto nobis vcrisimile sit, Cliris.? turn ipsum ante mortem in caelo iiou fuisse. Socin. Resp. prior, ad Par. vol. pp. 38—40,

whom we hare to do, is of such importance to the confirmation of his doctrine, and upon a supposition of his being a mere man, eminently suited to the honour of his ministry, above all the miracles that he wrought, that he, and all his followers, should be utterly silent therein? That when his doctrine was decried for novelty and folly, and whatever is evil and contemptible, that none of the apostles in its vindication, none of the ancients against the Pagans should once make use of this defensative, that Christ v;as taken up into heaven, and there instructed in the mind of God. Let one word, testimony, or expression be produced to this purpose, that Christ was taken up into heaven, to be instructed in the mind of God, before his entrance upon his office, and let our adversaries take the cause. If not, let this story be kept in the old golden legend, as a match for any it contains.

2. There was no cause of this rapture or taking of Christ into lieaven. That which is assigned, that there he might be taught the gospel, helps not in any measure. For the Scripture not only assigns other causes of his acquaintance with the mind and will of God, namely, his oneness with the Father, being his °only begotten Son, his Word and Wisdom, as also (in respect of his condescension to the office of mediation), his being anointed with the fulness of the Spirit, as was promised and prophesied of him; but also affirms, that this was accomplished both on him, and towards him, before such time as this fiction is pretended to fall out.

Instantly upon his baptism Luke tells you, that he was TrXrjpijc TTvevjuaTog ayiov, ' full of the Holy Ghost;' chap. iv. 1. which was all that was required to give hi-m a full furnish-ment for his office, and all that was promised on that account. This answers what he expresses to be necessary for the discharge of his pro])hetical office : ttAtjjOjjc irvtvfxaToq ayiov, is as much as'^y 'HX nn, Isa. Ixi. \. and upon that he says. He hath sent me to preach: God also solemnly bare witness to him from heaven, to the same purpose, Matt. iii. 17. And before this, John affirms, that he was the ' light of the world, the true light, which lighteth every man coming into the world;' John i. 9. which how he should be, and yet himself he in darkness not knowing the will of God, is not easily to be apprehended.

• J.ohn i. 18 . i. 1. Prov. viii. 15—18. Col. ii.5. Heb. i. 0. Tohn iii. 34.

3. To what purpose served all that glory at his baptism ; that solemn inauguration, when he took upon him the immediate administration of his prophetical office in his ovv.rqper-son, if after this he was to be taken up into heaven, to be taught the mind of God? To what end were the heavens opened over him ? To what end did the Holy Ghost descend upon him in a visible shape, which God had appointed as a sign, whereby he should be known to be the great Prophet, John i. 32. 35? To what end was that voice from heaven, *This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased ?' I say to what end were all these, if after all this he was ignorant of the gospel, and of the will of God, and was to be taken up into heaven to be instructed ?

4. If this must be supposed to be, without any mention, yet why is it said always, that Christ came from heaven to the earth ? If he was first on the earth, and was taken into heaven, and came again to the earth, he had spoken to the understanding of men, if he had said I am returned from heaven ; and not as he doth, 'I am come from heaven.' This in lesser matters is observed. Having gone out of Galilee to Jordan and coming again, it is said, ''he returned from Jordan, Luke iv. 1. and having been with the Gadarenes, upon his coming to the other side from whence he went, it is said, he ^returned from the Gadarenes back again, Luke viii. 40. But where is it said that he returned from heaven, which on the supposition that is made, had alone in this case been proper ? which propriety of speech is in all other cases every where observed by the holy Mi iters.

5. It is said, that Christ entered once into the holy place, and that having 'obtained eternai iudemption;' Heb. ix. 12. yea, and expressly that he ought to suffer before he Sv^ entered ; Luke xxiv. 26. but according to these men, he went twice into heaven : once before he smTered, and had obtained eternal redemption, and once afterward. It may also be observed, that when they are pressed to tell us some of the circumstances of this great matter, being silent to all other, they only tell us that they ""conjecture the time to be in the space of that forty days, wherein he was in the wilderness; on purpose through the righteous judgment of God to entangle themselves in their own imaginations, the Holy Ghost

P'TffE!rTp£if)£v. 1 '£v rf v7ro3-rfii4-ai. ^ Saialciiis (le Diviii. Cl)rist. caj) 4.

aflnrming expressly, that he was the "whole forty days in the wilderness, amongst the wild beasts;' Mark i. 13.

Enough being said to the disprovement of this fiction, I shall very briefly touch upon the sense of the places, that are produced to give countenance thereunto. 1. In most of the places insisted on, there is this expression, * He that came down from heaven,' or, * I came down from heaven;' so John vi. 32, 33. 38. 41, 42. 51. 57, 58. iii. 30—32. hence this is the conclusion; if our Saviour came down from heaven, then after he had lived some time in the world he was taken up into heaven, there to be taught the mind of God : he that hath a mind to grant this consequence, is willing to be these men's disciple. The Scripture gives us another account of the intendment of this phrase. Namely, that the ' Word' was with God, and the Word was God, and the Word was made flesh, and dwelt amongst us,' and his glory was seen, 'as the glory of the only begotten Son of God ;' so that it is not a local descension, but a gracious condescension, that is intimated, with his voluntary humiliation, when he who was in the * form of God humbled himself to take upon him the form of a servant,' therein to learn obedience. So that these expressions yield very little relief to our adversary.

2. The second sort are those, wherein he is said to come 'forth from God,' or 'from the Father;' this is expressed, John iii. 42. xiii. 1. 3. xvi. 28—30. xvii. 3. xvi. 27. from whence an argument of the same importance with the former, doth arise. If Christ came from God, from the Father, then after he had been many years in the world, he was taken into heaven, and there taught the gospel, and sent again into the world. With such invincible demonstrations do these men contend. That Christ came from God, from the Father, that is, had his mission and commission from God, as he was Mediator, the great Prophet, Priest, and King of his church, none denies, and this is all that in those places is expressed. Of which afterward.

3. Some particular places are yet remaining. The first is John iii. 13. ' No man hath ascended into heaven, but he that came down from heaven, the Son of man which is in heaven.' That,'which is,' Mr, B. renders rather,'which was :'whether with greater prejudice to his cause, or conscience I know not.

'Kai nv ixii" tv TJt l^n/txai, hfjLe^af Tig-ira^aKoyra, ' John i. 1, 2. 14.

To his cause, in that he manifests, that it cannot be defended without corrupting the word of God : to his conscience, by corrupting it to serve his own ends and turn accordingly. The words are, 6 wv iv t(^ ovpavi^, which will by no means admit of his corrupting gloss.

I say then, let the words speak themselves, and you need no other to cut the throat of the whole cause, that this man hath undertaken to manage. He that speaks is the Son of man, and all the time of his speaking he was in heaven. He (saith he) is in heaven : in his human nature he was then on the earth, not in heaven ; therefore he had another nature, wherein at that time he was in heaven also. He who was so, being the Son of man ; and what then becomes of Mr. B.'s Christ? And what need of the rapture whereof he speaks.

For the 'ascending into heaven,' mentioned in the beginning of the verse, that it cannot be meant of a local ascent of Christ in his human nature, antecedent to his resurrection, is evident, in that he had not yet descended into the lower parts of the earth, which he was to do before his local ascent. Eph. iv. 9, 10. The ascent there mentioned, answers the discourse that our Saviour was then upon, which was to inform Nicodemus in heavenly things; to this end he tells him (ver. 12.) that they were so slow of believing, that they could not receive the plainest doctrine, nor understand even the visible things of the earth, as the blowing of the wind, nor the causes and issue of it: much less did they understand the heavenly things of the gospel which none (saith he, ver. 13.) hath pierced into, is acquainted withal, hath ascended into heaven, in the knowledge of, but he who is in heaven, and is sent of God into the world to instruct you. He who is in heaven in his divine nature, who is come down from heaven, being sent of God, having taken flesh, that he might reveal and do the will of God, he, and none but he, hath so ascended into heaven, as to have the full knowledge of the heavenly things whereof I speok. Of a local ascent to the end and purpose mentioned, there is not the least syllable.

Thus, I say, the context of the discourse seems to exact a metaphorical interpretation of the words : our Saviour in them informing Nicodemus of his acquaintance with heaven-

ly things, whereof he was ignorant. But" yet the propriety of the word may be observed without the least advantage to our adversaries; for it is evident, that the words are elliptical ; ovceig ava/Sc'/SjjKtv tig tov oijfpavov, u fii) 6 vlbg, ascend must be repeated again to make the sense complete : and why may not, nlXXei ttva/3rjvot be inserted, as well as ava/St-j3r)k£. So are the words rendered by Theophilact: and in that sense relate not to what was before, but what was to be. And an instance of the necessity of an alike supplement, is given in Matt. xi. 27. moreover some suppose, that avct/3tj3)7K£r, affirming the want of a potential conjunction, as av, or the like, (which the following exceptive tl /^irj require) in the place, is not to be taken for the act done, but for the power of doing it: of which examples may be given: so that the propriety of the word may also be preserved, without the least countenance afforded to the figment under consideration.

The remaining place is, John vi. 62. 'What and if you shall see the Son of man ascending up where he was before;' oTTov r}v TO TTpornoov. That Christ uas in heaven before his local ascent thither in his hunian nature, is part of our jjlea to prove his divine natui\j, and what will thence be obtiiined I know not.

And this is the first attempt that these gentlemen make upon the prophetical o.iice of Christ; he did not know the will of God, as the only begotten Son of the Fatb-ev in hi« bosom; he was not furnished for the declaring of it, in his own immediate ministry, by the unction of the Holy Ghost, and his being filled thet'ewith; he was not solemnly inaugurated thereunto by the glorious presence of the Father, and the Holy Ghost with him, one in a voice, and the other in a bodily shape, bearing wilness to him, to be the Prophet sent from God; but being for many years ignorant of the gospel, and the will of God, or what he came into the world to do, he was no man knows where, when, nor how, rapt into heaven, and there taught and instructed in tiie mind of God, (as Mahomet pretended he was also), and so sent into the world, after he had been sent into the world many a year.

Here the Racovians add,

'i'iieopli. in loc.

* Q. What^ is that will of God which by Christ is revealed ?

'A. It is the new covenant, which Christ in the name of God, made with human kind, whence also he is called the Mediator of the new covenant.'

1. It seems then that Christ was taken into heaven, to be taught the new covenant, of which before he was ignorant; though the very name that was given him before he was born contained the substance of it: Matt. i. 21. 2. Christdidnot make the covenant with us as Mediator ; but confirmed and ratified it, Heb. ix. 15—17. God gave him in the covenant which he made ; and therefore is said to give him 'for a covenant,' Isa. xiii. 6. 3. The covenant of grace is not made with all mankind, but with the seed of tl\e woman. Gen. iii, 15. Gal. iii. 16. Rom. ix. 7, 8. 4. Christ is not called the Mediator of the covenant, because he declared the will of God concerning it, but because he gave hi^ life a ransom for those with whom it is made, 1 Tim. ii. 5, 6. and the promises of it were confirmed in his blood, Heb. ix. 15. x. 16. 28. 5. This covenant was not first made, and revealed, when Christ taught in his own person. It was not only made, but confirmed to Abraham in Christ, four hundred and thirty years before the law. Gal. iii. 17. yea, ever since the entrance of sin, no man hath walked with God but in the same covenant of grace : as elsewhere is declared.

Let us see what follows in Mr. B. says he,

' Q. You have already shewed that Christ was like unto Moses, in seeing God, and hearing from him the things which he spake, but Moses exceeded all other prophets likewise in that he only was a lawgiver; was Christ therefore like unto Moses in giving of a law also, and is there any mention of this law?

* A. Gal. vi. 2. Fulfil the law of Christ, Rom. iii. 27. by the law of faith. Jam. ii. 12. by the law of liberty. Jam. i. 25.'

That Moses did not see the face of God hath been shewed, andMr.Biddle confesseth the same. That Christ was notrapt into heaven for any such end or purpose as is pretended, that he is not compared to Moses as to his initation into his prophetical office, that there is no one word in the Scripture

^ Qua2 vero est ilia voluntas Dei per Jesum nobis patefacta ?—Est illud foedus novum, quod cura getiere humane Ghristus nomine Dei pepigit, unde etiara Mediator novifaederis vocatur : Heb. viii.6. 1 Tim. ii. 5. Catech. Rbg. fleTrophet. num. Chiisii.

giving countenance to any of these figments hath been evinced. Nor hath Mr. Biddle shewed any such thing to them, who have their senses exercised to discern good and evil; what apprehensions soever his catechumens may have of his skill and proofs.

2. What is added to this question will be of an easy dispatch. The word 'law' may be considered generally, as to the nature of it, in the sense of Scripture, for a revelation of the mind of God; and so we say Christ did give a law, in that he revealed fully and clearly the whole mind of God, as to our salvation and the obedience he requireth of us. And so there is a law of faith ; that is, a doctrine of faith, opposite to the law, as to its covenant ends simply so called. And he also instituted some peculiar significant ceremonies, to be used in the worship of God ; pressing in particular in his teaching, and by his example, the duty of love, which thence is particularly called a new commandment, and the law of Christ, Gal. vi. 2. even that which he did so eminently practice : as he was a teacher, a prophet come out from God, he taught the mind, and will, and worship of God; from his own bosom, John i. 18. Heb. i, 1. And as he was and is the King of his church, he hath given precepts and laws, and ordinances, for the rule and government thereof, to which none can add, nor from them any detract. But take the word * law,' strictly, in reference to a covenant end, that he which performs it shall be justified by his performance thereof; so we may say, he gave the law originally as God, but as Mediator he gave no such law, or no law in that sense, but revealed fully and clearly our justification with God upon another account; and gave no new precepts of obedience, but what were before given in the law, written originally in the heart of man by nature, and delivered to the church of the Jews by Moses in the wilderness; of which in the chapter of justification.

For the places quoted by Mr. Biddle, that of Gal. vi. 2. 'Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ,' speaks only of that one command of brotherly love and forbearance, which is called peculiarly, as I said, ' a new commandment,' though the Jews had it from the beginning; and 'law of Christ,' because of the eminent accomplishment of the it by him,'who loved us, and gave himself for us,'transmit-

ting it anew to us, with such new motives and inducements, as it had not received before, nor ever shall again. The ' law of faith'mentioned, Rom. iii.27. is no more but the doctrine of the gospel, and of justification without the works of the law, that is, all works commanded by what law soever : as the whole doctrine of the word of God is called 'the law,' near an hundred times in the Psalms. The * law of faith' is that which is opposed to the ' law of works,' as a means of obtaining righteousness, which is not by obedience to new commands.

The places in James ii. 12. i. 25. speak directly of the moral law, which is manifestby that particular enumeration of its precepts, which we have subjoined, ver. 13, 14.

3. But Mr. Biddle's masters have a farther reach in the asserting Christ to have given a new law; namely, whereas they place justification as a consequent of our own obedience, and observing how impossible it is to do it, on the obedience yielded to the moral law, the apostle having so frequently and expressly decried all possibility of j ustifi-cation thereby, they have therefore feigned to themselves, that Christ Jesus hath given a new law, in obedience where-unto we may be justified; which when they attempt to prove, it will be needful for them to produce other manner of evidences, than that here by Mr. B. insisted on, which speaks not one word to the purpose in hand ; but that this is the intendment of the man is evident from his ensuing discourse.

Having reckoned up the expositions of the law, and its vindication given by our Saviour, Matt. v. in the next query, he calls them very ignorantly the law of faith, or the new covenant. If Mr. B. knows no more of the new covenant, but that it is a new law given by our Saviour, Matt. v. 6, 7. (as upon other accounts) I pity the man; he proceeds.

' Q. Doth not Christ then partly perfect, partly correct the law of Moses: what is the determination of Christ concerning this matter ? A. Matt. v. 21—24.'

1. The reason of this query, I acquainted the reader with before. These men seeking for a righteousness as it were by the works^ of the law, and not daring to lay it upon that, which the apostle doth expressly so often reject, they strive to relieve themselves with this ; that our Saviour hath

y 'n? 1^ e^yaiv wfjiov, Rom. ix. 32.

so dealt with the law as here is expressed ; so that to yield obedience to it now as mended, perfected, and reformed, must needs be sufficient to our justification.

2. Two things are here affirmed to be done by the Lord Christ, in reference to the law of P*Ioses, as it is called, that is, the moral law, as is evident by the following instances, given to make good the assertion; first, that he perfects it, secondly, that he corrects it; and so a double imputation is laid on the law of God. 1. Of imperfection. 2. Of corruption, that needed amendment or correction.

Before I proceed to examine the particular instances, whereby the man attempts to make good his insinuation, the honour of God and his law, requires of us, that it be vindicated from this double calumny, and demonstrated to be neither imperfect, nor to stand in need of correction.

1. For its perfection we have the testimony of God himself expressly given thereunto, Psal. xix. 7. 'The law of the Lord is perfect converting the soul.' It is the ' perfect law of liberty,' James i. 25. Yea so perfect, as that God hath forbidden any thing to be added to it, or to be taken from it; Deut. xiii. 32.

2. If the law wants perfection, it is in respect of its essential parts, or its integral parts, or in respect of degrees. But, for its essential parts it is perfect, being in matter and form, in sense and sentence,^ divine, holy, just, good. For its integrals, it compriseth the whole duty of man ; Eccles. xii. and the last; which doing he was to live; and for the degrees of its commands, it requireth that we love the Lord our God with all our hearts, and all our souls, and our neighbours as ourselves; which our Saviour confirms as a rule of perfection; Matt. xxii. 37.

3. If the law of God was not perfect, but needed correction, it is either because God could not, or would not give a perfect and complete law ; to say the first, is blasphemy ; for the latter, there is no pretence for it. God giving a law for his service, proclaiming his wisdom and holiness to be therein, and that if any man did perform it, he should live therein, certainly would not give such a law, as by its imperfection should come short of any of the ends and purposes, for which it was appointed.

^ Rom. vii.

4. The perfection of the law is hence also evinced; that the precepts of Christ wherein our obedience requires us to be perfect, are the same, and no other than the precepts of the law; his new commandment of love is also an old one; 1 John ii. 7, 8. which Christ calls 4ns new command ; John xiii. 34. and the like instances might be multiplied; neither will the instance of Mr. B. evince the contrary which he argues from Matt. v. for that Christ doth not in that chapter correct the law, or add any new precept thereunto, but expounds and vindicates it from the corrupt gloss of the scribes and pharisees, appears,

1. From the occasion of the discourse, and the proposition which our Saviour makes good, establisheth, and con-firmeth therein ; which is laid down, ver. 21. 'Except your righteousness exceed the righteousness of the scribes and pharisees, you cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven.' In pursuit of this proposition, he manifesteth what their rioh-teousness was, by examining their catechism upon the com-m.andments, and the exposition they made therein of them. It is not the righteousness of the law that our Saviour rejects, and requires more in his disciples, but that of the pharisees, whom he everywhere called hypocrites; but for the law he tells them a tittle of it shall not pass away, and he that keeps it shall be called great, or be of great esteem in the kingdom of God; and the good works, that our Saviour then required in his disciples, are no other but those that were commanded in the law.

2. The very phraseology, and manner of speech here used by our Saviour, manifests of whom, and concerning what he speaks; you have heard that it was said to them of old time; you have heard, not you have read; you have heard it of the scribes and pharisees, out of Moses' chair they have told you, that it was thus said ; and you have heard that it was said to them of old ; not that it was written, that it was written in the law, the expression whereby he citeth what was written. And it was said to them of old ; the common pretence of the pharisees in the imposing their traditions, and expositions of the law. It is the tradition of the elders; it was said to them, by such and such blessed masters of old.

3. Things are instanced in, that are no where written in

the law, nor ever were ; as that, * thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy;' which is so remote from the law, as that the contrary is directly commanded, Levit. xix. 18. Exod. xxiii. 4, 5, Prov. xxi. 21, 22. To them who gave this rule, * thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy,' doth Christ oppose himself. But those were the scribes and pharisees in their corrupt glosses, from which God's law is vindicated, not in itself before corrupted.

4. Whose saying Christ rejects, their sayings he did not come to fultil ; but he came to fulfil and accomplish the law, and therefore, it is not the law, and the sentence thereof, that he rejects in that form of speech, 'But I say unto you.'

Before I come to the consideration of the particular instances given by Mr. B. a brief consideration of what is offered to this purpose by Smalcius, in his Racovian catechism, may be premised. His first chapter about the prophetical office of Christ, is ' de praeceptis Christi, quae legi addidit,' ' of the precepts of Christ, which he added to the law.' And therein this is his first question and answer.

* Q. What* are the perfect commands of God, revealed by Christ?

' A. Part of them is contained in the precepts given by Moses, with those which are added thereunto in the new covenant; part is contained in those things, which Christ himself prescribed.'

The commands of God, revealed by Jesus Christ, are here referred to three heads. 1. The ten commandments given by Moses ; for so that part is explained in the next question, where they are said to be the decalogue. 2. The additions made by Christ thereunto. 3. His own peculiar institutions.

As to the first, I desire only to know how the ten commandments were revealed by Jesus Christ. The catechist confesseth that they were given to Moses, and revealed by that means; howare they then said to be revealed by Christ: if they shall say, that he may be said to reveal them, because he promulged them anew, with new motives, reasons,

» Quaenam sunt perfecta mandata Dei per Christiiin patefacta ?—Pars eorum conti-neturin praeceptis a Mose traditis, una cum iis, quae sunt els iit novo foedereaddita. Pars vero continetur ia iis, quae peculiarilcr ipse Christus praBscripsit.

and encouragements, I hope he will give us leave to say also, that what he calls ' a new commandment,' is not so termed in respect of the matter of it, but its new enforce -ment by Christ; we grant Christ revealed that law of Moses, with its new covenant ends, as he was the great prophet of his church, by his Spirit, from the foundation of the Vv'orld ; but this Smalcius denies.

2. That Christ made no new additions to the moral law, hath been partly evidenced from what hath been spoken concerning the perfection thereof, with the intention of our Saviour in that place, and those things wherein they say these additions are found and do consist, and shall yet farther be evinced, from the consideration of the particulars by them instanced in.

3. It is granted, tliat our blessed Saviour did for the times of the New Testament institute the two ordinances of baptism and the Lord's supper, in the room of them, which together with their representation of the benefits, which believers receive by him, did also prefigure him as to come. But 1. These are no new law, nor part of a nevv^ law, with a law design in them. 2. Though there is an obedience in their performance yielded to God and Christ, yet they belong rather to the promise than the precepts of Christ; to our privilege, before unto our duty.

In the progress of that catechist, after some discourse about the ceremonial and judicial law, with their abolition, and his allowance of magistrates among Christians, notwithstanding; (which they do, upon condition he shed no blood for any cause whatever;) he attempts in particular, to shew what Christ added to the moral law, in the several precepts of it. And to the first he says, that Christ added two things: 1. In that he prescribed us a certain form of prayer; of which afterward, in the chapter designed to the consideration of what Mr. B. speaks to the same purpose. 2. That we acknowledge himself for God, and worship him ; of which also in our discourse of the kingly ofRce of Christ. To the second, he says, is added in the New Testament, not only, that we should not worship images, but avoid them also ; which is so notoriously false, the avoiding of images of our own making, being no less commanded in the Old

VOL. VIII. 2 I

Testament than in the New, that I shall not insist thereon. The residue of his plea is the same with Mr. B.'s from Matt. V. where what they pretend shall be considered in order.

To consider then briefly the particular instances: the first is in reference to the sixth commandment, * Thou shalt not kill.' This the Pharisees so interpreted, as that if a man kept himself from blood, and from causing the death of another, he ivas righteous, as to the keeping of this commandment. Our Saviour'' lets his disciples know that there is a closer, and nearer sense of this law : I say unto you, in the exposition of this commandment, that any rash anger, anger without a cause, all offence given proceeding from thence, in light vilifying expressions, such as 'raca,' much more all provoking taunts and reproaches, as ' thou fool,'are forbidden therein, so as to render a man obnoxious to the judgment of God, and condemnation in their several degrees of sinfulness ; as there were amongst themselves several councils, according to several offences ; the judgment, the council, and utter cutting off, as a child of hell. Hence then, having manifested the least breach of love and charity towards our brother to be a breach of the sixth commandment, and so to render a man obnoxious to the judgment of God, in several degrees of sin, according as the eruptions of it are, he proceeds in the following verses to exhort his disciples to patience, forbearance, and brotherly love, with readiness to agreement and forgiveness, ver. 20 —26.

2. In the next place, he proceeds to the vindication, and exposition of the seventh commandment, ver. 27. 'Thou shalt not commit adultery :' which the Pharisees had so expounded, as that if a man kept himself from actual unclean-ness, however he lived loosely, and put away his wife at his pleasure, he was free from the breach thereof. To give them the true meaning and sense of this commandment, and farther to discover the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, he lets them know;

1. That the concupiscence of the heart, and inordinate desire of any person, is the adultery here no less forbidden, than that of actual uncleanness, which the law made death.

>> See a full and clear exposition of this place by Dr. Lighlfoot, in bis preface to the Harmony of the Gospel.

And certainly he must needs be as blind as a Pharisee, who sees not that the uncleanness of the heart, and lust after woman was forbidden by th-e law, and under the Old Testament.

2. As to their living with their wives, he mentions indeed the words of Moses, ' whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a bill of divorcement;' but opposeth not himself thereunto at all, but only shews, that that permission of divorce is to be interpreted according the rule and instruction given in the first institution of marriage, (as afterward, on another occasion he explains himself. Matt, xix.) and not that men might therefore for every cause, that the}'-would or could pretend, instantly put away their wives, as the Pharisees taught men to do ; and as Josephus, one of them testifies of himself, that he did, * I put away my wife,' saith he, 'because she did not please me.' No, saith our Saviour, that permission of Moses is not to be voxtended beyond the just cause of divorce, as it is by the Pharisees, but made use of only in the case of fornication; ver. 27, 28. and thereupon descends to caution his disciples, to be careful and circumspect in their walking in this particular, and not be led by an offending eye or hand (the beginning of evil), to greater abominations.

3. In like manner doth he proceed in the vindication of the third commandment; the Scribes and Pharisees had invented, or approved of swearing by creatures, the temple, altar, Jerusalem, the head, and the like; and thereupon raised many wicked and cursed distinctions, on purpose to make a cloak for hypocrisy and lying, as you may see. Matt, xxiii. 16—18. If a man sware by the temple, it is nothing; he is not bound by his oath; but if he sware by the gold of the temple, he is obliged. In like manner did they distinguish of the altar and the gift; and having mixed these swearings and distinctions, in their ordinary conversations, there was nothing sincere, or open, and plain, left amongst them. This wicked gloss of theirs (being such as their successors abound withal to this day) our blessed Saviour decries ; and commands his disciples/o use plainness and simplicity in their conversation, in plain afiirmations and negations, without the mixture of such profane and cursed execrations; ver. 34—37, which, that it was no new duty, nor

2 I 2

unknown to the saints of the Old Testament, is known to all that have but read it.

4. In matter of judgment between man and raan,he proceeds in the same manner ; because the law had appointed the magistrate to exercise talionem in some cases, and to take an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, the blind Pharisees wrested this to countenance private men in revenging themselves, and pursuing them who had injured them with an hostile mind at least until the sentence of the law was executed on them. To root out the rancour and malice of the minds of men, which by this means were nourished, and fomented in them, our Saviour lets them know, that notwithstanding that procedure of the magistrate by the law, yet indeed all private revenges were forbidden, and all readiness to contend with others : whicli he amplifieth in the proposal of some particular cases ; and all this by virtue of a rule, which himself affirms to be contained in the law, 'Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself;' ver. 38—42. pressing also lending and giving, as works of charity, whereunto a blessing is so often pronounced in the Old Testament.

5. His last instance is in the matter of love, concerning which the Pharisees had given out this note ; 'Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.' For whereas there were certain nations whom God had appointed to utter destruction, at his people's first coming into Canaan; he commanded them to shew them no mercy, but utterly to destroy them ; Deut. vii. 2. This the wretched hypocrites laid hold of, to make up a rule and law for private men to walk by, in reference to them, whom they accounted their enemies, in express contradiction to the command of God, Exod. xxiii. 4, 5. Lev. xix. 18. Wherefore our blessed Saviour vindicates the sense of the law from this cursed tradition also, and renews the precept of loving, and doing good to our enemies, ver. 43—45. So that in none of the instances mentioned, is there the least evidence of what was proposed to be confirmed by them, namely, that our Saviour gave a new law, in that he did partly perfect, partly correct the law of Moses ; seeing he did only vindicate the sense and meaning of the law, in sundry precepts thereof, from the false glosses and traditions of the Scribes and Pharisees, invented and imposed on their

disciples, to be a cloak to their hypocrisy and wickedness. And this also may fully suffice to remove what on this account is delivered by the Racovian catechism. But on this foundation Mr. B. proceeds:

' Q. You have made it appear plainly that the law of faith, ■or the new covenant, whereof Christ was the Mediator, is better than the law of works, or the old covenant, whereof Moses was the mediator in respect of precepts, is it also better in respect of promises ?

'A. Heb. viii. G.vii. 19.'

This is indeed a comfortable passage, for the better understanding whereof I shall single out the several noble propositions, that are insinuated therein, and evidently contained in the words of it: as,

1. Christ was the Mediator of the law of faith, the new law, in the same sense as Moses was mediator of the old law, the law of works.

2. Christ's addition of precepts and promises to the law of Moses, is the law of faith, or the new covenant.

3. The people, or church of the Jews, lived under the old covenant, or the law of works: whereof Moses, not Christ, was the mediator.

4. The difference between the old, and the new covenant, lies in this ; that the new hath more precepts of obedience, and more promises than the old.

And now, truly, he that thinks that this man understands either the old covenant or the new, either Moses, or Christ, either faith, or works, shall have liberty from me to enjoy his opinion, for I have not more to add, to convince him of his mistake, than what the man himself hath here delivered.

For my part, I have much other work to do, occasioned by Mr. B. and therefore I shall not here divert to the consideration of the two covenants and their difference, with the twofold administration of the covenant of grace, both before and after Christ's coming in the flesh ; but I shall content myself with some brief animadversions upon the foremen-tioned propositions, and proceed.

1. In what sense Christ is the Mediator of the new covenant, I shall (God assisting) at large declare, when I come to treat of his death and satisfaction, and shall not here

prevent myself in any thing of what must then, and there, be delivered.

2. That there are precepts and promises attending the new covenant, is granted ; but that it consists in any addition of precepts to the INIosaical law, carried on in the same tenor with it, with other promises, is a figment directly destructive of the whole gospel, and the mediation of the Son of God. By this means the whole undertaking of Jesus Christ, to lay down his life a ransom for us, our justification by his blood, his being of God made righteousness to us, the free pardon of our sins, and acceptation with God, by, and for him, as he is the end of law for righteousness, all communication of effectual grace, to work in us new obedience, the giving of a new clean heart, with the law of God written in it by the Spirit, in a word, the whole promise made to Abraham, the whole new covenant, is excluded from the covenant, and men left yet in their sins. The covenant of works was, ' do this and live,' and the tenor of the law, ' if a man do the things thereof, he shall live thereby ;' that is, if a man by his own strength perform and fulfil the righteousness that the law requires, he shall have eternal life thereby. This covenant, saith the apostle, God hath= disannulled, because no man could be saved by it. The law thereof through sin was become ''weak and insufficient as to any such end and purpose; what then doth God substitute in room thereof? why a new covenant that hath more precepts added to the old, with all those of the old continued, that respected moral obedience. But is this a remedy ? Is not this rather a new burden? If the law could not save us before, because it was impossible through sin that we should perfectly accomplish it, and tlierefore by the 'deeds of the law shall no man be justified.' Is it a likely way to relieve us, by making an addition of more precepts to them, which before we could not observe ? But that through the righteous hand of God, the interest of men's immortal souls is come to be concerned therein; I should think the time exceedingly lavished, that is spent in this discourse. Let him that is ignorant, be ignorant still, were a sufficient answer. And this that hath been said, may suffice to the fourth particular also.

'^ Heb. viii. ^ Roni. viii. 3.

3. That Moses was a mediator of a covenant of works, properly and formally so called, and that the church of the Jews lived under a covenant of works, is a no less pernicious figment than the former. The covenant of works was, 'do this and live ;' on perfect obedience you shall have life. Mercy and pardon of sins, were utter strangers to that covenant, and therefore by it the Holy Ghost tells us, that no man could be saved. The church of old had the promises of Christ; Rom. ix . 5. Gen. iii. 15. xii. 3. werejustified by faith; Gen. xv. 6. Rom. iv. Gal. iii. obtained mercy for their sins, and were justified in the Lord; Isa. xlii. 24. had the Spirit for conversion, regeneration, and sanctification; Ezek. xi. 19. xxxvi.26. expected and obtained salvation by Jesus Christ: things as remote from the covenant of works as the east fronj the west.

It is true, the administration of ihe covenant of o-race, which they lived under, was dark, legal, and low, in comparison of that which we now are admitted unto, since the coming of Christ in the flesh ; but the covenant wherein they walked with God, and that wherein we find acceptance, is the same ; and the ^ justification of Abraham their Father, the pattern of ours.

Let us now see what answer Mr. B. applies to his query. The first text he mentions is, Heb. viii. 6. ' But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the Mediator of a better covenant, built upon better promises,' That which the Holy Ghost here afiirms is, that the new covenant, whereof Christ is the Mediator, is better than the old; and that it hath better promises: which I suppose none ever doubted. The covenant is better, seeino-that could by no means save us, which by this Christ doth to the uttermost. The promises are better, for it hath innumerable promises of conversion, pardon, and perseverance, which that had not at all; and the promise of eternal life, which that had, is given upon infinitely better and surer terms. But all this is nothing at all to Mr. B.'s purpose.

No more is the second place which he mentioneth, Heb. vii. 19. 'The law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did.

Not that by the law, in that place, the covenant of

«■ Rom. iv. 4, 5.

works is intended, but the legal administration of the covenant of grace. This saith the apostle, 'made nothing perfect;' men were kept under types and shadows, and though they were children of God by adoption, yet in comparison they were kept as servants, being under age until the fulness of tim.e came, when the * ' bringing in of Jesus Christ, that better hope,' made the administration of grace perfect and complete. Mr. B. all along obscures himself under the ambiguous term of the law ; confounding its covenant and subsequent use. For the covenant use of the law, or as it was the tenor of the covenant of works, the saints of the Old Testament were no more concerned in it, than are we. The subsequent use of it, may be considered two ways. 1. As it is purely moral, exacting perfect obedience, and so the use of it is common to them and us. 2. As attended with ceremonial and judicial institutions in the administration of it, and so it v.as peculiar to them. And this one observation will lead the reader through much of the sophistry of this chapter, whose next question is,

* Q. Were those better promises of God touching eternal life, and immortality hidden in the dark, and not brought to light under the law ?

* A. Christ Jesus hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel; 2 Tim. i. 10.'

The whole ambiguity of this question lies in those expressions, ' hidden in the dark, and not brought to light ;' if he intend comparatively, in respect of the clear revelation made of the mind and will of God by Jesus Christ, we grant it: if he mean it absolutely, that there were no promises of life and immortality given under the law, it is absolutely false. For,

1. There are innumerable promises of life and immortality in the Old Testament given to the church under the law. See Heb. xi. 4. Deut. xii. 1. xxx. 6. Psal. xix. 10, 11. Deut. xxxiii. 29. Psal. cxxx. 8. Isa. xxv. 8, 9. xlv. 17. xv. 6, 7. Jer. xxiii. 6. Psal. ii. 12. xxxii. 1,2. xxxiii. 12.

2. They believed eternal life, and therefore they had the promise of it, for faith relieth always on the word of promise. Thus did Job, chap. xix. 25—27. and David, Psal. xvii. 15. So did Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; Ileb. xi. 10—12. yea,

' Gal. iv.

and some of them as a pattern and example, without dying obtained it, as Enoch and Elias.

3. The covenant of Abraham was that which they lived in and mider. But this covenant of Abraham had promises of eternal life. Even that * God would be his God, dead and alive; Gen. xvii. 1. 7. And that the promises thereof were promises of eternal life, Paul manifests, Rom. iv. 3. Gal. iii. 14. but this hath been so abundantly manifested by others, that I shall not longer insist upon it. We are come to the last query of this chapter, which is,

'Though the promises of the gospel be better than those of the law, yet are they not as well as those of the lavv^, proposed under conditions of faith, and perseverance therein, of holiness and obedience, of repentance, and suffering for Christ; how speak the Scriptures?' John iii. 14—16. 18.26. Hab. ii. 14. Heb. ii. 6. 2 Tim. ii. 11. Rom. viii. 13, Acts iii. 19. Rev. ii. 5. 16. John v. 17.

Neither will this query long detain us. In the New Testament, there being means designed for the attainment of an end, faith, obedience, and perseverance, for the attainment of salvation, and enjoyment of God through Christ; the promises of it are of two sorts: some respect the end, or our whole acceptation with God ; some the means, or way whereby we come to be accepted in Christ. The first sort are those insisted on by Mr. B. and they are so far conditional, as that they declare the firm connexion and concatenation of the end and means proposed. So that without them it is not to be attained; but the other of working-faith, and new obedience and perseverance, are all absolute to the children of the covenant, as I have so fully and largely ^elsewhere declared, that I shall not here repeat any thing there written, nor do I know any necessity of adding any thing thereunto. I thought to have proceeded with the Ra-covian catechism also, as in the former part of the discourse; but having made this process, I had notice of an answer to the whole by Arnoldus, the professor of divinity at Franeker; and therefore, that I may not actum agere, nor seem to enter another's labour, I shall not directly, and Kara rroda, carry on a confutation thereof hereafter,but only divert thereunto, as I shall have occasion, yet not omitting any thing of

s I'crscver. of Saints.

weight therein, as in this chapter I have not, as to the matter under consideration.

CHAP. XIX.

Of the kingly office of Jesus Christ, and of the worship that is ascribed and

due to liim.

Of the nature of the kingly office of Jesus Christ, his investiture vpith it, his administration of it. with the efficacy of that power which therein he puts forth, both towards his elect, and others, Mr. B. doth not administer any occasion to discourse. It is acknowledged by him, that he was, or at least is, a king, by the designation and appointment of the Father, to whom, as he was Mediator, he was subject : that he abides in his rule and dominion as such, and shall do so to the end of the world, and I shall not make any farther inquiry, as to these things, unless farther occasion be administered. Upon the account of this authority, they say, he is God. Now whereas it is certain, that this authority of his shall cease at the end of the world, 1 Cor. xv. 28. it seems, that he shall then also cease to be God j such a God as they now allow him to be.

By some passages in his second and third questions, he seems to intimate, that Christ was not invested in his kino--dom before his ascension into heaven. So quest, the second, * Is Christ already invested in his kingdom, and did he after his ascension, and sitting at the right hand of God, exercise dominion, and sovereignty over men and angels ?' And quest, third, 'For what cause, and to what end was Jesus Christ exalted to his kingdom?' To which he answers from Phil. ii. 8—10. In both places intimating, that Christ was not invested with his kingly power, until after his exaltation. (As for the ends of his exaltation, these being some mentioned, though not all, nor the chief, I shall not farther insist on them.) But that this, as it is contrary to the testimony that himself gave of his being a king, in a kingdom which was not of this world, it being a great part of that office whereunto he was of his Father anointed ; so it is altogether inconsistent with Mr. B.'s principles, who maintains, that he was worshipped with religious worship and

honour, whilst he was upon the earth ; which honour and worship, says he, is due to him, and to be performed merely upon the account of that power and authority, which is given him of God, as also say all his companions : and certainly his power and authority belong to him as king. The making of him a king, and the making of him a God, is with them all one. But that he was a God, whilst he was upon the earth, they acknowledge from the words of Thomas to him, 'My Lord and my God.'

And the title of the twelfth chapter of Smalcius's book, ' De vera Jesu Christi Divinitate,' is, ' De nomine Dei, quod Jesus Christus in terris mortalis degens habuit.'' Which in the chapter itself he seeks to make good by sundry instances: and in the issue labours to prove, that the sole cause of the attribution of that name to him, is from his office : but what office, indeed, he expresseth not. The name of God, they say, is a name of office and authority : the authority of Christ, on which account he is to be worshipped, is, that which he hath as king. And yet the same author'' afterward contends, that Christ was not a king until after his resurrection and ascension. For my part I am not solicitous about reconciling him to himself; let them that are so, take pains if they please therein. Some pains I conceive it may cost them ; considering that he afterward affirms expressly, that he was called Lord and God of Thomas, because of his divine rule or kingdom; which, as I remember, was before his ascension.

As for his exaltation at his ascension, it was not by any investiture in any new office, but by an admission to the execution of that part of his work of mediatorship which did remain, in a full and glorious manner; the whole concernment of his humiliation being past; in the meantime, doubtless, he was a king,*^ when the Lord of glory was crucified.

* Divinitas autem Jesu Christi qiialis sit, discimiis ex sacris literis, nempe talis, qua; propter munus ipsius divinum tota ei tribuitur. Sniai. de Divin. jes. Ch. cap. 12.

•> Nee enim prius D.Jesus Rex reipsa factus est, quam cum consedit ad dextram Dei Patris, et legnare reipsa in coelo, et in terra ca;pit. idem cap. 13. sect. 3. Dominus et Deus proculdubio a Tlioiiia appellatur, quia sit talis Dominus.qui divino niodo in homines imperium habeat, et divino etiam il'ud modo cxercere possit, et exerceat. idem cap. 24. de fid. in Christum, 6cc.

' 1 Cor. ii. 8.

But that which remains of this chapter is more fully to be considered.

* Question 4 is. How ought men to honour the Son of God?'

From hence to the end of the chapter Mr. B. insists on the religious worship and invocation of Jesus Christ: which, with all his companions, he places as the consequent of his kingly office, and that authority, wherewith for the execution and discharge thereof from God he is invested. I shall very briefly consider what is tendered by Mr. B. to the purpose in hand, and then take liberty a little more largely to handle the whole business of the worship of Jesus Christ, with the grounds, reasons, and motives thereof.

His fifth question to this matter is, ' How ought men to honour the Son of God, Christ Jesus ?'

And it is answered, ' John x. 23. Even as they honour the Father.'

This'^ then is consented unto on both sides; that Jesus Christ is to be worshipped, and honoured with the same worship and honour wherewith the Father is worshipped and honoured ; that is, with that worship and honour, which is divine and religious, with that subjection of soul, and in the performance of those duties, which are due to God alone. How Socinus himself doubled in this business, and was entangled, shall be afterward discovered. What use will be made of this, in the issue of this discourse, the reader may easily conjecture.

His next question, discovering the danger of the non performance of this duty, of yielding divine honour and worship to Christ, strengthens the former assertion, and therefore I have nothing to except, or add thereunto.

In question the sixth, Mr. B. labours to defend the throat of his cause, against the edge of that weapon, which is sharpened against it by this concession, that Jesus Christ is to be worshipped with divine worship, as the Father is, by a diversion of it; with a consideration of the grounds of the assignation of this worship to Christ. His words are ; ' Ought men to honour the Son, as they honour the Father, because he hath tlie same essence with the Father, or

** 'Oi; xtij-t;? toi'vuv o hoy^i, 5'ti TrpjTXL'vuTOf. Ei)iphati. ii) Aiii:ora(.

because he hath the same judiciary power : what is the decision of the Son himself concerning this point ?

' A. John V. 22. 23.'

The sum is : the same worship is to be given to the Father and the Son, but upon several grounds; to the Father, because he is God by nature, because of his divine essence : to the Son, because of a delegated judiciary power committed to him by the Father. For the discovery of the vanity of this assertion, in the close of our consideration of this matter, I shall manifest,

1. That there neither is, nor can be, any more than one formal cause of the attribution of the same divine worship to any ; so that to whomsoever it is ascribed, it is upon one and the same individual account, as to the formal and fundamental cause thereof.

2. That no delegaled power of judgment is, or can be a sufficient ground or cause of yielding that worship and honour to him, to whom it is delegated, which is proper to God. For the present, to the text pleaded; 'The Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son, that all nien should honour the Son, as they honour the Father.' I say in brief, that "va ttclvt^q rifxCxn, is not expressive of the formal cause of the honouring and adoration of Christ, but of an effectual motive to men to honour him, to whom, upon the account of his divine nature, that honour is due. As in the first commandment, * I am the Lord thy God, that brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalthave no other gods but me.' That expression, ' That brought thee out of the land of Egypt,' is a motive to the worship of God, but not the formal cause of it : that being due to him, as he is by nature God blessed for ever, though he had never brought that people out of Egypt; but of this more afterward.

Q. 7. A farther diversion from the matter in hand is attempted by this inquiry ; * Did the Father give judiciary power to the Son, because he had in him the divine nature personally united to the human, or because he was the Son of man : what is the decision of the Son himself concerning this point also ?

* A. He hath given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of man; John v. 27.'

1. A point in difference is stated, and its decision inquired after, wherein there is no such difference at all. Nor do we say, that God gave Christ the judiciary power, wherewith as Mediator he is invested, because he had in him the divine nature personally united to his human. The power that Christ hath upon the account of his divine nature, is not delegated, but essential to him : nor can Mr. B. name any, that have so stated the difference as he here proposes it.

2. We say not that Christ had in him the divine nature personally united to the human; but that the human nature was personally united to the divine. His personality belonging to him upon the account of his divine nature, not his human.

3. We grant, that the judiciary power that was delegated to Christ, as Mediator, he being appointed of God to judge the world, was given him ' because he is the Son of man ;' or was made man to be our Mediator, and to accomplish the great work of the salvation of mankind. But that divine worship, proper to God the Father, is due, and to be yielded and ascribed to him on this ground and reason, * because he is the Son of man,' Mr. B. cannot prove, nor doth attempt it.

The 8th, 9th, 10th, questions belong not to us : we grant it was and is the will and command of God, that Jesus Christ the Mediator should be worshipped of angels and men; and that he was so worshipped even in this world ; for when he* * brought his first begotten into the world, he said. Let all the angels of God worship him ;' and that he is also to be worshipped now, having finished his work, being ' exalted on the right hand of God ;''but that the bottom, foundation, and sole formal cause of the worship, which God so commands to be yielded to him, is any thing but his being* God blessed for evermore,' or his being the ' only begotten Son of God,' there is not in the places mentioned the least intimation.

The 11 th, 12th, look again the same way with the former, but with the same success. Saith he, ' When men ascribe glory and dominion to Jesus Christ in the Scripture, and withal intimate the ground thereof, is it because they con-

•^^ lieb. i. 6.

ceive him to be very God, and to have been eternally begotten out of the divine essence, or because he gave himself to death: let me hear how they explain themselves ?

' A. Rev. V. 6.

' Q. 12. Are the angels of the same opinion with the saints, when they also ascribe the glory and dominion to him : let me hear how they also explain themselves ?

* A. Rev. V. 11. 12.' Of both these places afterward.

At present, 1. Christ as a Lamb, is Christ as Mediator, both God and man, to whom all honour and glory is due.

2. Neither saints, nor angels, do give, or intend to give the reason why Christ is to be worshipped, or what is the formal reason why divine worship is ascribed to him, but only what is in their thoughts and considerations a powerful and effectual motive to love, fear, worship, and to ascribe all glory to him. As David often cries, ' Praise the Lord O my soul' (or assigns glory and honour to him), because he hath done such or such things ; intimating a motive to his worship, and not the prime foundation and cause, why he is to be worshipped.

Having spoken thus to the adoration of Christ, his last question is about his invocation, which he proves from sundry places of Scripture, not inquiring into the reasons of it; so that adding that to the former concession of the worship and honour due to him, I shall close these considerations with this one syllogism: He who is to be worshipped by angels and men with that divine worship which is due to God the Father, and to be prayed unto, called on, believed in, is God by nature, blessed for ever: but according to the confession of Mr. B. Jesus Christ is to be worshipped by angels and men, with that divine worship which is due even to God the Father, and to be prayed unto. Therefore is he God by nature over all, blessed for ever. The inference of the major proposition I shall farther confirm in the ensuing considerations of the worship that is ascribed to Jesus Christ in the Scripture.

In the endeavour of Faustus Socinus to set up a new religion, there was not any thing wherein he was more opposed, or wherewith he was more exercised, by the men of the same design with himself, than in this, about the worship and invocation of Jesus Christ. He and his uncle Leelius,

urging amongst others this proposition,' that Christ was not God ;' Franciscus David, Budnseus, Christianus Franken, Paleologus, with others, made the conclusion, that he was not to be worshipped as God, nor called upon. With some of these he had sundry disputes and conferences, and was miserably intricated by them, being unable to defend his opinion, upon his hypothesis of the person of Christ. That Christ is to be worshipped and invocated, indeed, he proves well and learnedly, as in many places, so especially in his third epistle to Mathias Radecius. But coming to knit his arguments to his other opinion concerning Christ, he was perpetually gravelled, as more especially it befel him in his dispute with Christianus Franken, An. 1584, as is evident in what is extant of that dispute, written by Socinus himself. Of the chief argument insisted on by Franken, I shall speak afterward : see ' Disput. cum Franken,' pp. 24, 25. 28. 35, &c. Against Franciscus David, he wrote a peculiar tract; and to him an epistle, to prove that the words of Thomas, ' My Lord and my God,' were spoken of Christ, and therefore he was to be worshipped ; (Epist. p. 186.) wherein he' positively affirms, that there was no other reading of the words (as David vainly ]>retended) but what is the common use, because Erasmus made mention of no such thing, who would not have omitted it, could he have made any discovery thereof, being justly supposed to be no good friend to the Trinity. That men may know what to judge of some of his annotations, as well as those of Grotius, who walks in the same paths, is this remarked. Wherefore he and his associates rejected this Franciscus David afterward, as a detestable heretic, and utterly deserted him when he was cast into prison by the princfe of Transylvania, where he died miserably, raving and crying out, that the devils expected and waited for his company in his journey, which he had to go. (Florim. Rem. 1.4. c. 12.) the account whereof Smalcius also

f Primuni igifur quod attinct ad priorem rationeiii dico, diversani illani leclioncm non extaro, ut arbitror, iieqiie in iillo probato codice, iieque apiid ulliini probaluiii scriptoreni, quod \^el ex eo coiistiirc potest, quod I'liasnius in suis Aiinotationibus quamvis de lioc ipso loco agat, ejus rei nullani prorsus nicnfinneui i'acit. Qui Erasmus, cum hoc in gencrc nusquam non diligcntissinic vcrsatur ; tuni in omnibus iocis, in quibus Chrislus Dens appellari videtur, adeo diligentcr omnia verba expeiidil, alque examinat, ut iion innnorito ct Triiiitariis Arianismi suspcctus fuerit, et ab Antitrini-lariis inter cos relatus, quaj subobscure Trinitati reclainaverint. Faust, Socin, Epist. ad Fran. David, p. 1B6, 187.

gives us, in his relation of § * Franzius, Theses de Hypocrit. disput. 9. p. 298.

After these stirs and disputations, it grew the common tenet of Socinus and his followers (see his epistle to Enje-dinus), that those who denied that Christ was to be worshipped and invocated, were not to be accounted Christians: (which how well it agrees with other of his assertions shall instantly be seen). So Socinus himself leads the way : Respou. ad •^ Nemojevium, Ep. l.who is followed by Volke-lius. '' Unless,' saith he, * we dare to call on the name of Christ we should not be worthy of the name of Christians.' And he is attended by the Racovian catechism, de Prsecept, Christi, cap. 1. whose author affirms plainly, that he esteemed them not Christians who worshipped him not; and'' accounted that indeed they had not Christ, however in word they durst not deny him.

And of the rest, the same is the judgment: but yet with what consistency with what they also affirm concerning this invocation of Christ, we shall now briefly consider.

Socinus,' in his third epistle to Mathias Radecius, whom he every where speaks honourably of, and calls him excellent man, friend, brother, and much to be observed lord (because he was a great man), who yet denied, and opposed this invocation of Christ, lays this down in the entrance of his discourse, that there is nothing of greater moment in

s Exerapluin denique affert nostrorum, Tlies. 108. Quomodo se gesserint in Transilvaiiia in negotio Francisci ]5avidis, quomodo semetipsos in actu illo inter se reos agant vafriciit, jierfidiaj, crmielitatis, sanguinariaj proditionis, &c. sed his pri-iiium rt'gero : non ext'inplis, sed legibus jiidicanduni esse : si nostri ita se gesserunt ut scribit Frantziiis, &c. Deinde dico faiso ista objecta fuisse ab autoribiis scripti, quod citat Franlzius nostris : nee enim fralerne tractarunt Franciscum Davideni, usque ad ipsuni agoneni, quanquani euni ut fralrem traclare non tenebantur, qui in Jesu Christi verani divinitatem tain iiiipie involabat, ut dicere non dubitaret, tantutu peccatuin esse eum invocare, quantum est, si Virgo Maria invucetur, &;c. Srual. llefut. Thes. Franz, disput. 9. p. 1^98.

^ Recte igitur existiniasti, mihi quoque verisimile videri, eum, qui Dominum Jesuui Christum invocare non vult, aut non audet, vix Christiani nomine diijnuin esse : nisi quod non modo vix, sed ne vix quideni, et non modo verisimile id mihi vi-detur, sed persuasissimura niilii est.

' Eum invocare si non audeamus, Christiano nomine Iiaud satis digni nierito ex-istimari possenius. Volkel. de Vera Relig. lib. 4. cap. 11. de Christi invocatione, p. 221.

^ Quid vero sentisde iis honiinibus qui Cliristum non invocant, ncc invocandutu censent? Prorsus non esse Christianos seiitio: cum reipsa Christum non liabeant, et licet verbis id negare non audeant, reipsa tainen negent. Catec. Rac. de prajcep. Chrisli, cap. 1. p. 126.

f Eruditione, virtute, pietate prasstantissimo viro D. Matlifto Radecio, amico, et 'domino mihi plurimura observaiido, &cc. Pra-btantissiaie vir, amice, fraier, ac do« nnne plurimum observandc.

VOL. YIII. 2 K

Christian religion, than the demonstration of this,*"'that invocation, and adoration, or divine worship, do agree to Christ, although he be a created thino;.' And in the following;; words he gives you the reason of the importance of the proof of this assertion : namely, because the "' Trinitarians' main strength and argument lies in thisj that adoration and invocation are due to Christ, which are proper only to the high God.' Which'makes me bold on the other side to affirm, that there is nothing in Christian religion, more clear, nor more needful to be confirmed, than this, that divine worship neither is, can, nor ought by the will of God, to be ascribed to any who by nature is not God, to any that is a mere creature, of what dignity, power, and authority soever. But yet now when this zealous champion for the invocation of Christ comes to prove his assertion, being utterly destitute of the use of that which is the sure bottom and foundation thereof, he dares go no farther, but only says that we may call upon Christ if we will, but for any precept making it necessary so to do, that he says there is none.

And, therefore, he distinguisheth between the "adoration of Christ, and his invocation. For the first, he affirms, that it is commanded, or at least that things are so ordered, that we ought to adore him; but of the latter, says he, there is no precept, only we may do so if we will. The same he had before affirmed, in his answer to Ppranciscus David. Yea, in the same discourse he affirms, that if '^' we have so much faith, as that we can go with confidence to God without him, we need not invocate Christ.' * We may,' saith he, * invocate Christ, but we are not bound so to do.' Whence Niemoje-

"> Video enirn nihil liodie edi posse in tola Christiana religione inajoris monienii qnani hoc sit, denionstratio, videlicet, quod Christo licet creaturaj tanieii iiivocatio et adoratio sen cultusdiviiius conveniat. 8ociii. Epist. ad Rad. 3. p. 143.

" Si eiiini hue deiiionstratum fuerit, concideiit omnes Trinitariorum niunitiones, quag rcvcra uno hoc fuudamento nituntiir adluic, quod Christo adoratio ct invocatio conveniunt, qua; solius Dei illius altissimi oiiiiii ratioiie videtur esse propria, id. ibid.

" Hie priiiium adoratione cum iiivocatione confimdis, quod taincn fieri iioii debet, cum utriusque sit diversaquacdam ratio, adeo ut ego, quanivis nihil prorsus dubiteiu, prajceptum extare de adorando Chrihto, ct etianisi iion e.xtaret, tamen eum a nobis adorari onininodcbere, iion idem tamen existimem de eodem invocando, cum videlicet invocatio pro ipsa opis imj^loratione, et directione precuiu noslrarum accipitur. Hie enim statuo id quidem merito a nobis fieri posse, id est, posse iiosjure ad ipsuni Christum prcces nostras dirigere, niliil tamen case quod nos id fatere cogat, Socin. Epist. ad Radec. .'5. p. 161.

P Christum Doniinum invocare possunius, sed non debemus, sive non tencraut.

•I Quod si quis tanta est fide pra;ditus, ut ad Deum ipsum perpetuo recfeaccedere audeat i liuic non opus est, ut Christum invocet. Disput, cum Fran. p. 4.

vius" falls upon him, and tells him, that he had utterly spoiled their cause by that concession. To deliver himself from which charge, how pitifully he intricates himself, may be seen in his answer to that epistle. Now whether this man hath sufficient cause to exclude any from being Christians, for the non-performance of that, which himself dares not affirm that they ought to do, and with what consistency of principles these things are affirmed, is easy to judge.

Of the same judgment with him is Volk. de vera Rel. 1. 4. c. 11. de Christi invocatione. Schlinchting.'ad. Meisner. pp. 206, 207. and generally the rest of them. Which again how consistent it is, with what they affirm in the ^Racovian catechism, namely, that this is an addition which Jesus Christ hath made to the first commandment, that he himself is to be acknowledged a God, to whom we are bound to yield divine honour, I see not. For if this be added to the first commandment, that we should worship him as God, it is scarce doubtless at our liberty to call upon him or no. Of the same mind is Sraalcius, de Divinitate Jesu Christi. A *book that he offered to Sigismund the third, king of Poland, by the means of Jacobus Sienienska, palatine of Podolia, in the year 1608, who in his epistle to the king, calls him his pastor. And yet the same "person doth in another place of the same trea-

•■ Legi quoque diligenter responsioneru tuam ad argumenta Francisci Davidis ; ubi Cbristi Domini invocationeni honorem quenoinini ejus sacrosancto convcnientein asse-ris, ac contra calumnias Francisci Davidis defendis. Attamen videris niibi, paucis verbis, optimam sententiam nou taiituin obscurasse, sed quasi in dubium revocasse, adversariosque in errore confirraasse. Qusris quid sit, quod tantuni nialutt! secuni iniportare possit"! Breviter respondeo, verba ilia quae sajpius addis; Cbristuni Do-niinuni invocare possumus, sed non debemus, sive non teneniur, &c. ruinam negotio, causseque tuffi minantur: non possum percipere, quoraodo base conciliari possint: non debemus, sed possumus, quasi in negotio salutis nostrae liberum sit facere vcl omittere, prout nobis aliquid magis necessarium, vel e contra visum fuerit. Niemoje-vius Epist. 1. ad Faust. Socin. An. 1587.

« Quid praeterea buic praecepto prirao Dominus Jesus addidit, id, quod etiam do-minum Jesum pro Deo agnoscere tenemur: id est, pro eo qui in nos potestalem habet divinam et cui nosdivinum exhibere bonorem obstricti sumus. Catec. Racov. de prae-cep. Cbristi, cap. 1.

' Cum itaque nuper, libellus de Christi divinitate conscripfus, esset mibi a pastore meo, viro cum prirais pio et literato, oblatus, in quo—disseruit. Epist. dedic. ad Sigismund.

" Videtur autem hoc imprimis modo diaboius insidias struere Domino Jesu, dum scilicet tales excitat, qui non dubitant affirmare Dominura .lesuiu nunc jilaue esse otiosum in ca3lis, et res bunianas vel sahiteiii hominum nonaiiter curare, quam Closes curat salutem Judacorum. Qui quidem homines, professione videri voluiit Cbristiani, interne vero Christum abnegarunt. et spiritu judaico, qui semper Christo fuit inimi-cissimus, inflati sunt; et si quis jure cu.n eis agere velit, indigtii plane sunt, qui inter Christianos numerentur, quantunivis ore tenus Cbristuni profiteantur, et multa de eo garriant; adeo ut multo tolerabilior sit error illoruuj qui Christum pro illo uno Deo

2 K 2

tise, most bitterly inveigh against them who will not worship nor invocate Christ, affirming, that they are worse than the Trinitarians themseh^es, than which it seems he could invent nothing more vile to compare them with. And" yet again that there is no precept, that he should be invocated. Cat. Rac. (that is the same person with the former) c. 5. de praecep. Christi quee legem prefecerunt. So also Ostorodus, Compendiolum Doctrinas Ecclesise Christianse nunc in Po-lonia potissimum florentis; cap. 1. sect. 2.

It is then on all hands concluded, that Jesus Christ is to be worshipped with divine and religious worship, due to God only.

Fixing this as a common and indisputable principle, I shall subjoin and prove these two assertions.

1. In general, divine worship is not to be ascribed to any, that is not God by nature, who is not partaker of the divine essence and being.

2. In particular, Jesus Christ is not to be^vvorshipped on the account of the power and authority which he hath received from God as Mediator, but solely on the account of his being ' God blessed for ever,' And this is all that is required in answer to this tenth chapter of Mr. B.; what follows on the heads mentioned, is for the farther satisfaction of the reader in these things upon the occasion administered, and for his assistance to the obviating of some other Socinian sophisms, that he may meet withal. I shall be brief in them both.

For the first: Divine worship is not to be ascribed to them Vi^hom God will certainly destroy. He will not have us to worship them, whom himself hateth. But now, all gods that have not made the heavens and the earth, he will destroy from under these heavens; Jer. x. 10, 11. 'Thus shall ye say Unto them, the gods that have not made the heavens and the earth, even they shall perish from the earth, and from

liabent et colunt, quani istonim : ct prits(i"t ex duobus iiialis minus quod aiiiiit, cli-geiido, Tiiiiitariuin quniii liujusinodi blusplieimiiu esse. Smal. dc ver. Clirisli Diviii. cap 1.5. de Regn. Cliristi i\Ioderiii).

'^ Est ciiini iiivocatio Jesu Christi, ex rmiuero earuni reruui, quas piaecipcre nullo iiiodo opus est. Idem. cap. '24. de (iiie in C'liristuiii. ct de Adorat. et luvucat. Clirisli. y N>)7noc, oVtic avaXTrt SfoT 'kiyov tt'.Ev soVTtt Oi) criyET' iVoSfajf Trarpo; twov^aviou.

Ol a-iar' ic-sSfaf ov^anoio'Koyov. Gregor. Tlicol.

under these lieavens.* It is a thing that God would have the nations take notice of; and, therefore, is it written in the Chaklee dialect in the original, that they who were principally concerned in those days, might take tlie more notice of it. And it is an instruction that God put into the mouths of the meanest of his people, that they should say it to them ; * say ye to them.' And the assertion is universal, to all whatever, that have not made the heavens and earth, and so is applicable to the Socinians' Christ. A god they say he is, as Elijah said of Baal, 1 Kings xviii. 27. He is made so ; but that he made the heavens and earth, they deny : and therefore he is so far from having any right to be worshipped, that God hath threatened he shall be destroyed.

Again, the apostle reckons it among the sins of the Gentiles, that ^'they worshipped them who by nature were not gods ;' Gal. iv. 8. from which we are delivered by the knowledge of God in the gospel. And the weight of the apostle's assertion of the sin of Gentiles, lies in this, that by nature they were not gods, who were worshipped. So that this is a thing indispensable, that divine worship should not be given to any who is not God by nature. And surely we are not called in the gospel to the practice of that, which is the greatest sin of the heathens, that knew not God. And to manifest that this is a thing which the law of nature gives direction in, not depending on institution; Rom. i. it is reckoned among those sins, which are against the light of nature ; they ' worshipped the "creature'(besides or) ' more than'(or with)' the Creator;' ver. 25. who is God blessed for ever more. To worship a creature, him who is not the Creator, God blessed for ever, is that idolatry which is condemned in the Gentiles, as as-in against the light of nature, which to commit, God*" cannot (be it spoken with reverence), dispense with the sons of men (for he cannot deny himself), much less institute and appoint them so to do. It being then on all hands confessed, that Christ is to be worshipped with divine or religious worship, it will be easy to make the conclusion, that he is God by nature, blessed for evermore.

That also is general and indispensable which you have, Jer. xvii. 5, 6. 'Cursed be the man thattrusteth in man, and

'^ 'EXa,T^iu3-iv r'l ktIc-h -nv-xk tov KTiVavra. •> Vid. Uiutiib. dc Jubt. div.

maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the Lord; for he shall be like the heath in the desert, and shall not see when good cometh.' That which we worship with divine worship, we trust in, and make it our arm and strength. And those words, *and whose heart departeth from the Lord,' are not so much an addition to what is before cursed, as a declaration of it. All trust in man, who is no more but so, with that kind of trust, wherewith we trust in Jehovah (as by the antithesis, ver. 7. is evident that it is intended), is here cursed. If Christ be only a man by nature, however exalted and invested with authority, yet to trust in him, as we trust in Jehovah, which we do if we worship him with divine worship, would by this rule be denounced a cursed thing.

Rev. xix. 20. and xxii. 9. do add the command of God to the general reason insisted on in the places before-mentioned ; ' I fell at his feet to worship him; and he said. See thou do it not, for I am thy fellow-servant, and thy brethren, that have the testimony of Jesus, worship God.' So again, chap. xxii. 9. there are evidently two reasons assigned by the angel, why John ought not to worship him. 1. Because he was a servant. He that is a servant of God, and is no more, is not to be worshipped; now he that is not God, at his best estate, however exalted, is but a ''servant in respect of God, and a fellow-servant of his saints, and no more. All his creatures serve him, and for his will they were made. Such and no other is the Socinians' Christ, and is clearly deprived of all worship by this prohibition and reason of it. 2. From the command, and the natural and eternal obligation of it, in those repeated words, 'roj Qeio irpoaKvvr\' aov. It is the word of the law, that our Saviour himself insists on. Matt. iv. 10. that is here repeated ; and the force of the angel's reason, for the strengthening his prohibition, is from hence, that no other but he wlio is God, that God intended by the law and by our Saviour, Matt. iv. is to be worshipped. For if the intendment of the words were only positive, that God is to be worshipped, and did not also at the same time exclude every one whatever from all divine

b R V. vi. 11.

&tov (TOu TTjesTKuvia-Et;, xal aiirai fjiorr XaTjEJcriff. Justin. Mar. Apol.

worship, who is not that God, they would be of no force for the reproof of John, in his attempt to worship the angel, nor have any influence into his prohibition. And thus that angel, who chap. V. 9—13. shews John all creatures in heaven and earth, yielding divine worship and adoration to the Lamb, the Lord Jesus Christ, in the close of all appropriates all that worship to God himself alone, and for ever shuts out the most glorious creature from our thoughts and intentions, in the performance of any divine worship or religious adoration.

And it may hence appear, how vain is that plea of the adversaries to avoid the force of this reproof, which is managed by Schlichtingius against Meisnerus. * To*^ those places,' saith he, * where mention is made of God alone to be worshipped ; I answer, that by those exclusive particles alone, and the like, when they are used of God, they are not simply excluded who depend on God in that thing which is treated of; so is he said to be only wise, only powerful, only immortal, and yet those who are made partakers of them from God, ought not simply to be excluded from wisdom, power and immortality: wherefore when it is said, that God alone is to be worshipped and adored, he ought not to be simply excluded who herein dependeth on God, because of that divine rule over all, which he hath of him received, yea, he is rather included.' So the most learned of that tribe. But,

1. By this rule nothing is appropriated unto God, nor any thing excluded from a participation with him by that particle mentioned; and wherever any thing is said of God only, we are to understand it of God and others, for of him, in all things, do all other things depend.

2. When it is said, that God only is wise, &.c. though it do not absolutely deny that any other may be wise with that wisdom which is proper to them, yet it absolutely denies that any one partakes with God in his wisdom; is wise as God is wise, with that kind of wisdom wherewith God is

<^ Respondeo particulis istis exclusivis, qualis et solus, et similis, cum de Deo usur-pantur, iiunquani eos simpliciter excludi, qui a Deo, in ca re de qua agitur, dependent : sic dicitur solus Deus sapiens, solus potens, solus iuimortalos, neque tanien simpliciter a sapientia, a potentia, iniiuorlalitate excludi debent et alii, qui istarum rerum participes sunt effecti: quare jam cam solus Deus adorandus aut invocandiis esse dicitur, excludi simpliciter non debet is, qui hac in parte a Deo pendet, propter di-vinum ab ipso in cuncfa acceptum imperium, sed potius tacite siinul includendus est. Schlichting.ad JMeis. Ailic. de Deo. pp. 206, 207.

wise. And so where it is said, that God only is to be worshipped and honoured ; though it do not exclude all others from any kind of worship and honour, but that they may have that which is due to them by God's appointment, from their excellency and pre-eminence, yet it doth absolutely exclude any from being worshipped with divine worship, that is due and proper to God.

3. We shall shew afterward, that whatever dignity, rule, and dominion, they say is given to Christ, and whatever excellency in him doth thence arise, yet it is quite of another kind and stands upon another foot of account, than that essential excellency that is in God; and so cannot, nor doth require the same kind of worship as is due to God.

4. Angels and men are depending on God in authority and power, and therefore if this rule be true, they are not excluded from divine and religious worship, in the command of worshipping God only; and so they may be worshipped with divine and religious adoration and invocation, as well as Jesus Christ. Neither is it any thing but a mere begging of the thing in question, to say, that it is divine power that is delegated to Christ, which that is not that is delegated to angels and men. That power v/hich is properly divine, and the formal cause of divine worship is incommunicable : nor can be delegated, nor is in any who is not essentially God. So that the power of Christ and angels being of the same kind, though his be more and greater than theirs, as to degrees, they are to be worshipped with the same kind of worship, though he may be worshipped more than they.

5. This is the substance of Schlichtingius's rule, when any thing is affirmed of God exclusively toothers, indeed otiiers are not excluded, but included.

6. We argue not only from the exclusive particle, but from the nature of the thing itself. So that this pretended rule and exception, notwithstanding all and every tiling whatever that is not God, is by God himself everlastingly excluded from the least share in divine or religious worship, with express condemnation of them who assign it to them.

The same evasion with that insisted on by Schlichtingius, Socinus himself had before used; and professes that this is the bottom and foundation of all his arguments in his disputation with Franciscus David, about the invocation of Christ,

that others as well as God may be worshipped and invocatcd ; in his 3d epistle to Volkelius, where he labours to answer the objection of John's praying for grace from the ' seven spirits that are before the throne of Christ;' Rev. i. ' But** why, I pray, is it absurd to affirm, that those seven spirits (supposing them mere creatures) were invocated of John ? Is it because God alone is to be invocated? But that this reason is of no value, that whole disputation doth demonstrate, not only because it is nowhere forbidden that we should invo-cate none but God (as durinn), but also, and much rather, because those interdictions never exclude those who are subordinate to God himself.' That is, as was observed before, they exclude none at all; for all creatures whatever are subordinate to God. To say that they are subordinate as to this end, that under him they may be worshipped, is purely to beg the question. We deny that any is, or may be in such a subordination to God. And the reasons the man adds of this his assertion, contain the grand plea of all idolaters, heathenish, and antichristian, ^'whatever is given to them,'saith he, ' who are in that subordination is given to God.' So said the Pagans of old; so the Papists at this day, all redounds to the glory of God, when they worship stocks and stones, because he appoints them so to do. And so said the Israelites when they worshipped the golden calf; it is a feast to Jehovah. But if John might worship, and invocate (which is the highest act of worship) the seven spirits, Rev. i. because of their subordination to God, supposing them to be so many created spirits, why might he not as well worship the spirit, or angel in the end of the bpok, chap. xx. 22. who was no less subordinate to God ? Was the matter so altered during his visions, that whom he might invocate in the entrance, he might not so much as worship in the close''

The Racovian catechism takes another course, and tells you, that the foundation of the worship and adoration of Christ, is, because ^' Christ had added to the first command-

« Sed cur quaeso absurdiini est affirmare scptcm illos spiritus a Johaiine fiiisse in-vocatos ? An quia solus Deus est invocandui? Atqui liauc rationeiii niliili esse tola ilia disputatioiie denionstratur. Non modt) quia nuiiquam deserte inteidictuiu est queniquam aliuin prater Deumipsiiin iuvocare, sed etiani.et nnilto magis,quia ejus-niodi interdictioucs (ut sic locjuar) nunquani eos excludunt, qui ipsi Deo suntsubor-dinati. Socin. Epist. ad Volk. 3.

' Qiiicquid euiui ab eo qui subordinationem istaui recte novit ct niente sua illam probal.in istos couferlur, in Dcuui i()suin i:oiit'crlur.

8 Quid pra;tcrea Doniinus Jesus Imic prajcejilo prinio addidit? —Id quod eliaiu-

ment, that we should acknowledge him for God.* That is, he who hath divine authority over us, to whom we are bound to yield divine honour. But,

1. That Jesus Christ, who is not God by nature, did add to the command of God, that he himself should be acknowledged for God, is intolerable blasphemy ; asserted without the least colour or pretence from the Scripture, and opens a door to downright atheism.

2. The exposition of his being God, that is, one who hath divine authority over us, is false : God is a name of nature, not of office and power; Gal. iv. 8. 3. Christ was worshipped and commanded to be worshipped, before his coming in the flesh; Psal. ii. 12. Gen. xlviii. 16. Exod. xxiii. 21.

But if this be added to the first commandment, that Christ be worshipped as God ; then is he to be worshipped with the worship required in the first commandment. Now this worship is that which is proper to the only true God, as the very words of it import: ' Thou shalt have no other gods but me.' How then will Smalcius reconcile himself with his master, who plainly affirms, that Jesus Christ is not to be worshipped with that divine worship, which is due to God alone ; and strives to answer that place of John v. 23. to the contrary, * 'Hhat all men should honour the Son, as they honour the Father.' That Christ should be commanded to be worshipped in the first commandment (or by an addition made thereto) which commands us to have only one God, and not be worshipped with the worship which is due to that one God, is one of the mysteries of these men's religion : but to proceed.

Where the formal cause of divine worship is not, there divine worship ought not to be exhibited. But in no creature there is, or can be the formal cause of divine worship; therefore no creature, who is only such, can be worshipped without idolatry. The formal reason of any thing is but one; the reason of all worship is excellency or pre-eminence. The

num Domiinim Jesum pro Deo cognoscere teneiijir, id est, pro eo qui in nos potesta-teiii liabtt diviiiani, ct cui nos di\ iiium exhibere lioiioreni obstricti suraus. Catech. Racov. de prppcep. Cliristi.

'' Nos i)aulo ante ostcndiniiis divinnni cultuni, qui Christo debelur, et directe ipsuiu Cliristuu) respicit, iifni chse ilium qui uni illi soli Deo convcnit. Socin. ad ■\Vicck. respon. ad cap. 10. Class. 5. Arg. 6. pp. 422, 423.

reason of divine or religious worship is divine pre-eminence and excellency. Now divine excellency and pre-eminence is peculiar unto the divine nature. Wherein is it that God is so infinitely excellent above all creatures ? Is it not from his infinitely good, and incomprehensible nature ? Now look what difference there is between the essence of the Creator and the creature, the same is between their excellency. Let a creature be exalted to ever so great a height of dignity and excellency: yet his dignity is not at all nigher to the dignity and excellency of God; because there is no proportion between that which is infinite, and that which is finite and limited. If then excellency and pre-eminence be the cause of worship, and the distance between the excellency of God, and that of the most excellent, and most highly advanced creature, be infinite, it is impossible that the respect and worship due to them, should be of the same kind. Now it is religious, or divine adoration that is due to God, whereof the excellency of his nature is the formal cause; this then cannot be ascribed to any other. And to whomsoever it is ascribed, thereby do we acknowledge to be in him all divine perfections ; which if he be not God by nature, is gross idolatry. In sum, adorability, if I may so say, is an absolute incommunicable property of God. Adoration thence arising, a respect that relates to him only.

I shall for a close of this chapter proceed to manifest, that Christ himself is not by us worshipped, under any other formal reason, but as he is God ; which will add some light to what hath already been spoken. And here lest there should be any mistake among the meanest, in a matter of so great consequence, I shall deliver my thoughts to the whole of the worship of Christ in the ensuing observations.

1. Jesus Christ, the Mediator, Qeav^pwirog, God and man, the Son of God, having assumed ayiov to 7£vvwjU€vov, Luke i. 35. that holy thmg, that was born of the Virgin, awTrocjTaTov, having no subsistence of its own, into personal subsistence with himself, is to be worshipped with divine religious worship, even as the Father. By worshipped with divine worship, I mean believed in, hoped in, trusted in, invocated as God, as an independent fountain of all good, and a sovereign disposer of all our present and everlasting concernments ; by doing whereof, we acknowledge in him, and ascribe to

CHRIST S KIXGLY OFFICE.

liim all divine perfections; omnipotency, omniscience, infinite goodness, omnipresence, and the like.

This proposition was sufficiently confirmed before. In the Revelation you have the most solemn representation of the divine spiritual worship of the church, both that militant in the earth, and that triumphant in the heavens, and by both is the worship mentioned given to the Mediator; ' to him (to Jesus Christ) that washed us in his blood, be glory and dominion for ever and ever, amen ;' chap. i. 6. So again the same church represented by four living creatures, and twenty-four elders, falls down before the Lamb, chap. v. 8. 12. * worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and glory, and blessing :' and ver. 13, 14. joint worship is give to him upon the throne, and to the Lamb, by the whole creation ; ' And every creature, which is in heaven and in earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying. Blessing, honour, glory, and power be unto him that sitteth on the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever,' &c. And this also is particularly done by the church triumphant, chap, vii. 9, 10. Now the Lamb is neither Christ in respect of the divine nature, nor Christ in respect of the human nature, but it is Christ the Mediator. That Christ was Mediator in respect of both natures, shall in due time be demonstrated. It is then the person of the Mediator, God and man, who is the Lamb of God, that takes away the sin of the world, to whom all this honour and worship is ascribed. This the apostle perfectly confirms, Rom. xiv. 8—11. ' For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's. For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he miohtbe Lord both of the dead and the livinof. But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother ? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. For it is written. As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.' To Christ exalted in his dominion and sovereignty, we live, and die : to him do we bow the knee, and confess; that is, perform all worship, and stand before him, as at his disposal; we swear by him, as in the place from whence these words are taken.

2. That our religious,' divine, and spiritual worship, hath a double, or twofold respect unto Jesus Christ.

1. As he is the ultimate formal object of our worship, being God to be blessed for evermore, as was before declared. 2. As the way, means, and-cause of all the good we receive from God in our religious approach to him. In the first sense, we call upon the name of Christ; 1 Cor. i. 2. In the other, we ask the Father in his name, according to his command, John xvi. 23. In the first, we respect him as one with the Father, as one who thinks it no robbery to be equal with him; Phil. ii. 8, ' the fellow of the Lord of Hosts.' In the other, as one that doth intercede yet with the Father, Heb. vii. 25. praying him yet to send the comforter to us; being yet in that regard less than the Father; and in v/hicli respect, as he is our head, so God is his head, as the apostle tells us, 1 Cor. xi. 3.' the head of every man (that is every believer) is Christ, and the head of Christ is God.' In this sense, is he the'' way whereby we go to the Father. And through him we have an access to the Father; Eph. ii. 18. Sm y^piarov, TTQoq rov TrtiTipa. In our worship, with our faith, love, hope, trust, and prayers, we have an access to God. Thus in our approach to the throne of grace, we look upon Christ as the high-priest over the house of God, Heb.iv. 14. —16. by whom we have admission ; who offers up our prayers and supplications for us; Rev. viii. 3. In this state as he is the head of angels, and his whole church, so is he in subordination to the Father, and therefore he is said at the same time to receive revelations from the Father, and to send an angel as his servant, on his work and employment; Rev. i. 1. And thus is he our advocate with the Father ; 1 John ii. 1. In this respect then, seeing tliat in our access to God, even the Father, as the Father' of him, and his, witli our worship, homage, service, our faith, love, hope, confidence, and supplications, eyeing Christ, as our mediator, advocate, intercessor, upon whose account we are accepted, for whose sake we are pardoned, through whom we have admission to

' Unum Deum, et ununi ejus filium, et verbnra, iniagincmqiie, quaiifiim possu-iTius supplicatiouibus, et lionoribus venereimir, oHerentes Deo universoruin 13omiiio preces per siiiim unigenitum : cui prius eas adliibemus rogantes ut ipse, qui est propitiator pro peccatis nostris, dignetur taiiquaiu pontifex preces nostras, et sacrificia et iutercessiones, offcrre Deo. Origen. ad Celsuiu lib. 8.

■^ John xiv. 6. ^ ' John xx 17.

God, and by whom we have help and assistance in all that we have to do with God ; it is evident I say, that in this respect he is not eyed, nor addressed to in oar worship, as the ultimate, adequate, formal object of it; but as the meritorious cause of our approach and acceptance, and so of great consideration therein. And therefore whereas, Rom. iii. 25. it is said, that' God hath set him forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood:' it is not intended, that faith fixes on his blood, or blood-shedding, or on him as shedding his blood, as the prime object of it, but as the meritorious cause of our forgiveness of sin, through the righteousness of God.

And these two distinct respects have we to Jesus Christ our Mediator, who is ^tav^pioirog, God and man, in our religious worship, and all acts of communion with him. ""As one with the Father we honour him, believe in him, worship him, as we do the Father. As Mediator depending on the Father, in subordination to him, so our faith regards him, we love him, and hope in him, as the way, means, and meritorious cause of our acceptance with the Father. And in both these respects we have distinct communion with him.

3. That Jesus Christ our Mediator, ^mv^pujTTog, God and man, who is to be worshipped with divine or religious worship, is to be.,so worshipped, because he is our Mediator. That is, his mediation is the ' ratio quia,' an unconquerable reason, and argument, why we ought to love him, fear him, believe in him, call upon him, and worship him in general. This is the reason still urged by the Holy Ghost, why we ought to worship hira ; Rev. i. 5, 6. * To him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, and hath made us kings and priests unto God, and his Father, to him, be glory, and dominion for ever.' Who would not love him, who would not ascribe honour to him, who hath so loved us, and washed us in his own blood ? So Rev. v. 12. there is an acknowledgment of the power, riches, goodness, wisdom, strength, glory, and blessing, that belongs to him, because, as the Lamb, as Mediator, he hath done so great things for us. And I dare say, there is none of his redeemed ones, who finds not the power of this motive upon his heart. The love of Christ in his mediation, the work he has gone through

"• Mia vporninnff-ii, na) fxlai hItS rhv io^oXcylxv avaTrijX'Braiy. Synod. E])ll. Anath. vili. Cvrill.

in it, and that which he continueth in, the benefits we receive thereby, and our everlasting misery without it, are all chains upon our souls, to° bind us to the Lord Christ in faith, love, and obedience. But yet this mediation of Christ is not the formal and fundamental cause of our worship (as shall be shewed), but only a motive thereunto. It is not the ' ratio formalis, et fundamentalis cultus,' but only the * ratio quia,' or an argument thereunto. Thus God dealing with his people, and exhorting them of old to worship and obedience, he says,"' I am the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage, thou shalt have no other gods but me.' He makes his benefit of bringing them out of the land of Egypt, the reason of that eternally indispensable moral worship, which he requires in the first commandment. Not that that was the formal cause of that worship, for God is to be worshipped as the first sovereign independent good, as the absolute Lord of all, and fountain of all good, whether he giv'^ any such benefits or no. But yet all his mercies, all his benefits, every thing he doth for us, in his providence, in his grace, as to the things of this life, or of another, are all arguments and motives to press us to the performance of all that worship and service, which we owe unto him, as our God and Creator.^ * Praise the Lord, O my soul, for all his benefits,' saith David : so is it in the case of our Mediator. For the work of his mediation we are eternally obliged to render all glory, honour, and thanksgiving to him. But yet his mediation is not the formal cause thereof, but only an invincible motive thereunto. Let this therefore be our fourth and last observation.

4. Though Jesus Christ, who is our Mediator, God and man, to be worshipped with divine worship, as we honour the Father, yet this is not as he is Mediator, but as he is God blessed for evermore. He is not to be worshipped under this reduplication, as Mediator, though he who is Mediator is to be worshipped, and he is to be worshipped because he is Mediator. That is, his mediatory office is not the formal cause and reason of yielding divine worship to him, nor under that consideration is that worship ultimately terminated in

" 'H yaf ayairr) raZ j^jta-ToI; /rvn-^n rif/.a^. 2 Cor. t. 14. o Exod. xx. 2, 3. P Psal.ciii. 1,2,

him. The formal reason of any thing, strictly taken, is but one; and it is that, from the concession whereof, that thing or effect whereof it is the cause or reason, without any other help doth arise, or result from it. Now the formal cause or reason of all divine worship is the Deity, or divine nature : that being granted, divine worship necessarily follows to be due. That being denied, that worship also is, and is to be for ever denied. We may not worship them, who by nature art not God. If it could be supposed, that we might have had a Mediator, that should not have been God (which was impossible), religious worship would not have been yielded to him. And if the Son of God had never been our Mediator, yet he was to be worshipped.

It is thes Deity of Christ then, which is the fundamental formal cause and reason, and the proper object of our worship ; for that being granted, though we had no other reason or argument fur it, yet we ought to worship him, and that bein<^- denied, all other reasons and motives whatever would not be a sufficient cause, or warrant for any such proceeding.

It is true, Christ hath a"" power given him of his Father, above all angels, principalities and powers: called'all power in heaven and earth:' ^' a name above every name,' giving him an excellency, an a^ia, as he is fittriTi^g ikIttjc ; as he is the king and head of his church, which is to be acknowledged, owned, ascribed to him ; and the consideration whereof, with his ability and willingness therein to succour, relieve, and save us, to the uttermost, in a way of mediation, is a powerful, effectual motive (as was said before) to his worship. But yet this is an excellency, which is distinct from that which is purely and properly divine ; and so cannot be the formal reason of religious worship. Excellency is the cause of honour: every distinct excellency and eminence is the cause of honour: every distinct excellency and eminence, is the cause of distinct honour and worship. Now what excellency or dignity soever is communicated by a way of delegation, is distinct, and of another kind, from that which is original, infinite, and communicating : and therefore cannot be the formal cause of the same honour and worship.

aXKa Tf.v XTiiTTW hSv^uy.ivav rn ktictto ff'i/xa, Atliaii. I'.piit. ad Adtlph. KpiaC. ' MaU. xxviii. 18. " I'liil. ii. 7.

'\'i

cfirist's kinglv office. 5lb

I shall briefly give the reasons of the assertion insisted on, and so pass on to what remains.

The first is taken from the nature of divine or religious worship. It is that whereby we ascribe the honour and glory of all infinite perfections to him, whom we so worship ; to be the first cause, the fountain of all good, independent, infinitely wise, powerful, all-sufHcient, almighty, all-seeing, omnipotent, eternal, the only rewarder, as such we submit ourselves to him religiously, in faith, love, obedience, adoration, and invocation. But now we cannot ascribe these divine excellencies and perfections unto Christ as Mediator : for then his mediation should be the reason why he is all this ; which it is not: but it is from his divine nature alone, that so he is ; and therefore thence alone is it that he is so worshipped.

2. Christ, under this formal conception, as they speak, as Mediator, is not God : but under this, as partaker of the nature of God. Christ as Mediator is an expression, as they speak, in the concrete, whose form is its abstract. Now that is his mediation or mediatory ofiice ; and therefore, if Christ under this formal conception of a Mediator be God, his mediatory office, and God, must be the same : nvhich is false and absurd. Therefore as such, or on that fundamental account, he is not worshipped with divine worship.

3. Christ in respect of his mediation dependeth on God, and hath all his power committed to him from God ; Matt, xi. 27. ' All things,' saith he, ' are given me of my Father.' And Matt, xxviii. 18. ' All power is given to me in heaven and in earth.' John xvii. 2. 'Thou hast given unto him power over all flesh;' and in innumerable other places is the same testified. God gives him as Mediator his name; that is, his authority. Now God is worshipped because he is independent, he is, and there is none besides him. He is A and ii, the first and the last: and if the reason why we worship God with divine worship be, because he is avTctfjKr]Q, and independent; certainly that wherein Christ is dependant, and in subordination to him, as receiving it from him, cannot be the formal cause of attributing divine worship to him.

4. Christ in respect of his divine nature is equal with God, that is, the Father; Phil. ii. 9, 10. but in respect of his mediation, he is not equal to him, he is less than he. ' My

Father,' saith he, * is greater than I;' John xiv. 28. Now-whatever is less than God, is not equal to him, is infinitely so ; for between God, and that which is not God, there is no proportion neither in being, nor excellency. That Christ in respect of his office is not equal to God, is commonly received in that axiom, whereby the arguments thence taken against his Deity are answered ; ' inaequalitas officii non tollit sequalitatem naturae.' Now certainly, that which is infinitely unequal to God, cannot be the formal cause of that worship which we yield to him, as God.

5. That which shall cease, and is not absolutely eternal, cannot be the formal cause of our worship : for the formal reason of worship can no more cease, than God can cease to be God : for when that ceaseth, we cease to worship him ; which, while he is the Creator and sovereign Lord of his creatures, cannot be. Now that the mediatory office of Christ shall cease, the Holy Ghost affirmeth, 1 Cor. xv. 24. he then gives up his kingdom to God; and there is the same reason of the other parts of his mediatory office. It is true, indeed, the efficacy of his office abideth to eternity, whilst the redeemed ones live with God, and praise him; but as to the administration of his office, that ceaseth, when at the last day the whole work of it shall be perfectly consummated, and he hath saved to the uttermost all that come to God by him.

The sum of all is, Jesus Christ, God and man, our Mediator, who is to be worshipped in all things, and invocated as the Father, and whom we ought night and day to honoui', praise, love, and adore, because of his mediation, and the office of it, which for our sakes he hath undertaken, is so to be honoured and worshipped. Not as Mediator, exalted of God, and intrusted with all power and dignity from him, but as being equal with him, God to be blessed for ever; his divine nature being the fundamental formal reason of that worship, and proper ultimate object of it. And to close up this digression, there is not any thing that more sharply and severely cuts the throat of the whole sophistical plea of the Socinians against the Deity of Christ, than this one observation. Themselves acknowledge, that Christ is to be worshipped with religious worship, and his name to be invocated, denying to account them Christians, whatever

tlieyare,who are otherwise minded, as Franciscus David, and those before-mentioned were. Noav if there be no possible reason to be assigned for the formal cause of this worship, but his Deity, they must either acknowledge him to be God, or deny themselves to be Christians.

Some directions (by the way) may be given from that which hath been spoken, as to guidance of our souls in the worship of God; or in our addresses to the throne of grace by Jesus Christ. What God hath discovered of himself unto us, he would have us act faith upon, in all that we have to deal with him in. By this we are assured we worship the true God, and not an idol, when we worship him, who has revealed himself in his word, and as he has revealed himself. Now God hath declared himself to be three in one; for, ' there are three that bear witness in Heaven, and these three are one ;' 1 John v. So then is he to be worshipped ; and not only so, but the order of the three persons in that Deity, the eternal internal order among themselves is revealed to us. The Father is of none; is avravTog. The Son begotten of the Father : having the glory of the only begotten Son of God, and so is avro^eog, in respect of his nature, essence, and being, not in respect of his personality, which he hath of the Father. The Spirit is of the Father and the Son. He is often so called, the Spirit of God, and the Spirit of the Son. For the term of proceeding, or going forth, I profess myself ignorant, whether it concern chiefly his eternal personality, or his dispensation in the work of the gospel. The latter 1 rather like, of which this is no time to give my reasons. But be those expressions of what import soever, he is equally the Spirit of the Father and the Son: and is of them both, and from them both. God then by us is to be worshipped, as he hath revealed the subsistence of the three persons in this order, and so are we to deal with him in our approaches to him. Not that we are to frame any conception in our minds of distinct substances, which are not; but by faith closing with this revelation of them, we give up our souls in contemplation and admiration of that we cannot comprehend.

2. There is an external economy and dispensation of the persons, in reference to the work of our salvation, and what we draw nigh to them for: so the Father is considered as the foundation of all mercy, grace, glory; every thing that is

dispensed in the covenant, or revealed in the gospel. The Son receiving all from him ; and the Spirit sent by the Son, to effect and complete the whole good pleasure of God in us, and towards us ; and in, and under the consideration of this economy, is God of us to be worshipped.

' All things/ saith Christ, 'are given me of the Father ;' Matt. xi. 27. that is, to me, as Mediator ; therefore ' come to me :' and in his prayer, John xvii. 8. ' I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.' So most fully John iii. 34, 35. He is sent of God, and from the love of the Father to him as Mediator are all things given him ; ' it pleased the Father that in him all fulness should dwell;' Johni. 16. Col. iii. 3 .John v. 26. * He hath given him to have life:' that is, as he is Mediator, appointed him to be the fountain of spiritual life to his elect; and Rev. i. 1. the revelation of the will of God is given unto Christ by the Father, as to this end of discovering it to the church.

Hence ariseth the second way of faith's acting itself towards God in our worship of him. It eyes the Father as the fountain of this dispensation ; and the Son as the mediator, as the storehouse, and the Spirit as immediate communicator thereof. Here also it considers the Son under those two distinct notions. 1. As the ordinance and servant of the Father, in the great work of mediation ; so it loves him, delights in him, and rejoiceth in the wisdom of God, in finding out, and giving such a means of life, salvation, and union with himself; and so by Christ believes in God, even the Father. It considers him, secondly, as the way of going to the Father, and there it rests, as the ultimate object of all the religious actings of the soul. So we are very often said, through and by Christ, to believe in God ; by him to have an access to God, and an entrance to the throne of grace. In this sense, I say, when we draw nigh to God in any religious worship, yea, in all the first actings and mov-ings of our souls towards him in faith and love, the Lord Christ is considered as Mediator, as clothed with his offices, as doing the will of the Father, as servincrthe desic^n of his love, and so the soul is immediately fixed on God through Christ; being strengthened, supported, and sustained by the consideration of Christ, as the only procuring cause of all the

good things we seek from God, and of our interest in those excellencies which are in him, which make him excellent to us.

And this is the general consideration that faith hath of Christ, in all our dealings with God ; we ask in his name, for his sake, go to God on his account, through him, and the like; are strengthened and imboldened upon the interest of him as our High Priest and Intercessor; God the Father being yet always immediately in our eye, as the primary object of our worship. But yet now again, this Christ, as Mediator, so sent and intrusted by the Father, as above, is also one with the Father, God to be blessed for evermore. Faith also takes in this consideration, and so he who befoie was the means of fixing our faith on God, is thereupon become the proper object of our faith himself; we believe in him, invocate, call upon him, worship him, put our trust in him, and live unto him. Over and above, then, the distinction that the eternal persons have in the manner of inbeing in the same essence, which also is the object of our faith, that distinction which they have in the external economy, is to be considered in our religious worship of God ; and herein is Christ partly eyed as the Father's servant, the means, and cause of all our communion with God, and so is the medium of our worship, not the object; partly as God and man vested with that office, and so he is the object primary, and ultimate of it also. And this may give us, I say, some assistance to order our thoughts aright towards God, and some light into that variety of expressions which we have in Scripture, about worshipping of God in Christ; and worshipping of Christ also. So is it in respect of the Spirit.

Having cleared the whole matter under consideration, it may be worth the while, a little to consider the condition of our adversaries, in reference to this business, wherein of all other things (as I said before), they are most entangled. Of the contests and disputes of Socinus with Franciscus David, about this business, I have given the reader an account formerly, and the little success he had therein. The man would fain have stood, when he had kicked away the ground from under his feet, but was not able. And never was he more shamefully gravelled in any dispute, than in that which he had with Christianus Franken, about this business, whereof 1 shall give the reader a'brief account.

This Franken seems to have been a subtle fellow, who

denying with Socinus that Christ was God, saw evidently that it was impossible to find out a foundation of yielding religious worshijD or adoration''unto him. With him, about this matter, Socinus had a solemn dispute in the house of one* Publicovius, An. 1584. March 14. Franken in this disputation was the opponent, and his'first argument is this:" * Look how great distance there is between the Creator and the creature, so great ought the difference to be between the honour that is exhibited to the one, and the other. But between the Creator and the creature there is the greatest difference, whether you respect nature and essence, or dignity and excellency, and therefore, there ought to be the greatest difference between the honour of the Creator and the creature. But the honour that chiefly is due to God, is religious worship; therefore, this is not to be given to a creature, therefore not to Christ, whom you confess to be a mere creature.' This I say was his first argument. To which Socinus'^ answers ; ' although the difference between God and the creature be the greatest, yet it doth not follow, that the difference between their honour must be so ; for God can communicate his honour to whom he'will, especially to Christ, who is worthy of such honour,'and who is not commanded to be worshipped without weighty causes for it.' But by the favour of this disputant, God cannot give that honour that is due unto him upon the account of his excellency and eminency, as he is the first cause of all things, and the last end, which is the ground of divine worship, to any one, who hath not his nature. The honour due to God, cannot be given to him who is not God. His honour, the honour of him as God, is that which is due to him as God ; now that he should give that honour, that is due to him as

* Dispulatio inter Faustum Socinum el Cliristianum Franken, de lionore Christi, id est, utruni Christus cum ipse perfectissima ratione Deus non sit rcligiosa (amen adoratione colendus sit, Habita, 14. i\Iartii. An. 1384. in aula Christopliori Paiili-covii,

" Quanta distantia inter Creatorem est et creaturani, tanla esse debet differentia inter lionorem qui crealori exhibetur, et'qui crcatura; tribuitur: afqiii inter creatorem ct creaturam maxima est distantia ; sive esscntiani et naturam spoctes, sivc dignitatem et e.xcellentiam : ergo et maxima esse debet differentia inter lionorem Dei et creaturte : at lionor qui pra^cipue debetur Deo est religiosa adoratio, ergo h?Ec non est tribuenda creatunc; ergo ncque Christo, quem tu puram esse creaturam fateris : de adorat. Cliristi disput. cum Christopb. Fran. p. 4.

* Etsi summa est inter Deum ct creaturam distantia, non tamen nccesse est, tan-tani esse ditlercntiam inter bonorem Dei et creatura;, nam potest Deus cui vultcom-municarelionorem siium,Christo prstsertini, (]ui dignus est tali lionorc, quiquc non sine gravissimis causis adorari jubctur in sacris Uteris. Disputat de adoral. Christi. p. 6.

God, to him which is not God, is utterly impossible and contradictory to itself. 2. We confess that there be most weighty causes, why Christ should be worshipped, yet but one formal reason of that worship we can acknowledge : and therefore, when Franken had taken off this absurd answer, by sundry instances and reasons, Socinus is driven to miserable evasions ; first he cries out,^ ' I can answer all these-testimonies:' to which when the other replied,^ * And I can give a probable answer to all the texts you produce, arofuiup- the adoration of Christ;' being driven to hard shifts

O S f CD

he adds,^' I am as certain of the truth of my opinion, as I am, that I hold this hat in my hand.' Which is a way of arguing that is commonly used by men that have nothing else to say. Wherefore Franken laughs at him, and tells him, '' * Your certainty cannot be a rule of truth to me and others, seeing another man may be found that will say, he is most certain to the contrary opinion ;' so that prevailing nothing by this means, he is forced to turn the tables; and instead of an answer, which he could not give to Franken's argument, to become opponent, and urge an argument against him : saith he, "^^ My certainty of this thing is as true, as it is true, that the apostle saith of Christ, Let all the angels of God worship him.' But by the favour of this disputant, this is not his business. He was to answer Franken's argument, whereby he proved, that he was not to be worshipped; and not to have brought a contrary testimony, which is certainly to be interpreted according- to the issue of the reason insisted on; and this was the end of that first argument between them.

The next argument of Franken, whereby he brought his adversary to another absurdity, had its rise from a distinction given by Socinus, about a twofold religious worship : one kind whereof without any medium was directed to God ; the other is yielded him by Christ, as a means. The first he

y Ad ilia omnia testimonia ego possum respondere. p. 7.

^Et ego ad oranes tuos locos, Christi adorationem urgentes, probabilem potero responsionem alferre. p. 8.

^ De veritate meaj sententiaj tani sum certus, quam certo scio me istum pileum nianibus tenere. p. 9.

k Tua ista certitudo non potest et niihi etaliis esse veritatis regula, nam reperie-tur alius quispiam, qui dicat, sententiam tuse contrariaraex sacris libris sibi esse per-suasissimam.

*■ Tarn vera est hac de re mea certitudo, quauj verum est apostolum de Christo dixisse, adorent eumomnesangeli. p. 10.

says is proper to God ; the other belongs to "^Christ only. Now he is blind that doth not see, that for what he doth here to save himself, that he doth not beg the thing in question. Who granted him that there was a twofold religrious worship ? One of this sort, and another of that? Is it a sufficient answer for a man to repeat his own hypothesis, to answer an argument lying directly against it. 2. He grants indeed upon the matter all that Franken desired; namely, that Christ was not to be worshipped with that Avorship wherewith God is worshipped, and consequently not with divine. But Franken asks him, whether this twofold worship was of the ''same kind or no ? To which he answered, that it was, because it^abode not in Christ, but through him passed to God. Upon which after the interposition of another entangling question, the man thus replies upon hira.*^ 'This then will follow, that even the image of Christ is to be worshipped, because one and the same worship respects the image as the means, Christas the end, as Th. Aquinas tells us, from whom you borrowed your figment.' Yet this very fancy Socinus seems afterward to illustrate by taking a book in his hand, sliding it along upon a table, shewing how it passed by some hands, where truly it was, but stayed not until it came to the end. For which gross allusion he was sufficiently derided by his adversary. I shall not insist on the other arguments, wherewith on his own hypothesis he was miserable gravelled by this Franken : and after all his pretence of reason, forced to cry out, these are philosophical arguments, and contrary to the gospel. The disputation is extant, with the notes of Socinus upon it for his own vindication, which do not indeed one whit mend the matter. And of this matter thus far.

<: Duplex est adoratio, altera quidem quaj sine iillo medio dirigitur in Deum : altera vero per medium Christum defcrtur ad Deum ; ilia adoratio est soil Deo propria, haec vero convenit Christo tantum. p. 11.

d Estne utraque adoratio ista ejusdeni speciei. p. 11.

*■ Est, quia adoratio Cliristi est ipsius Dei, quippe qua; in Christo non couquiescat, sed per euni transcat in Denm. p. 12.

'Hoc sequctur, quod ipsius etiam Chrisli imago sit adoranda, quia una et eadem adoratio respicit in imaginem, tanquam medium, in Christum taiiquam fineiu, quem-admoilum Tliomas Aquinas docct, a quo tuum tu commcntumes inuluatus. p. 13.

END OF VOL. VTir.

Printed by J. F. Dove, St. John's Square.

r^-1^ «W .^^'4^ vi^-%4 4f*^ 4^ ^if ^ ■iH 4^ ^^^^ i^

^^i^.a< 4^ 4* 44 41 *r-ft't<-4<-4<'f<

^i^ 4i ^^ 4i't( 4^ 1^? 4«^'^ if't^ t^ i*f ^"H

{4^ 4^ .i« 4^-i^ 414M^li-^ 4'-k'i'^ 4< 4^H-i^ 1*i 4'M * ^